I don't use phones, so if I have to go somewhere, I have to memorise the route. I enjoy the exercise. I look up the directions on my laptop, mentally rehearse the points of interest that will indicate to me where I need to take particular turns, and then have to put into practice my memory with the actual physical landscape I tour as I follow this route. Sometimes I make mistakes, but correcting them is part of the exercise.
It seems very few people nowadays know how to follow a route, especially an unfamiliar one, without being tethered to their GPS.
In my personal experience, when I take a wrong turn, it's impossible to find my way back.
I understand if you're describing the route from one large city to another, but if you need to get to a specific street in even a medium-sized city, it's impossible to remember every turn the first time around.
how old are you? How can you memorize a new route?
Because i am born in the TomTom era and i had google maps on my first phone ( not smartphone ) but it have it
The Japanese release of the game flips around the "soundless" sections with the music section, suggesting that listening to that rocking track for most of your flight is the intended experience.
I knew there was a version out there that flipped the music around... but I don't remember the "painted line" aircraft carrier... I wonder if someone made a rom hack like 20 years ago that kept the graphics but flipped the music...
The information to properly land the plane is in the manual. The required air speed and altitude have never been a secret, if you read the manual (which I guess most kids didn't).
The real difficulty, not explored in this disassembly, is that the game has semi-realistic physics! My older brother was in flight school at the time and was able to easily land the plane and taught me how to do it.
As the article states, "Altitude and speed are both controlled by throttle input and pitch angle". So you can't just hit the engines or air brakes button to change your speed. If you lower the nose of the plane, you'll speed up and vice versa! So you have to carefully juggle your speed and altitude by altering both your pitch and your engines/air brakes.
My brother taught me that my speed wouldn't reduce if I'm nosediving, so raise the nose a little while opening my air brakes for a quick reduction in speed and then level out to maintain altitude. The game actually models this somewhat accurately!
> if you read the manual (which I guess most kids didn't).
Most kids did't read the manual? I would rtfm for every game I got my hands on during the car ride home from toysrus or blockbuster. If Mom had several errands to run, I may rtfm a dozen times before I finally got home with the game.
Ahhh, nostalgia: Some games like Super Mario and Duck Hunt were quite doable without a manual, but I specifically remember Legacy of the Wizard [0]. With no manual and almost zero in-game text to work from, our progress was limited to stumbling around a giant labyrinth, never realizing certain obstacles required switching characters to use unique abilities, and then finding special items that unlock abilities for other characters...
I've been on a bit of a retro bender and have intentionally limited myself to nothing but the manuals and games and it's been so fun to rediscover how much thought people used to put into the manuals including the presentation and art. Extreme shame half of the time now even if you go and grab a physical copy you basically just get a key in a box.
I would read the manual too on the ride home. But I think that was only for new games? I seem to remember that rentals didn't come with manuals. The best memory was my grandma picking me up to spend the summer at her house. We stopped by wal-mart and I grabbed the first release of Gran Turismo for psx. It came with a fairly giant manual. Had a three hour drive to her house. I read it over and over!
The people working hint hotlines apparently memorized some information from manuals, as so many kids without access to the manuals called with the same questions. The famous code from Star Tropics, for example.
> The information to properly land the plane is in the manual. The required air speed and altitude have never been a secret, if you read the manual (which I guess most kids didn't).
It's also on-screen. What's missing is the acceptable ranges -- +/- 100 for altitude, +/- 50 for speed, per the post. Knowing that the slop for altitude is much higher is definitely helpful information.
I don't specifically remember it, but I had the manual, and I was a voracious manual reader as a kid. I also remember the carrier landings being the hardest thing in any game I ever played. Felt like about a 1% success rate, and I never quite knew what separated a successful landing from an unsuccessful one that looked identical on approach.
I miss being able to play a game and have things be somewhat apparent within the game. Nowadays it seems like you have to have a second monitor with the wiki open.
if you rented it or borrowed from a friend it was very very unlikely you had the manual. I don't remember how I eventually figured it out, but it's the landing instructions that I think are misleading.
Panel 1: But Libertad¹, you’re hanging it upside down.
Panel 2: Upside down in relation to what? Earth is in space, and space has neither up nor down.
Panel 3: Saying the northern hemisphere is up is a psychological trick from those at the top, so that those who believe we are below continue to believe we are at the bottom. And the worst part is that if we keep believing we’re below, we’ll continue to be. But starting today, that’s over!
Panel 4, top: Where were you, Mafalda?
Panel 4, bottom: I don’t know, but something just came to an end.
The point of most ads isn't to get you to buy things. Most ads just want you to think of the product and be aware it exists. Their objective is to slowly hijack your brain.
If you know what "it gives you wings" or "the happiest place on earth" means, the ads already worked.
Ads are trying to combat obscurity. A brand with bad reputation is far better than a brand nobody's ever heard of.
> It's not disproven as nonsense, the paper appears to make sense
Not obviously utter nonsense, but a couple of mathematicians who have studied it have claimed to have found gaps and were unsatisfied with the resolution to those gaps that Mochizuki offered.
It's kind of like, well, LLM output. Has the right shape but upon scrutiny it seems to fall apart. Plausible-looking but probably nonsense.
It seems very few people nowadays know how to follow a route, especially an unfamiliar one, without being tethered to their GPS.
reply