[HN Gopher] Hacking F-117A
___________________________________________________________________
Hacking F-117A
Author : elvis70
Score : 152 points
Date : 2022-05-07 05:35 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| EdwardDiego wrote:
| Ah, good ol Cheat Engine, I used this on F-19 back in the good ol
| DOS TSR[0] days on my 286. Froze the value of the address in
| memory that counted how many 500lb bombs I had, then held down
| Enter to drop my infinite bombs continuously and brought hell to
| Soviet Russia.
|
| [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminate-and-stay-
| resident_...
| [deleted]
| perihelions wrote:
| Tangentially, did the F-117 Wikipedia page redact the story of
| the Amiriyah massacre? I'm almost certain it used to contain a
| section about it (?).
| melling wrote:
| Perhaps the information was simply moved?
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiriyah_shelter_bombing
| perihelions wrote:
| It used to cite or transclude it though; the F-117 entry was
| where I learned about it from.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| If only Wikipedia had usable revision tools instead of
| their atrocious CVS clone.
| emsixteen wrote:
| It's the editors that are the problem, not the software.
| fragmede wrote:
| No, the software's a problem in this case too.
| thrdbndndn wrote:
| I mean.. OK? It honestly doesn't sound like a fitting
| content for article [[F-117]] to me. A link when talking
| about its missile capacity? Sure. But other than that it
| should go to its own article.
| enriquto wrote:
| Why? It seems appropriate content. The F-117 is, by
| construction and design, a machine for killing people. It
| is natural to showcase its most "successful" mission.
| thrdbndndn wrote:
| Because it already has a standalone article?
| enriquto wrote:
| Of course, but this notorious bombing must be mentioned
| as well, with a link to its main article.
|
| Just like the article on the B-29 superfortress [0]
| mentions and links to the article about the bombing of
| Hiroshima and Nagasaki [1].
|
| [0]
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hi
| roshima...
| stickfigure wrote:
| Not to say that the shelter bombing isn't a tragedy, but
| it's nowhere near the scale.
|
| > killed at least 408 civilians
|
| vs
|
| > The two bombings killed between 129,000 and 226,000
| people
|
| Maybe it's a sad state of affairs that 400 civilian
| deaths isn't that remarkable, but this is the world we
| live in. More than that died in the Mariupol theatre
| airstrike, but we don't need to link that from every
| airplane and munition article.
|
| Sorry. I wish this shit was less common too.
| [deleted]
| thrdbndndn wrote:
| The a-bombing on Japan was a much impactful/influential
| event, and more importantly, for whatever reason, it was
| heavily associated with B-29 (probably THE reason why
| B-29 was famous in average people to begin with).
|
| This is what makes the bombing event essential for B-29's
| article.
|
| The Amiriyah bombing doesn't really have such connotation
| with the plane.
| uuuooobbb wrote:
| It's linked from the GBU-27 bomb article
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-27_Paveway_III
| [deleted]
| holoduke wrote:
| Looks like the game retaliator. Is this the same engine?
| netsharc wrote:
| Ah, I have a memory of waking up early on one 90's Saturday
| morning and loading up this game on my Pentium 100 to fly bombing
| missions...
| detritus wrote:
| Oh! To have played this on a machine with a double digit
| clockspeed!
|
| I loved my Amiga 500, and spent many hours on F-19/F-117, but
| crikey 7.little MHz was not a lot to play with (although quite
| enough for the super-fast, fun but otherwise inscrutable
| ArmourGeddon...).
| thorin wrote:
| I played that a lot too, but I always preferred f18
| interceptor.
| fer wrote:
| I personally miss reading manuals (or at least skimming them if
| they're big) before playing games. I guess it feels too much
| like study/work for it to have a market nowadays; last physical
| games I've bought had basically the same info as in-game help.
|
| I recommend this site[0] for all those who want to go down
| memory lane. Just look at this[1] or that of TFA[2].
|
| [0] https://www.gamesdatabase.org/all_manuals
|
| [1]
| https://www.gamesdatabase.org/Media/SYSTEM/Commodore_64//Man...
|
| [2]
| https://www.gamesdatabase.org/Media/SYSTEM/Microsoft_DOS//Ma...
| CalRobert wrote:
| When I was a kid my grandparents would sometimes get me a
| computer game when I visited. But they had no computer! This
| meant I could spend the weekend poring over the manual in
| anticipation.
|
| My favorite was SimEarth (200+ pages and spiral bound as I
| recall!) but TIE Fighter was great too, since the manual was
| in the form of a novella.
| prox wrote:
| Tutorials have also become much better, sometimes with
| incredible immersion, making manuals less necessary.
| secretsatan wrote:
| I was able to identify most military vehicles for years
| thanks to the MicroProse copy protection, it used to spook my
| friends.
|
| I'd also go to the local library and look up the latest
| Jane's publications.
| lbeltrame wrote:
| Back in the days I and others made an end of junior high
| school year project on military planes and we had a monitor
| playing clips of F-16 Falcon, F-29 Retaliator and Fighter
| Bomber. I did however use the F-19 Stealth Fighter game
| manual as an inspiration to write texts on the improvised
| stand we were using. We also had some model kits on
| display.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| One of the spiritual successors to MicroProse is Eagle
| Dynamics, the developer of the DCS World system. If you like
| that manual, you'll love this one https://www.digitalcombatsi
| mulator.com/upload/iblock/8e7/24m...
| fer wrote:
| Wow, never heard of them, will check them out, thanks!
| jabl wrote:
| Check Growling Sidewinder for lots of DCS videos (a lot
| of them guns-only dogfights, but still):
| https://www.youtube.com/c/GrowlingSidewinder
| trasz wrote:
| And those ones: https://publicintelligence.net/u-s-
| navy-f-18-natops-flight-m.... It's one of the rare cases of
| manuals for the real thing being applicable to a computer
| game.
| LichenStone wrote:
| I've been looking at DCS recently, considering the AV-8B...
| jamesy0ung wrote:
| +1 for DCS, the F/A-18C is totally worth it, best
| simulation accessible to the civilian. I love every second
| of it.
| pjmlp wrote:
| It was one of my favourite MS-DOS games, I have spent endless
| hours playing it.
| throwaway4good wrote:
| I thought it was going to be about this one:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown
|
| And how the Chinese reversed engineered it and the Americans
| bombed their embassy in revenge ...
| formerly_proven wrote:
| The US bombed the Chinese embassy for revenge of reverse
| engineering a plane shot down just a few weeks earlier by the
| Serbs? Wow, the Chinese are incredibly fast! And the US
| military so quick to act!
| throwaway4good wrote:
| The story would go like this: Chinese agents working out of
| the Belgrade embassy go and buy the pieces of the F177 and
| collect them at the embassy. The US bombs the embassy knowing
| that even though it is an act war against China, China is in
| no position to respond.
| throwaway4good wrote:
| Yeah. It is a persistent conspiracy theory about the embassy
| bombing that is still around until this day (in particular in
| China and Serbia, of course ...).
|
| Here is an article from AP written ten years later,
| essentially saying that the Chinese based their J-20 stealth
| fighter on the pieces of the F-117 laying on the ground in
| Serbia:
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/23/china-
| stealth-...
|
| Chinese stealth fighter jet may use US technology
|
| China may have bought parts of US F-117 Nighthawk shot down
| over Serbia in 1999, say experts
| p_l wrote:
| Considering that F-117 was based on thrown out Soviet paper
| (which was declared to be publishable in the open by
| Soviets), they migh have at most taken a look at materials
| used for coating, but the materials weren't that great as
| F-117 based itself on the shape not absorbing capability of
| materials...
| JacobiX wrote:
| The paper is mentioned also in the book "Skunk Works: A
| Personal Memoir of My Years of Lockheed". The Skunk
| Works' design team used the equations published by Soviet
| physicist and mathematician Petr Ufimtsev on
| electromagnetic wave reflection to create the plane.
| nickdothutton wrote:
| Any links?
| djmips wrote:
| This is the 'paper' / monograph I think people refer to
| when they make this claim.
|
| https://archive.org/details/ufintsev-method-of-edge-
| waves-in...
|
| Wiki link about 117 development that mentions the work by
| Pyotr Ufimtsev.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-117_Nighthawk#De
| vel...
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Additional data point: the US made no attempt at
| salvaging or destroying the wreckage... but then _bombed
| an embassy_ to make a point?
|
| Oh and it's not like that was the only time poor recon
| resulted in bombs dropped in another place during the
| intervention. The execution of it is certainly not a high
| in NATO's history.
| trasz wrote:
| Is there any other explanation for why US bombed that
| embassy though?
| throwaway4good wrote:
| The official story was that the intelligence officer
| providing the target had the wrong map.
| aerostable_slug wrote:
| There's a claim out there from a former Delta operator
| that an Intelligence Support Activity / Task Force Orange
| guy put the laser designator on the wrong building. I
| have no way of knowing if it's true or not.
| trasz wrote:
| One thing we know for sure is that perpetrators, as usual
| in the Land of Freedom, never got punished.
| [deleted]
| caycep wrote:
| An aside - was the F-19 basically a popular fiction based on
| sightings by the public of the YF-22 and YF-23 prototypes? Or did
| something like this really exist?
| somat wrote:
| I am fairly confident the f-19 was the f-117, fueled by
| aviation journalists wild imaginations, probably based on early
| speculative concepts.
|
| Or if you are more conspiracy minded a deliberate
| misinformation campaign to further obscure what the nighthawk
| was and was not. this conspiracy is reinforced by the f-117
| designation itself. They used a century-series number(this
| series of numbers had been phased out for quite some time at
| this point) and an F(fighter) designation for something that is
| effectively a light bomber.
|
| That being said, I wonder what the actual f-19 was? The missing
| numbers always interest me. f-17? f-19? f-20(tigershark?) f-21?
| f-24:24? (i think I read somewhere the last gap was marketing
| _sigh_ )
| jeffdn wrote:
| The F-19 was what people speculated the rumored "stealth
| fighter" would be named. There had been rumors for years, but
| the public didn't see it for the first time until 1988.
|
| In Tom Clancy's book Red Storm Rising, about a hypothetical
| Third World War in Europe, he conceives of it as something like
| the F-35 ended up becoming -- a stealthy multirole aircraft
| (fighter-bomber). They called it the "F-19 Frisbee". The 19
| comes from the fact that the previous fighter designation was
| for the F-18 Hornet.
| secretsatan wrote:
| Oh, I loved the microprose simulators
| foobarian wrote:
| Time to go destroy the SAM radar at Bandar Abbas! And then a
| terrorist training camp on the way home.
| mobilio wrote:
| And you're not alone.
| [deleted]
| hnhg wrote:
| Is there anything quite like them now? I love this era of
| flight sims but the modern ones look a bit too much for me. I
| love F-19 and later ATAC:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2pqS4fo8qA
| avereveard wrote:
| "simplified model" dcs fighter planes can be learned in a
| evening, especially the f-15c. they do require a joystic tho.
| jabl wrote:
| Does that simplified model also include simplified
| avionics, radars, weapons and so forth? I've looked at some
| DCS vids on YouTube, and it looks cool but very
| complicated.
| avereveard wrote:
| flight model is somewhat "low resolution", radar
| performances are on point, but feaures are undermodeled,
| like friend/foe detection is automatic, and you don't
| have to mess with cone width and scan columns, you have
| an average default set and that's it, weapons are the
| same that other platforms shoot.
|
| dcs may seem very complicate, because there' a ot of
| buttons to memorize, and it indeed is for more modern
| planes that can switch between ground/air mode, weapon
| targeting modes, datalink modes etc
|
| but
|
| simplified planes with non interactive cockpit just have
| a few step to memorize and once you're going, you're
| going.
|
| like, once you watch and execute the f-15 cold startup
| tutorial, it's always the same sequence in the same order
| and sets your plane exactly in the same mode ready for
| combat.
|
| (nav light management etc is there, but it's kinda
| optional and not required to learn from the start)
|
| then you get three button for radar mode you actually
| need (close combat, flood/boresight, beyond visual
| range), two button to switch weapon, and the rest is the
| slightly more complicate part, which is radar management
|
| you get a set of buttons to look up/down/left/right, a
| set of button to move the pip close/far/left/right, a
| button to toggle scan mode, and a button to lock/unlock a
| target - it's a lot to set up, but it's quite easy as it
| has immediate feedback on what you're doing
|
| the rest comes down to actually positon yourself in a way
| to maximize kill probability and defending from
| retailiation.
| jbattle wrote:
| If you have a VR headset, VTOL VR is amazing. All the
| controls you interact with by reaching out and flipping
| toggles. The graphics are good enough. You get three aircraft
| with the base game and there's a DLC available that adds an
| AH64 analogue.
|
| The complexity of the game hits a sweet spot for me. To get
| into the air you have to go through some startup steps (maybe
| 8, most of which involve hitting "power" buttons). There is
| some light air traffic control simulation that you can
| interact with (or just take off yolo style). Mission design
| is diverse and there are a decent number of fan made
| missions.
|
| The initial tutorial missions do a good job getting you up in
| the air, after that you benefit from watching some youtube
| tutorials because each weapon system and aircraft have their
| own unique features.
| Arrath wrote:
| Another thumbs up for VTOL VR from me. There is something
| infinitely pleasing about reaching out and flicking those
| engine start switches, radio control dials, and MFD buttons
| to me, a scratch that isn't hit by the more complicated and
| in-depth DCS start up and control routines where I'm just
| clicking a bunch of buttons or hitting keyboard commands as
| I have been for decades.
| samlittlewood wrote:
| ATAC programmer here - yay!
|
| Random fact - the artwork was by Tom Ashton - previously the
| guitarist for The March Violets, also performed with The
| Sisters of Mercy, and went on to Clan of Xymox.
|
| Also, this was the project I worked on before BRender -
| covered in another thread here.
| the_af wrote:
| Not exactly like them, but Tiny Combat Arena recaptures some
| of the joy of flying these polygon-based, simplified flight
| model flightsims. It's still in alpha (so only one playable
| aircraft -- a Harrier -- and only one demo campaign), but
| fast approaching 1.0, and I recommend it.
|
| If you want to fly a "modern" jet without needing to read a
| manual or learn very complex radar systems, this is the game
| for you.
|
| https://www.microprose.com/games/tiny-combat-arena/
| boarnoah wrote:
| Tiny Combat Arena's sole developer Why485 is very active on
| twitter & previously on their blog.
|
| Both profiles are well worth a scroll through if you have
| any interest in sim-lite games. Really like the breakdowns
| on old school simlite games and what really made them fun
| (since it wasn't strictly a matter of realism = better).
| the_af wrote:
| Agreed it's definitely not a matter of realism = better!
| DCS looks gorgeous and very realistic, and I know it's
| simply not for me, because I don't want to actually
| _work_ as a combat pilot.
|
| MicroProse's F-19 is the flightsim I played and enjoyed
| the most, and it wasn't realistic.
| AustinDev wrote:
| Fun fact some of the guys behind DCS also worked on
| Falcon 3.0 an Falcon 4.0 back at Microprose.
| the_af wrote:
| Falcon 3 and 4 are major milestones in "serious"
| flightsims, and I toyed with both of them (3 more than
| 4), but I cannot say I completed a single mission with
| either.
|
| MicroProse F-19 hit that awesome spot of _some_ realism
| (laughable today, but it wasn 't meant to be an arcade
| game back then), with a really easy flight model and cool
| missions and scenarios you could really complete. And
| besides knowing the keyboard mappings, you really didn't
| need a manual. It was thrilling to play mission after
| mission, getting all those medals, and having your
| character be promoted in rank. I spent a lot of time with
| that game -- probably flew as many missions as an actual
| combat pilot!
|
| The only other flightsim I found almost as engrossing was
| Gunship 2000, with its "dynamic" campaign system, but it
| was way more difficult.
|
| I find Tiny Combat Arena captures _some_ of this
| thrilling but simple gameplay, but it currently lacks
| content (more campaigns, more maps, more things to do).
| nickdothutton wrote:
| I was really hoping someone had found a the mission computer and
| some tapes on eBay.
| [deleted]
| whalesalad wrote:
| Me too. One of my favorite aircraft. The SR-71 gets all the
| love but I love the Nighthawk.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| The Nighthawk looks ugly as sin to most people, which is
| probably why it doesn't bet as much love. The B2 Spirit is
| what I imagine the Nighthawk looking like if it weren't so
| angular.
| shever73 wrote:
| This thread reminded me of 688 Attack Sub, which I always thought
| was a MicroProse sim. TIL that it was originally done by EA. I
| ordered it from the Special Reserve games club in the UK back in
| 1990.
| thelittleone wrote:
| Oh 688 AS thanks for the flash back to the golden era of gaming
| in my time. Reading magazines about new games. Going to local
| game shop and checking out the box (giant box compared to
| today). Rushing home and waiting for install of each floppy
| disk. The games, though limited in visuals, where really
| captivating.
|
| 688 attack sub. LHX. MIG-29 Fulcrum. F15 Strike Eagle.
| Jetfighter 2 (included the YF-23).
| kingcharles wrote:
| I think of Strike Commander as the pinnacle of this era. I
| had to erase my entire hard drive to install it each time I
| wanted to play. It was 32MB!
| stouset wrote:
| Pretty sure I had this game on 5-1/4" floppies back in the
| day though I was too young to understand how to play. I
| played a TON of F-117A though!
| cwillu wrote:
| Perhaps you were thinking of
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Storm_Rising_(video_game...
| ?
|
| The Los Angeles class was one of the playable subs
| zabzonk wrote:
| And (I don't see it elsewhere, but maybe it is) it was so
| difficult to fly that it was known as "the wobbling goblin".
|
| Also, I remember seeing a model kit in the window of a model shop
| in North London, well before the plane was announced to the
| public. Must have been in the 80s.
|
| Oh, and another memory has surfaced from the compost heap that
| passes for my brain these days - my then girlfriend bought me a
| little friction-drive toy of one of them - also 1980s.
| detritus wrote:
| Are you sure you're not thinking of the F-19 model that came
| out in the very late 80s? I was a bit of plane nerd at the time
| - by early adolescent standards, at least - and I remember all
| my books being blindsided by the F-117's ultimate form.
| zabzonk wrote:
| Nope, I don't think so - but given the state of my brain at
| present, who knows?
|
| Wikipedia: "First flight June 18, 1981; 40 years ago"
| detritus wrote:
| We didn't get to see it for nearly another decade or so,
| though.
|
| "The existence of the aircraft was officially acknowledged
| in 1988" - https://www.britannica.com/technology/F-117
|
| Certainly, the precursor to the above game, F-19, was
| released in 1988, with the assumption that the plane looked
| something alike that on the box-art.
| zabzonk wrote:
| Me:
|
| > Also, I remember seeing a model kit in the window of a
| model shop in North London, well before the plane was
| announced to the public. Must have been in the 80s.
|
| Note "well before the plane was announced to the public"
|
| This would have been far before 1988.
| detritus wrote:
| The shop in between Holborn and Tottenham Court road, by
| any chance? Always loved that place.
|
| In regards to the model and the time, I suspect you're
| mistaken, but .. meh.
| zabzonk wrote:
| > The shop in between Holborn and Tottenham Court road,
| by any chance?
|
| Beatties, I think. I used to pop in there on my way home
| from Touche Ross, accountants, where I had a mangement
| gig - I used to think "If only I had back then compared
| to what I do now ..." - and had grand designs for an
| N-guage railway setup - girlfriend vetoed it. Never
| bought anything. Ooh, but wait, I do seem to remember
| buying my little nephew an R/C car there!
|
| Regarding the F177, the shop was in Southgate, North
| London, cannot remember the name, oposite tube station,
| but I am right :-)
| mjg59 wrote:
| Multiple model kits of the F-19 were released in the 80s
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-19#Notable_appearances_i
| n_me...) - they have a vague resemblance to the F-117,
| but I don't know of any releases of F-117 models before
| it was officially revealed.
| throw__away7391 wrote:
| I learned not too long ago that the reason the F-117 looks so
| much like a low-poly model is because the computers available at
| the time that they used to design it could only handle radar
| profile calculations for low-poly models.
| [deleted]
| praetor13 wrote:
| There's a great book called "Skunk Works" by Ben Rich (head of
| the F-117 project) that goes into the development. It's amazing
| what they were able to accomplish with so little computing
| power.
| FredPret wrote:
| I loved that book. They started off with nothing but slide
| rules and large brains. Incredible.
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| /second that book, one of the best on advanced aviation and
| aerospace engineering.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| mysterydip wrote:
| I thought it was because the stealth tech was based on
| faceting. This deflects the majority of radar energy directed
| at it so it doesn't return to the source to be detected.
| barkingcat wrote:
| It was based on faceting because that's all the computers at
| the time could handle.
|
| It's like saying that 3d graphics lighting can only be done
| by rasterized rendering. Of course, now that we have enough
| GPU processing power, we can also use ray tracing.
|
| In time, all light calculations/shadow calculations will be
| done with ray tracing, but for now, that's unimaginable
| because ray tracing runs slowly on current hardware.
| kataklasm wrote:
| You've got cause and effect flipped. The method of faceting
| or scattering from even, panelled surfaces is an effect of
| the root cause, namely the computer's inability to compute
| more complex radar profiles. You can read more about this in
| Ben Rich's book 'Skunk Works', the story about his time as
| the director of Lockheed Martin's Advanced Development
| Projects, informally called Skunk Works. Great read!
| HPsquared wrote:
| A flat surface is less likely to reflect to the source.
| Think of shining a flashlight at a polished metal object.
| If the object is smoothly curved and convex, there will
| always be some point on the surface at just the right angle
| to reflect the light beam into your eyes.
|
| On the other hand consider a flat mirror (at a long
| distance) or a faceted object with a small number of facets
| and sharp edges: it's unlikely that any of the facets is
| correctly aligned to reflect the light to your eyes.
|
| A shape with fewer angles ("low-poly") has a lower
| probability of giving a visible reflection.
|
| Modern stealth appears to work the same way: surfaces and
| edges are aligned along a minimal number of angles to
| reduce the effective number of "facets". See the shape of
| the B-2 for example, the leading and trailing edges are at
| the same angles.
| perliouhs wrote:
| > You've got cause and effect flipped.
|
| That's simply not true.
|
| Round surfaces scatter in all directions, flat surface
| scatter only in 1 direction of your choosing. For low RCS
| (Radar Cross Section) paneled surfaces are infinitely
| better, regardless of computer simulation capabilities.
| iancmceachern wrote:
| Maybe better, but not infinity better. If it were
| infinity better then the B2 wouldn't be stealth (it has
| not a single flat panel)
| SlickNixon wrote:
| > It's simply not true
|
| Of course it's true. Modern stealth aircraft have curves
| a plenty. This is an extremely confident reply given
| that's it's to somebody who's referencing the book by the
| guy who built the thing.
| dboshardy wrote:
| Not quite. From the incredible _Skunk Works_ :
|
| _" Ufimtsev has shown us how to create computer software to
| accurately calculate the radar cross section of a given
| configuration, as long as it's in two dimensions," Denys told
| me. "We can break down an airplane into thousands of flat
| triangular shapes, add up their individual radar signatures,
| and get a precise total of the radar cross section."
|
| Why only two dimensions and why only flat plates? Simply
| because, as Denys later noted, it was 1975 and computers
| weren't yet sufficiently powerful in storage and memory
| capacity to allow for three-dimensional designs, or rounded
| shapes, which demanded enormous numbers of additional
| calculations. The new gneeration of supercomputers, which can
| compute a billion bits of information in a second is the reason
| why the B-2 bomber, with it's rounded surfaces, was designed
| entirely by computer computations.
|
| Denys's idea was to compute the radar cross section of an
| airplane by dividiing it into a series of flat triangles. Each
| triangle had three separate points and required individual
| calculations for each point by utilizing Ufimtsev's
| calculations. The result was called "faceting"--creating a
| three-dimensional airplane design out of a collection of flat
| sheets or panels, similar to cutting a diamond into sharp-edged
| slices._
| moralestapia wrote:
| ???
|
| Yes quite?
|
| Your text completely supports GP's statement.
| throw__away7391 wrote:
| Yeah...this is literally the exact excerpt I recently came
| across.
| ajxs wrote:
| I loved this game! Looking back, I'm surprised that I had the
| patience as an eight year old to master this game's control
| scheme. This definitely applies to other contemporary so-called
| 'sims', like Mechwarrior.
| babbledabbler wrote:
| I loved this game growing up. (F-19 I never got F-117A). Thanks
| for bringing back memories.
| MrBuddyCasino wrote:
| This brings back memories of '90s flight sims, playing A-10 Cuba!
| on a P133. The physics and sense of speed was very impressive for
| its time.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-10 23:03 UTC)