Why are there fewer flight sims nowadays? I traced it to one pivotal event...

[@thatdude3938]

Fleet Defender, EF2000, F-22 ADF/TAW, Jane's F-15, Jane's Longbow, Jane's F/A-18, Falcon 4.0, iF-22, etc all had clickable cockpits. It was the norm for survey/study sims back in the day. Flanker and then Lock On were actually the anomaly

[@Sandboxcode]

So weird I didnt play any of those clickable sims you listed aside from Falcon 4.0. Good post. Sadly, cant upload any correction to this video.

[@Sandboxcode]

Pinned this comment. Best I can do.

[@BJJgurl]

Who remembers MS Flight Combat Simulator? One of my all time favs in the 90's.

[@Sandboxcode]

man wish they'd bring that back!

[@mattboggs6304]

I think it's just too difficult, time consuming, and not financially viable enough for the majority of people who would like to develop a flight sim to actually do it.

[@tripltred65]

Love your thoughts.

[@Sandboxcode]

Thanks!

[@tver]

I think it is tied to market development TBH. Back in the ‘90s, the (PC) game industry was still young and not fully matured yet. As the decades have passed, the market has matured, with major industrial consolidation having taken place, with only a few big publishers/studios, compared to the “wild west” days of the ‘90s. The total gaming market was smaller, with niches being bigger relative to the overall market. The appeal of having combat flight sims hasn’t gotten smaller, but the market for general AAA-titles has gotten far bigger, making the flightsim niche seem comparatively smaller. Flight sim enthusiasts and early adopters of PCs probably had a large overlap, leading to a large growth in the ‘90s, but not keeping apace with the general market in the ‘00s and beyond, as it hit its growth ceiling much earlier. There now simply isn’t a big enough market to chase for a AAA-title publisher to dump resources in, to have a good chance of a return on investment, relative to the other far more popular existing game genres.

[@thesweatleaf]

The public owns the F-22 name and likeness. Lockheed does not license the F-22 to the US Government. The only part of the F-22 that needs to be licensed is the name "Lockheed" when it appears before the F-22. Other than that, it would be foolish to pay the designer for something the American people already paid for and own.

[@Sandboxcode]

This video is discussing licensing F-22 for video games. You can see this article for reference: www.wired.com/1997/05/lockheed-no-free-plane-ride-for-i-magic/

[@DCobra98]

I agree. The taxpayers paid for everything Lockheed ever built. WE own the name, image, and likeness.

[@Sandboxcode]

Ah I see. I wish it worked that way we would've had more F-22 flight sims for sure

[@TuposAviationChannel]

Watched the video and while the point regarding licensing is good, I'll add a few factors on my own. Beware, its a mucho texto post. Similar to licensing, availability of documents and (importantly) what can be used in a sim also played a rather huge part of why combat flight sims have essentially "streamlined", so to say. Back then, even if you tried your best, you were still essentially limited by hardware. Considering that advancements in computer technology are exponential per year, nowadays a lot of things that were deemed impossible are achievable in today's simulation. However, it all depends on document availability. With US, it's generally good (just look at how many planes are from US in DCS). Europe is more finnicky meanwhile simulating Russian aircraft is....well, good luck. Another factor is the fact most of the old sims were single plane focused, so to say. Tornado, Falcon series (before the inclusion of F-15C in BMS), EF2000 and such come to mind. Exceptions did exist, like 1942, but the general norm was that (study) simulators generally simulated one plane only. It were DCS that was, while I'm not sure if it was exactly the first one, but it was definitely the most dominant when it came to providing high fidelity simulation of multiple aircraft in one platform, a task that was seem to be unimaginable in the early days of combat flight simulation. But nowadays its possible. This also simplifies and complicates things simultaneously. On one hand, you essentially have a platform where you can "easily" go to develop a simulation of the aircraft of your choice. On other hand, DCS has set up some insanely high standards of simulation of aircraft (take a look at Heatblur's modules, they're eye-watering), so if one were to make their own combat flight simulator of the same fidelity as DCS, one must reach minimal standards that were set by DCS. Closest one that comes to that (and in some cases, even exceeds DCS), is Falcon BMS, but that's a free mod, so it's a bit difficult to claim its a competitor to DCS when it comes to financial perspective. It definitely is a competitor when it comes to simulation fidelity and also time retention though. Another thing that I think also plays a role on why there are generally less full fidelity simulators is because DCS itself covers a lot of fields lately. If you want to do missions set in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Georgia and such, DCS is go to. It's far from perfect, there are still a lot of periods which aren't really covered by DCS (few examples: Falklands War (especially notable because we do have a South Atlantic map), Korea War, Vietnam War, World War 2 in a lot of theaters (Eastern Front is essentially non existent in DCS), etc...). This could be used to capitalize by other sims and some have already taken an initiative, like IL-2's Korea and Combat Pilot (although in near-to-far future, we should get PTO in DCS), but the former is a different category from DCS. And also previously mentioned, the standards for high fidelity have risen. A lot of it is module dependent, but some are absolutely groundbreaking for sure. DCS F-14, F-4, even the old ones like A-10C (II) are insanely well modelled. So in conclusion, the evolution of combat flight sims, along with higher standards and document availability are major factors why we got less combat flight sims. Along with other factors I haven't mentioned (cost/profit factor and also specific hobby. Flight sims are not exactly easy to get into if you're not really deep into aviation).

[@rampantcoyote3136]

The counter-argument at the time was that since the aircraft's development was significantly / primarily funded by taxpayer money, any data / images that were part of the "public domain" should be fair game for a U.S.-based company. "Should be" - but I don't know if that was ever put to the legal test. I don't know any game studios that could afford to go toe-to-toe against the military-industrial complex's lawyers.

[@IcyTorment]

If government employees produce it as part of their normal jobs, it becomes public domain. If a private company is contracted to produce it, normal copyright and trademark laws apply.

[@ustio834]

For combat sim which is the niche of the niche yes. Since I dont think there is enough market for developer to developed it. Not to mention getting the data isn' easy However on the civilian flight sim. We ate living in the golden age. The MSFS 2024 release with higher quality default airbus aircraft that enables you to program FMC, and also include an updated chart and database.

[@Sandboxcode]

Which Airbus do you refer to btw? I've been eyeballing the Airbus H225 Helicopter. MSFS 2024 is really dope. Civillain flight sims are pretty competitive too with X-plane, msfs, and there's another civilian sim I've seen Laubox (VR youtuber) cover

[@MatrixMaverick1980]

Never rely your decision on flight Sims on default aircraft. Go for add-ons if you want realism.

[@Pootj78]

I think Flight simming got to be too difficult for the majority of the players. A study sim like DCS, MSFS or Xplane requires lots of learning. Aircraft handling, aircraft systems, navigational principles, weapon systems, procedures and so on. It simply not so attractive for the majority of the world. In the 90's the computers were much slower and couldn't simulate the physics properly together with acceptable graphics and because of that, the flight models and weapons were much more arcade stylish with easier/manageable handlings. Nowadays the realism is much higher and for the real succes the player needs much much more practice and learning and for most of the players are not interesting to learn some hours and go through checklists just to start up the plane then boresight the Mavericks and call the ATC for taxi clearance... And after a month of practice they can only take off, maybe navigate to a waypoint and hopefully land.

[@someguy5035]

Because for the most part, they aren't fun and no one wants to say it, but they aren't representative of actual flight. Without the seat of the pants feel, which is essential for being an actual pilot, sims are just too synthetic. It's a niche genre for hardcore fans.

[@LeoH3L1]

I'd refuse to go along with paying them for providing free advertising for their produicts, and if they insist I'd rename it, and then deliberately make their stuff look bad. Sometimes the only way to fight BS is with even more BS.

[@MakeItWithJim]

***Fewer***

[@Sandboxcode]

Updated the title of the video, thanks

[@WoundChannel.]

Anyone play janes f15 simulator back in the day?

[@chrisrh281]

Loved it. The graphics were insane for the time. Jane's F15, ATF, USAF, Longbow...Loved them all.

[@bobjohnston1239]

My man.

[@thatdude3938]

Also I tried iF-22. It attempted to be more realistic than Novalogic's own F-22 game or F-22 ADF from DID, but failed horribly. It is very ugly (way worse than the other two) and extremely buggy

[@Pete_Harris]

Looking forward to IL2 Korea.