Flight-Sims - taken seriously?

[montanamotor]

Good morning, Gentlemen!

I'd like to ask you one question in a matter, in which I am admittedly undecided myself. The point is:

Should we regard the users of (combat) flight simulators like Microsoft CFS, Sturmovik, Aceshigh, etc. regard as serious fans of the aircraft of WWII?

Or are they mere gamers, who just came across of yet another digital arena, only to show off their controller-controlling skills?

I must admit that, I am completely undecided myself in this question. On the one hand, Yeah, it's a PC-game only.

But, on the other hand: Hey - how close will each of us really ever get to really fly in one of our winged idols ever, in the real world?

CFS for example: Yeah, it's a PC-game, only. But - it's GREAT. I love it. Allthough myself being in the mid-forties, sometimes I check in to CFS and take hours of pleasure in sweeping Japs from the Pacific's skies.

The reason for my question is this: Only last night, I found out that, the performance-calculator for planes of WWII, which I passed on to you as a link elsewhere in this forum some days ago, stems from the "Aceshigh"-flight sim.

Ok - "Boooh! It's from a flight sim, so it's worth nothing!" - you may say.

But is this really the case? To SIMULATE the real world properly, you must KNOW it, first.

Although from a PC-game, I like to play around with those performance stats. And in fact: They are about as accurate as any stats on plane-performances of WWII can be. I have checked this. And I have spent several nights in doing so.

In a flight simulator, I can enter a F4F Grumman Wildcat and a F2A Brewster Buffalo and compare their qualities. I can then climb the cockpit of Mitsubishi A6M2 Reisen Zero-Fighter an fly circles arount both of them. I like to use the instruments as they were made for. And by comparing them in a flight-sim, you can see that, the Zero's-cockpit was better laid-out and easier to use that those of the contemporary american fighters.

I don't go for "unlimited fuel" in a flight sim-tour, nor do I fly in the "invulnerable player" and "unlimited fuel and ammo, player invincible"-mode. When You stick to the original's performance-envelope, you sometimes feel very directly, how chilly it feels to run out of fuel over the British Channel on board of a BF 109 E on return from England, or how it feels to enter combat with a 1000 B17-bombers on board of a FW-190 with limited high-altitude-performance in a Mustang-infested environment, with a mere 12 seconds of sustained firing time - an not one round more in your guns.

So - what are flight-sim-players from your point of you, gentlemen? Are they lovers of the real things, who get in touch with their objects of adoration as close as one normally can get?

Or are they just yet another breed of adrenalin-addicted "gamers", only...?

And: Do you play being "Marseille" sometimes, yourself?

Scramble, Gentlemen!

Cheers,

Montanamotor

[Red Admiral]

Personally I find that they are great for relaxing and actually simulate the respective aircraft extremely well. I play mainly CFS2 and CFS3 with the nod definitely going towards CFS3 because it focuses more on Europe. The terrain and aircraft are well modelled, its satisfying to simply go for a free flight over the Alps or Pyrenees.

That said, I'm not quite so sure on the realism. Maybe I'm just an excellent pilot but its rare for anyone to actually hit my aircraft with gunfire, no matter how hard the difficulty level is set. Could I sit still for an hour in the cold and then still do it as well, especailly with the added stress and fear, no - but its good for just combat.

An example of the realism would be me with a Tempest. Below 5000ft or so and it is just unstoppable. So much power, nice handling and massive firepower. After spending hours on these games you tend to get pretty good at deflection shooting, so much so that with 4x20mm you can resort to snap shots of about 10rounds from 200-100m range and thats all you'll need.

[Kutscha]

There is only one game/sim to 'play' and that is the Il-2 series from 1C/Maddox Games. The best graphics as well as the best flight modelling. It is not perfect though but beats CFS and AH by a wide margin. Many who came from CFS and went back and tried CFS after Il-2 call it arcade.

The Il-2 forum will nit-pick the FMs to the nth degree and any other issues that come along such as DMing. They are a passionate bunch with many OT but aviation related threads (SimHQ also). Il-2 has many more long multi page threads on the FMing than on the AH board so would say they are mostly simmers. Don't know about CFS as it is the last one I would 'play'.

BTW, this fall 1C/MG will being publishing a BoB game/sim.

[Lightning]

Hi montanamotor,

Your posting was very interesting to me, and the questions you ask are also very good.

First of all, let me state right up front that I have never played any video games--aviation-related or otherwise. My computer skills are not up to it, and I only have access to the computers in our local Army library where such games are not available. That having been said, I believe I can still partially answer your questions regarding the ability to transfer simulator skills from the computer to the real world of flying.

I am an instrument rated pilot. During my training, I had quite a bit of time in the Link trainer and some in a newer simulator. The instrument displays--both for aircraft performance and for navigational aides--reflected reality.

As an example, if you let your airspeed get too low, the Link would stall and the enclosure would actually spin around uncontrollably while the altimeter showed a rapid descent, and the other instrument went wild.

On a precision instrument approach, the rate of descent and airspeed would be set by adjusting power and trim respectively so as to remain firmly on the glide path. It all seemed so simple once you got the hang of it.

And then you got into a real airplane! As far as the instrument readings and responses were concerned, nothing had changed. But now you were experiencing sensations that were missing in the Link. The speed-related changes in pressures on the aileron, elevator, and rudder conrols. The changes in the sound of the wind. The strange change in your weight if you pushed or pulled too harshly on the wheel. The way you slid in your seat in a skid or a slip resulting fom poor coordination of control inputs. The changes in the "feel" of the airplane as its weight changes at the rate of six pounds for every gallon of fuel burned.

I believe that the games of which you speak can be very helpful in uderstanding the principles involved in flying and in aircraft performance, but, no matter how good one gets at those games, they will not duplicate actually flying those planes.

A pretty simple example: No one could learn to ride a bicycle, learn to rollerskate, or learn to ski by playing a video game.

Regards,
Lightning