TELVM wrote:

That's exactly the hardcore stuff I like 😁 .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S7M8IYizK4

Awesome video! and TrackIR not required 😉

Microprose brought the so called hardcore simulations to the DOS gaming scene. Most of these games can be safely regarded as NOT games, but true simulations. That was how serious Microprose was in bringing out the simulations. And then there was Spectrum Holobyte with it's flagship Falcon 3.0.

Has anyone seen the Falcon 3.0 manual? I have the telephone directo...err...manual. It's much thicker than most full-length novels, and thicker than many high school textbooks. 😁

My favourites of all time (in no particular order) :

1. Silent Service II

2. Gunship 2000

3. F-117A Nighthawk a.k.a. Stealth Fighter II

4. A-10 Tank Killer (It's not "hardcore" but VERY playable and fun to fly)

5. F-15 Strike Eagle III

6. Falcon 3.0

7. F-29 Retaliator (It would be laughable to call this a serious sim, but again, it's VERY smooth even on a 286, and fun to just cruise around. Just don't try to land the f-ing planes. I repeat DO NOT TRY TO LAND in this game!! Unless you want to torture yourself. 😜)

8. F-14 Fleet Defender

I didn't enjoy Chuck Yeager's Air Combat that much, but it's quite realistic and well praised when it was released.

I'm not much into World War I and pre-modern era planes. There are those who enjoy the machine gun dogfights in those planes.

I'm not much into car sims either.

Classic vintage pr0n. This guy talks the real stuff:

Art of the Kill

The video accompanied Spectrum Holobyte (later Microprose) Falcon 3.0 (1988).

Malik wrote:

Microprose brought the so called hardcore simulations to the DOS gaming scene. Most of these games can be safely regarded as NOT games, but true simulations. That was how serious Microprose was in bringing out the simulations. And then there was Spectrum Holobyte with it's flagship Falcon 3.0.

Has anyone seen the Falcon 3.0 manual? I have the telephone directo...err...manual. It's much thicker than most full-length novels, and thicker than many high school textbooks. 😁

I have. Mine. 😉

To be fair bro, Microprose's games are not "true" simulations. They're generally more complex than arcade sims like Battlehawks 1942 or LHX Attack Chopper, and they're pretty good in doing complex gameplay that approaches the "feeling" of the real thing. But their flight models, physics model, bullet impact modelling, and such, are very forgiving and playable- which is a good thing to me. And that's the reason I'm still playing Microprose sims in DOSBOX instead of LOMAC or IL-2 Sturmovik. 😁

I think the trend towards "true" sims started with Spectrum Holobyte with Falcon 3.0 - the hi-fidelity flight model. Since then, gamers had been demanding even more realistic flight sims.

Malik wrote:

4. A-10 Tank Killer (It's not "hardcore" but VERY playable and fun to fly)

Indeed. I'm going to play it again tomorrow in DOSBOX, with complete HOTAS setup. 😀

Malik wrote:

I didn't enjoy Chuck Yeager's Air Combat that much, but it's quite realistic and well praised when it was released.

How about Jane's US Navy Fighters, Advanced Tactical Fighters, and Fighters Anthology? IIRC they're designed by the same person: Brent Iverson, the guy who also designed Chuck Yeager's Air Combat.

Oh yeah, forgotten about them. I do have US Navy Fighters Gold, Jane's ATF, Jetfighter II, and then some. The rest are Windows games like EF2000, FA-18 Korea Gold, iF-22, Novalogic's Mig-29, Sierra's Silent Thunder (A-10 Tank Killer II) and some more.

Malik wrote:

Microprose brought the so called hardcore simulations to the DOS gaming scene. Most of these games can be safely regarded as NOT games, but true simulations.

Microprose had a line of war games called the Command Series that I used to play until I wore out the disks and had to buy them again. Crusade in Europe (the best of the three, IMHO), Decision in the Desert, and Conflict in Vietnam. I didn't like Conflict in Vietnam so much because time would always run out before I could ever score a decisive victory. The battle lines remained pretty much the same at the end as at the beginning. I think that one was probably designed to be unwinnable. The other two were fantastic war simulations, though.The first one, naturally, you were in control of the European theater of action while in the second you were in charge of chasing Rommel and the Italians around in North Africa. There were a lot of factors that would come into play, like it was usually a bad idea to attack by air when the weather was bad or to attack armor with infantry or elite troops with green ones. Your forces would also become fatigued after a round of combat and lose some of their effectiveness. Only rest would restore it, so making long pushes deep into enemy territory without resting your troops would usually end up getting them killed. You also had supply lines to maintain so if your forces moved too far ahead they ran the risk of running out of supplies which also caused them to lose effectiveness until you moved them back within resupply range or established a supply depot further into enemy territory to support them.