Well, I was an avid flightsimmer when I was in highschool, playing DOS-based flightsim games like F-19 Stealth Fighter, Falcon 3.0, Gunship 2000, and Strike Commander, using old Thrustmaster FCS joystick, WCS throttle, and RCS pedals. Yes, would you believe me that we already had HOTAS setup in the old days of DOS? Of course it requries you to pass your keyboard cable through your joystick and throttle to make all the fancy buttons work. Ah, the good old days.....

The last flightsim I played is DID's Total Air War in 1996, and while it was 'realistic' by yesterday's standard, it is of course nowhere near the headaching realism in IL-2 Sturmovik or LOMAC, but that's also the reason why I stopped playing flightsim. See, I'm the kinda guy who chooses 'easy landing' any day, and meticulously detailed radar model is not exactly the thing that rocks my boat either. I was actually intimidated by the complexity of Jane's F/A-18 and Flanker 2.0, and that was where I stopped playing flightsim.

Nossire. To me, a good flightsims is the one who gives us sense of involvement. Gunship 2000 gives you quite smart wingmen that sometimes save your skin during the mission. In Team Apache and Team Alligator , you actually need to keep your wingmen happy to keep them performing well during the missions. EF2000 comes with such excellent dynamic campaign engine where the success and failure of your missions actually affect the outcome of the war. Total Air War retains such beautiful dynamic campaign while giving you the role of Air Force Commander where you decide what to strike next, and of course, your decision affects the war as well. Even the arcadish Strike Commander gives you the chance to manage your own mercenary F-16 fighter squadron; which contract to take, what weapon to buy, etc.

Nonetheless, I recently decided to play flightsims again. Oh, not LOMAC for sure, and not Falcon 4: Allied Force either, especially since the such games tax my time and brain even more than my laptop. Nope. I played DOS-based flightsims in DOSBOX, especially since the realism bar was not that high during the era.

So I played Microprose's F-117A: Stealth Fighter 2.0, which is basically remake of F-19 Stealth Fighter, and I almost forgot how good, and yes, how difficult it was.

Microprose F-117 Stealth Fighter 2.0

When I played F-19 Stealth Fighter sixteen years ago, I was an lazy gamer who relaxed in the comfort of easy landing. Not this time. Now I chose realistic landing and gritted my teeth.

Now, I spent the first half an hour of my gameplay experience trying to achieve stable flight below 500' --the best attitude to minimize detection. I then wasted the next one hour to practice landing --not an easy task, of course, especially since the F-117A just kept lurching over the end of the runway and crashed despite that I had touched down safely. Not a very exciting gaming experience, right?

Wrong.

Despite the repeated attempts and failures, it was simply the most rewarding gaming experience I haven't had for years. See, Steve Wickes has put it perfectly in 'Are Sims Dead? A Roundtable Discussion - Part Two'.

Try playing Quake 3 for the first time, and not getting blasted every 30 seconds. How fun is that? After 3 hours, is the gamer any more adept at taking out his opponents? Not likely, and after 10 hours? Perhaps.

Now take the simulation title. If any individual spent 3 hours on a flight sim he'd surely be able to enjoy it and complete 40% of the game. After 10 hours he'll only get better. Are sims boring? Are the manuals ominous? Initially simulations are daunting, but frankly most things in life are daunting the first few hours; then you become more comfortable, things become more second nature, and finally things begin to make sense.

See, I spent half and one hour of playing F-117A, and I haven't even got to the part of blasting the enemies. In fact, 'wasted' the whole game time by repeatedly hitting the deck, bruising myself, and taking off again. Is it frustrating? Perhaps. But is it boring? Absolutely no, because I became more comfortable, I felt my skills to be more second nature, and finally, things began to make sense.

And ultimately, is it rewarding? Hell yeah.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is something you cannot get from playing Medal of Honor, and not even Delta Force series.

Now, as far as Microprose's F-117A goes, it is not really that difficult to figure things out. For example, dropping the flaps always makes it easier to fly stable below 500', and hitting the brake before touching the deck always stops your aircraft before it reaches the runway's end. Of course, neither of them are realistic. After all, it was a very old 'flight sim' of the DOS era, and F-117A is nothing more than flight fantasy when sitting next to Flanker 2.0 or LOMAC.

But the point is: even F-117A, which is a hideously unrealistic 'flightsim', still gives a highly rewarding gameplay of experiencing how things are becoming more comfortable and making more sense the more you spend the time with the game. Of course, such learning experience comes with every game, but not even Quake or Counter-Strike could match such rewarding experience like this one.

And that's just an old, unrealistic DOS-based flightsim. IL-2 Sturmovik and LOMAC is of course more difficult. Much more. It will take more time, more brain, and yes, more frustration to fly with them, but considering a flight fantasy like F-117A gives such rewarding experience, think about the ecstasy of finally overcoming all those stalls and spins in IL-2 Sturmovik. Yes, I was too lazy when I bought the game in 2002, but who knows my experience with F-117A will actually motivate me to try harder with IL-2 Sturmovik. In fact, it will.

Now if you excuse me, I have radar stations to avoid.