What about trash like War Thunder though, that lets easy mode mouse users dominate everyone in a flying game? I installed it once, figured out that's what it was, despite there being a hardcore mode which... I could find no players in.

Oh, and yes, intelligence is quite possibly declining. Isaac Newton was perhaps the smartest man to walk this Earth and it has been downhill ever since. This is mostly due to the ease of acquiring food and safety--this ease has eliminated the need to worry, plan or strategize how to survive, thus the inept breed more frequently and well, we're seeing the results.

But it isn't only this, we also must look at the public school systems, which no longer teach right brained activities, and shun any form of imagination, instead preferring left brained "yes men" worker bee students that learn to do as they are told.

Don't confuse "sim" with meaning just flight sim, which is what most here do.
Racing sims are highly popular. Wheel tech is better and more accessible than ever. Stand alone racing rigs...seats...some even get a real racing career out of doing well in racing sims like sony's Grand Turismo, or iRacing. iRacing is HUGE, as are several others, but generally iRacing is considered the peak, since its a virtual career sim, a league sim, not just racing. Real tracks are being cloned by laser scanning and other means so you can drive and feel your favorite tracks. Thats just cool. Controls are much easier to learn with racing sims as well. Racing sims are peaking.

Space sims are huge. Kerbal, Space Engineers, Elite, Star Citizen. Fictional, but detailed sims nonetheless. Look at that VR Star Wars Bridge Commander game. That's a friggin sim. Like the Artemis game that came before it. They may simulate an experience more than technical knowledge, but thats still a sim.

So maybe the real question is why are FLIGHT sims down in popularity.? Probably because people are tired of props and want jets, which are complex. Theres so much to learn that its boring. You need to take a class to learn it. Then plan to spend a night or two just figuring out control assignments on whatever stick you have. For EACH PLANE. Which ones will be more crucial for this plane and need to be on the stick vs a button box? Which 3 button combos do I have to learn to drop my tanks? Alt shift f3 and crap like that, totally random and different from game to game?
Bottom line, flight sims are a PITA. Then you aren't rewarded with a full variety of aircraft and hardly any terrain variety. Always the same Germany all the time, or whatever it is. Dull. You have to play civilian flight for the good maps. You also need to be able to mod your game, because for some reason the devs lave so much work on the table. They provide framework, not games or complete sims. So, learn that too.
Give me that new Ace Combat ASAP please! I'll sit right down and play it, have fun and still a visceral experience. With a wide variety of terrain, aircraft and missions.

Flight sims don't offer enough reward in gameplay for all the crap you have to learn! Miss a few months and you start over.
Therefore, you have lighter sim games like War Thunder doing well. People have enough on them these days. They want enjoyment, brief detachment from life, stress relief. Not a 2nd job. Lite sims fit the bill more.
Just my .02


Oh and MP gaming with the public sucks. Theres no immersion, people don't play in the spirit of the game. Its about who can manipulate the game best to win. Like using less realistic controls than others in the room because it gives you an edge. People want MP, SO I'd say that ruins flight sims. Put that development into more terrain options, aircraft and making a FUN, replayable experience to save them. Give us private rooms for like-minded people to get togetherfor co-op, screw the unwashed masses.

Good post RK.


Another irony I've noticed is that many people on SimHQ who also happen to be the typical demographic for playing hardcore flight sims, complain that they simply don't have the time anymore to devote to learning a hardcore flight sim.


So the next question to ask is: Why aren't young PC gamers who have lots of free time and energy getting into hardcore flight sims?

For me, LockOn was the sim that I'd call my personal "Beginning of the End" of simulations. At that time, I was flying IL2 Forgotten Battles, and people back in the day would say that IL2 was lifeless, and dead. Well for as lifeless as it may have been to some, I did spend many hours with it's various campaigns. They may have lacked much in story, or some specific historical connection, but they did offer me a challenge, a sense of uncertainty of how things would play out. Would my pilot live, die, make it back across the line, survive after being forced to ditch the plane.

But with LockOn... There was like 1 mission for each plane, so far as I remember. The A-10 was the most appealing plane for me, and I recall having a consistently poor time playing that 1 lone A-10 mission. And then there was nothing else. I had to use the mission editor to build anything to actually play. And coming to that era's battlefield without a background on how to design decently realistic conflicts, again I had a terrible time. This was totally my fault, I cannot deny. Certainly I could have tried harder to educate myself on the subtleties of that era's battlefield, and learned how to design my own missions and campaigns that presented those kinds of objectives and challenges.

Maybe it was taking the easy way out with my leisure time, but I found myself going back to my IL2:FB campaign play. And for better or worse, my LockOn experience colored how I later looked at DCS.

And I realize this post is weird coming from me, a guy who plays Arma...which has long been thin on play outside missions and campaigns I make myself. I guess Arma worked for me thanks to the players I met, who already knew the battlefield, and how to make missions, and how to have fun playing, and freely shared their knowledge. They really taught me everything, and we had a good time playing, at the same time. I had fun learning by good example, and have thus far stuck with it. Without those early experiences, I wouldn't be playing Arma today.

I agree with you on diversity of simming and great point in Kerbal and other games. Lately I've been playing a lot of Rising Storm 2: Vietnam, which is pretty damn realistic for a shooter. Well, it feels like it to me, at least, who's played a ton of Quake in the past. The game is /hard/. But damn is it a lot of fun, and the fact they nailed the atmosphere makes it even more immersive--bullets crack over my head for crying out loud! Scary as #%&*$#! I respect my elders who fought in not only that war, but any war, more than ever before.

As for complexity in flight sims, I guess I take it for granted. Hopping in the F-16 cockpit to me is like jumping into a car and firing it up. It's a very natural process, even when I take months off from flying it. But the sim has been out for twenty years...

Curiously, I occasionally fire up old Microprose sims like the original Gunship (from 1986) and fart around for a little bit because, well, damn those old MPS games were awesome fun. I think we could use more light sims along that vein, with immersive interfaces and career mode, just like we played back in the day. That would bring more kids onto the scene I bet. I remember sweating balls trying to get a congressional medal of honor back in '87, sick with a fever but I didn't care, I was going. To. Get. That medal!




I'm on the opposite end--I prefer my opponents to be humans. I find AI highly predictable, even the best AI, and can manipulate it soon after. It usually doesn't take me long to see what AI will try and do if I do this or that, and once I do, much of my anxiety vanishes (much, not all, Rise of Flight still manages to unnerve me but mainly because you can get wasted by a single stray bullet or dumb wingman or... dumb self not paying attention to wingmen doing what they're programmed to do =) ).

Oh, and once I experienced Falcon BMS's persistent campaign online versus live opponents, well, that changed how I look at jet sims forever.

Young people barely play any SP, just MP. The more the better. What flight sim has a well made interface for MP on the level of the usual games? Firewall issues, hosting issues...who has a rig powerful enough to host a 50 person flight sim room AND play at the same time? And again, variety is demanded. 2-3 aircraft of the same era, 1-2 maps? Even IF you can make it through setting up controls for all aircraft, learn how to operate the aircraft, how to fly and fight...the reward just isn't there. You really want to spend all afternoon smoking and grilling some awesome meat just to eat a hot pocket in the end? Flight sims don't give you nearly the payoff racing sims do. With racing sims, you're eating steak with a killer brisket coming out next.

As I said, it is not a matter of time, but options.

You might not be the typical media consumer these days, but between the traditional ones (family, movies, music, outdoors and exercise, RL socializing) and the new ones (video games, Social Media (BIG), streaming, binge watching shows, mobile, blogging...and all the others I am missing because I do not practice them), there is simply too much to choose from to dedicate a significant amount of time to a single one.

A media and entertainment ADHD that has every content creator and business owner fighting for the consumer's attention.

Time+energy <> dedication to a single option anymore.

In my experience most younger folks lack any kind of interest for jets, cars, guns and other cool mechanical tech, be it real or simulated.
They seem to be more in to the next iPhone, fancy clothes, sports, the next party or something cool they can take a selfie with. A selfie with a Warthog stick won't get many followers on Instagram.. Well, depends where you put it, I guess.

In my flight engineering class of 20 people, average age of 25, only three persons myself included, were in to flightsims. And those guys ought to have an above average interest in the subject, one should think. The rest either didn't use a computer for anything but work, or they only played simple browser games.

People may or may not be getting dumber, but one thing is certain.
The competition for ones attention is much stronger than it was 25 years ago.
A lot of us cut our teeth on sims BEFORE THE INTERNET EXISTED.
I suspect many people are dogfighting away in War Thunder or somesuch right this very moment.

The competition for attention is indeed greater. Back in 1990 to 1992, my sole knowledge of PC gaming (and thus sims) was only due to the fact that the gaming magazine I preferred, Video Games & Computer Entertainment, featured PC games prominently, both in reviews, advertising, and even walk-throughs. Most other gaming magazines I remember buying, were almost solid console game coverage.

My preferring this magazine was a large part of what drove my interest to even buy a PC in 1994. Seeing ads and reading on games that didn't exist on my consoles. All those "adventure" type games, strategy games, and simulations. Otherwise, I'd have not been aware these games existed, outside of walking through the PC games aisle. And there's no way the boxes would have captured my attention anywhere near as much as those articles did.

The fact that - in the combat flight sim genre - there are basically only two fidelity alternatives (both with outdated graphics compared to other genres, but one more than the other) does not help, either. At least the older one has compelling gameplay. The other is a systems simulator in a sterile, boring environment. IMO, of course.

Combine the best features from those two, make the result more accessible, enhance the graphics some (see XP 11 with ortho or P3D with Orbx), and maybe "they will come".

Other factors probably are:
- a noticeable lack of interest in jets, helos, tanks, subs by today's kids (compared to the 80's and 90's). Back when I was a kid, most of us wanted to become fighter pilots; nowadays, kids want to become hipster arts majors.
- trend towards mobile applications.
- short attention span/ craving for instant gratification
- low tolerance threshold for failing in a game (= aversion to steep learning curves and lack of patience to master a difficult task)

Because there's a plethora of other games on the market that are cheaper and, frankly, more fun.

I'm not here to trash other developers, but most of the videos that I watch on YouTube that feature, say, some ground attack mission with a certain slow jet show a lifeless world where the targets are exactly where the briefing predicts them to be. You don't have to worry about target discrimination. There are no threats outside of what the briefing tells you about (like, dozens of non-target hostile infantry on your way to the target area that are equipped with low-tech AA MGs ... and maybe the occasional Strela or Igla missile launcher). There are no civilians on the street, there isn't much of a war going on except for those SAM sites that are more or less evenly placed over the map to force low-level flying (which is visually more spectacular anyway), etc.

I respect that there are a lot of flight simmers who take pride in their precision flying and the nerd factor of learning all the switchology. But for the average gamer all this sucks. No story, not much of a challenge to find your targets (arguably the the hardest challenge in reality). The fact that the game world is largely barren is obscured by a gazillion of switches and radar modes and whatnot - all of which are arguably detractors from good gameplay rather than contributing factors. "Realistic war" means 99% boredom mixed with 1% sheer terror. Clearly, this kind of realism is not a suitable recipe for a good game.

It depends. Play a mission in DCS with no labels, night time and bad weather while flying the KA-50. Let me know how easy it is to find the targets then.

See? For you such a mission will be a challenge that would bring great satisfaction if successfully completed.

For most people, upon hearing that description, the reply would be - " F that noise!"

This is another thing Falcon BMS is awesome at--friendly and enemy ground forces are often on the move and target discrimination is a critical skill to learn, especially when you've got four cluster bombs ready to drop hot on a column or formation. Often there are groups of enemies all over the map that never show up in briefing. It is a living, breathing theater.

Good heavens I wish more folks understood how awesome Falcon BMS is to play online. Especially Americans. It seems as if I only play stuff Europeans love and they're always in bed by the time I hop online. Anyways, If folks did understand this, the servers would be full every night(and maybe there'd be far more servers, too). There's nothing else quite like it, when it comes to jets, that is.

There's absolutely no doubt that the dynamic "living" battlefield of Falcon 4 is unique and will most likely never be replicated by any other sim but it is still nonetheless something that appeals to a relatively small niche market.

Lots of good posts in this thread.


To add:

I don't think a gamer's non-gaming interests are going to necessarily influence the games they play. Influence but not dictate. Gamers will play games that are primarily entertaining and will stick with games that encourage and reward gaining proficiency with. The latter is why trophies/achievements have become so popular. Along those lines, I also argue that it has nothing to do with learning curves or attention spans. There are many hardcore games and gamers out there you have spent hundreds of hours on single titles because they are compelled to do so.

Indeed many of these games offer complexities I argue match those of sim-genre games. After years of gaming experience I state this with confidence. Also after many years of viewing these forums and similar, I find that most of the excuses people use to explain why people don't play sims don't really add up. I think the real reason is that they are simply not good games.

Gonna go blow by blow as I respectfully disagree with most of it haha.

I strongly believe that there is still an interest in all those things, but when much of the products available are button-heavy and complex, the time investment vs. reward is heavily weighted in one direction. Add to it a lack of social engagement due to quirky multiplayer issues (Elite:Dangerous I'm looking at you..) or mods needed (IL2 or ARMA) and the weight gets pushed even further to one side. I used to be in an ARMA clan and we did events 4 times a week but we would spend almost an equal number of hours a week trying to get mod issues sorted or updated. I saw firsthand the number of people who just weren't willing to put in that amount of effort and I totally understand and sympathize with them. It was part of the reason I ended up retiring (that and moving in with my significant other).

I don't think mobile gaming is replacing PC or console gaming by any means. As has been stated earlier I believe, mobile fills the time standing around waiting for the subway or killing time in a line up. I am willing to bet the transit folks won't let me bring my HOTAS on the subway (the fools!).

There is certainly an argument to be made for short attention span/instant gratification in younger generations, but if these are real honest issues then the fault lies in the way the previous generations raised them (or the products they created). I don't have kids so I don't really want to accept that responsibility However when you compare War Thunder with something like IL2 (or a more modern full-switch flight sim) you can look at time investment vs. return. In War Thunder you basically are in the fight right away and you have a myriad of customization options for your aircraft/tank/ship that are easily accessible. In any other full-switch sim the time it takes you to get the engines started and maybe make your first waypoint is equal to the first round of combat in War Thunder. If I have two hours of gaming to spend (my god how lucky), do I want to fly two missions, or a whole bunch of missions (and unlock new aircraft)? Note: I hate War Thunder it just serves as a good comparison study.

I've trained enough kids in ARMA and before that Darkest Hour to know that there are certainly a few who have low tolerance for failure, but more often it is the lack of a good training system that lets them down. War Thunder you have maybe 4 or 5 buttons to use in Arcade mode whereas ARMA has a myriad of button combinations, some of which are totally situational. The tutorials are fairly limited and somewhat plodding and so again you are seeing time v. payoff come into play. The success of the whole King of the Hill/Battle Royale and Survival game franchises like Playerunknowns Battlegrounds or DayZ all stem from ARMA roots which is inherently complex. These systems are all born from ARMA but succeed due to streamlining the ARMA system into a usable and easily learned interface - something Bohemia Interactive is doing themselves with their ARGO gameplay.

It will be interesting to see where the flight sim world goes. I suspect, much like the space sim resurgence of the last few years, we will see a rise in flight sims that harken back to the golden days of old.

I get what you say Pugio, but I would not go as far as saying flight sims are not good games. i'd say that the flight sim titles we currently have available (that would still run in modern PC's without too much hassle) are challenging, technically accurate, but really not very fun to play for the majority of people.

I'd be curious as to see a few examples of other game genres you consider that are as complex, technical and time consuming as flight sims.

Pugio: Most don't capture the excitement and atmosphere that Red Baron, Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe and Battle of Britain did(to a lighter degree, SWOTL was absolutely superior), and Gunship, F-19 Stealth Fighter and Gunship 2000 did.