Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Steam Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo
- - - - -

Warbird simulations.


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#1 Flo

Flo

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 923 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 7 Months and 23 Days
  • 46 topics

Posted 24 April 2012 - 03:39 PM

In your opinion, do they have any value?

I enjoy, or have enjoyed, playing several of them over the years, so much so that my choice of desktop will be driven by its' ability to run the latest version. Like all games they are a fun distraction, but can they serve any other purpose?

I propose that they do.

Firstly, they maintain our younger generations' interest in World War Two history. The War shaped the world we live in, but much more than an explanation of why the world has its' present form there are huge lessons to be learned about the very nature of humanity by studying the period.
Kids always want to know more about the things that hold their interest, be it their favourite sports team, band or TV show. In an age of instant access to information on any subject, they can learn huge amounts simply through asking their laptop or i-pad about the markings on their preferred fighter 'plane.

Secondly, they can illustrate the environment our forefathers fought in. A decent simulation will quickly show the difficulty in maintaining a position of advantage, the benefit of factors such as the suns position, cloud cover, terrain if you're interested in low flying missions, and the advantage of teamwork.

Lastly, I propose that they can provide a useful laboratory for investigating and testing tactics and manoeuvres. I have no real world flying experience- beyond jumping out of perfectly serviceable helicopters! :rolleyes:- so I have no way of telling how accurately the simulation models the flight characteristics of any given aircraft. But even after allowing for errors and inconsistencies in the simulation I propose that the majority of modern flight simulators are close enough to reality to provide an acceptable answer to questions concerning the manoeuvre of fighting aircraft.

What does the board think? Are they as useful as I believe? Or are they just the three dimensional equivalent of shooting zombies? :D

Facebook Comments

#2 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,486 posts
  • Joined 10 Years, 7 Months and 23 Days
  • 193 topics

Posted 26 April 2012 - 06:21 AM

I think they have value, but are not reflective of real performance.

Yes they keep young people interested, but the sims are only as good as the equations, and most people fly on "easy" settings with unlimited fuel and ammunition ... and sometimes with "player cannot be killed". When you pull g's, there is no g-force for the player.

Sims are pretty good for real pilots, but give a false sense of security to non-pilots. A Cessna 182 in Microsoft Flight Simulator doesn't typically flutter if you go too fast, can dive straight down wthout damage and can fly inverted. Try that in a real C-182 and see what happens! Most WWII fighters didn't even HAVE inverted fuel and oil systems. I can't think of one that did.

So, they have value, but not all that much, at least to me. They may very well be the salvation for general aviation in real life, but you couldn't prove it by me ... even though I like them in general for casual entertainment.

Edited by GregP, 26 April 2012 - 06:24 AM.


#3 Flo

Flo

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 923 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 7 Months and 23 Days
  • 46 topics

Posted 26 April 2012 - 12:04 PM

;)

I take your point that the realism settings can be modified or even switched off, Greg. But that means they're available when required.
Most on line communities insist on a minimum level of realism- usually no external views, stalls, spins and environmental effects on, no visible tags. With fuel, weapons, gunnery and damage simulations on their maximum available setting.
It's difficult, verging on impossible, to simulate real world effects on the pilot in multi-million dollar military sims, but that's probably a bonus for home use- PC pilots tend to be a pasty bunch! :D
The physics of each successive sim are improving all the time- there are a number out there which would give you the realism/deadly consequences of mishandling a light aircraft you describe.

Which leads back to my original point- this for the board, Greg and myself already having made our position clear- if the simulation 'flies' in a reasonable approximation of the real aircrafts' motion, could you see it having any value for testing the interaction between opposing aircraft?

#4 Ricky

Ricky

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,407 posts
  • Joined 11 Years, 2 Months and 6 Days
  • 114 topics

Posted 26 April 2012 - 02:54 PM

If there was no value in it, then the military would not use them...

#5 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,486 posts
  • Joined 10 Years, 7 Months and 23 Days
  • 193 topics

Posted 27 April 2012 - 04:14 AM

I don't think they're all that valuable because there isn't any way for me, as a home user, to look around short of a keyboard. If I had a slip-on headset (sort of like glasses without the lenses) that could allow me to look around, I would change my mind.

I HATE it when an Fw 190 goes by and you simply lose him! All I have to do in the real world is look at him, but the sims (home variety) won't let you DO that. They have (or had) an eyeglasses set that alolowed you to point a mouse, so why not something similar to allow the pilot to look around without a keyboard. The rest of it I can handle, but the limited view is just bogus and makes the sims almost useless to me. ... not in normal flying, but in combat.

If I want to fly normally, I use a Cessna. If I want combat ... i have almost no option other than the Air Combat Marchetti's that are so expensive t fly (but FUN).

I'd like the opportunity to have a headset that allows me to look around!

Edited by GregP, 27 April 2012 - 06:01 AM.


#6 Ricky

Ricky

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,407 posts
  • Joined 11 Years, 2 Months and 6 Days
  • 114 topics

Posted 27 April 2012 - 11:05 AM

I'd like the opportunity to have a headset that allows me to look around!


I couldn't agree more - this is why I don't have flying games

#7 Flo

Flo

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 923 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 7 Months and 23 Days
  • 46 topics

Posted 27 April 2012 - 06:16 PM

Gratuitous plug time. Hope Paolo gets some commission for this! :D

The device you're describing already exists. In fact, it's an almost indispensable tool for virtual combat. It's called TrackIR and I can't recommend it highly enough. Even if you never go near a combat sim, the ability to see everything going on in and around your (virtual) 'plane is worth the price all by itself. There are scenery packs available for Flight Sim X that generate stunning, photographic quality visuals in real time. If you can't afford to fly- and I can't :(- it's the single most immersive addition you can make to your setup, infinitely better than tripple screens, home cockpits or upgrading to the latest, ruinously expensive computer.

It's incredibly intuitive- just turn toward whatever you want to look at. Worried about fuel or temperature? Just look down 'into' your cockpit. Got a mate flying behind you? Turn 'round, see what he's up to.
It amplifies small movements of your head, which sounds a lot trickier to master than it actually is. The device itself is a small clip you attach to your headset, or a wee reflector you stick on your favourite cap, working with a tiny camera mounted to your monitor. Simples! ;)

The biggest benefit is the one you described, Greg, the ability to keep an eye on that git trying to get on your six. I like the added 'realism' of having to look around cockpit furniture, or the restricted view from some cockpits. But just glancing down and keeping an eye on your instruments hasn't gotten old for me. (I know, easily amused...:rolleyes:)

Check it out:
Slighter older vid, showing what you can expect to see on any PC:


one of the yoof of today failing completely to take heed of Gregs advice about the hazards of inverted flight in a warbird:


poor flying, great visuals!

I don't own the game, (yet!) but, again, stunning visuals, this time with the virtual pilot making much better use of his trackIR:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6CGViJrcRA&feature=relmfu


Hth, fellas!

#8 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,486 posts
  • Joined 10 Years, 7 Months and 23 Days
  • 193 topics

Posted 28 April 2012 - 05:17 AM

Thanks Flo! I'll look into it and a very hearty thank YOU.

Don't let Neo get to you. If he has done what he SAYS he has, then he wouldn't be posting this stuff. Siimulator operators can get an occasional ride, but not too many. If he IS a simulator operator, why isn't he all over THIS post? ... about simulations ...

He might be a 15-year old PC gamer trying to upset things and display his "knowledge." As he continues to post it sounds more like that than a real pilot and simulator operator person ... he might even be Gaston, God forbid.

Beware of the dreaded "thrust column" and the deadly microsecond motion of the center of lift ...

YOUR posts suppport your experience and I respect your opinion. Wish you could attend our airshow next weekend at Chino (May 5 - 6).

Cheers! - Greg

Edited by GregP, 28 April 2012 - 05:21 AM.


#9 Flo

Flo

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 923 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 7 Months and 23 Days
  • 46 topics

Posted 28 April 2012 - 05:46 PM

The gizmo isn't cheap, 'bout a hundred bucks retail, maybe a little less at a big electronics outlet, but it's worth every penny.
I bought mine after I got curious about how quickly and accurately the guys posting up on youtube were looking around. Even my best efforts with a 'hat' or mouse just confused the hell out of me. The cost put me off for a while, but I couldn't believe the difference when I finally forked out for one. Like I say, proper bargain.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, by the way! But like I keep 'telling' neo, any experience either of us have of modern air warfare have virtually no relevance to '40s warbirds. That's assuming he does have the experience he claims, of course. ;)

"Beware of the dreaded "thrust column" and the deadly microsecond motion of the center of lift ... " I rofl! :D

I'd so love to go to Chino. It wouldn't even have to be a show weekend. I prefer to see the 'planes being worked on, to parked up under twenty layers of polish, surrounded by Japanese tourists! :D If I ever do make it out your way I'll definitely give you a call.

Edited by Flo, 28 April 2012 - 05:53 PM.


#10 NeoConShooter

NeoConShooter

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,454 posts
  • Joined 2 Years and 11 Days
  • 5 topics

Posted 01 May 2012 - 02:14 AM

I don't think they're all that valuable because there isn't any way for me, as a home user, to look around short of a keyboard. If I had a slip-on headset (sort of like glasses without the lenses) that could allow me to look around, I would change my mind.

I HATE it when an Fw 190 goes by and you simply lose him! All I have to do in the real world is look at him, but the sims (home variety) won't let you DO that. They have (or had) an eyeglasses set that alolowed you to point a mouse, so why not something similar to allow the pilot to look around without a keyboard. The rest of it I can handle, but the limited view is just bogus and makes the sims almost useless to me. ... not in normal flying, but in combat.

If I want to fly normally, I use a Cessna. If I want combat ... i have almost no option other than the Air Combat Marchetti's that are so expensive t fly (but FUN).

I'd like the opportunity to have a headset that allows me to look around!


Just my opinions!

1. SIMs do have several valid uses, including those mentioned and the ability of some SIMs, to accurately mimic the real aircraft's performance. You have to search and buy the right one, set the switches to max reality and realize that even the best of them do not mimic weapons effects well, or even fairly! At least according to the real live service pilots I used to hang with and the acquaintances who own some war birds. (Living next to a Spit owner and two hours ride from Oshkosh!)

2. Buy a SIM which has the "Padlock" view setting! It will keep your vision box locked on the target regardless of how it twists and turns, except that some, (most?) of them loose the lock when the target goes out of sight under your plane, on into a cloud.

3. The tags should be enabled IF you want to get any sort of semblance as to what the experts see. If you do not have 99th %-tile Visual Acuity which all military pilots who actually shot any one down in the war had, your typical vision is less than 40% of theirs if it is 20-20! I can not over state this in the least! The lack of distance accuracy makes doing the right maneuvers hard if not impossible! If you do not have 8-20 or at best 10-20 vision, you can not see and recognize planes that the Aces CAN see and recognize. In other words the computer makes those of us with extraordinary visual acuity as blind as the rest of you. Tags gives you the experience of the experts/aces? They also make the maneuvers you read about in the books possible. This last is important if you really want to get the flavor of those great planes.

4. In the Goodyear Aerospace dome, they enlarge the apparent size of the target to make up for the lack of projection resolution against the dome to the pilots. This relates to part three above.

5. The various "Top Gun" "Experiences" are not that expensive, if you consider the life time memories and film you might create, if you are any good! I recommend them to all, every chance I get, even the least of them is so much better and educational than the best of the dome Sims! I guarantee that some Cessna 150s Rat Racing all over the sky is better and more rewarding than any SIM! Google that and spend a thousand bucks for the cheap seats if that is all you can afford. It's like HEROIN! Once you do it you will go back and spend much more money!
Hope this helps.

#11 NeoConShooter

NeoConShooter

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,454 posts
  • Joined 2 Years and 11 Days
  • 5 topics

Posted 01 May 2012 - 02:41 AM

Gratuitous plug time. Hope Paolo gets some commission for this! :D

The device you're describing already exists. In fact, it's an almost indispensable tool for virtual combat. It's called TrackIR and I can't recommend it highly enough. Even if you never go near a combat sim, the ability to see everything going on in and around your (virtual) 'plane is worth the price all by itself. There are scenery packs available for Flight Sim X that generate stunning, photographic quality visuals in real time. If you can't afford to fly- and I can't :(- it's the single most immersive addition you can make to your setup, infinitely better than tripple screens, home cockpits or upgrading to the latest, ruinously expensive computer.

It's incredibly intuitive- just turn toward whatever you want to look at. Worried about fuel or temperature? Just look down 'into' your cockpit. Got a mate flying behind you? Turn 'round, see what he's up to.
It amplifies small movements of your head, which sounds a lot trickier to master than it actually is. The device itself is a small clip you attach to your headset, or a wee reflector you stick on your favourite cap, working with a tiny camera mounted to your monitor. Simples! ;)

The biggest benefit is the one you described, Greg, the ability to keep an eye on that git trying to get on your six. I like the added 'realism' of having to look around cockpit furniture, or the restricted view from some cockpits. But just glancing down and keeping an eye on your instruments hasn't gotten old for me. (I know, easily amused...:rolleyes:)

Check it out:
Slighter older vid, showing what you can expect to see on any PC:


one of the yoof of today failing completely to take heed of Gregs advice about the hazards of inverted flight in a warbird:


poor flying, great visuals!

I don't own the game, (yet!) but, again, stunning visuals, this time with the virtual pilot making much better use of his trackIR:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6CGViJrcRA&feature=relmfu


Hth, fellas!


WOW! Nice shooting at the end, but he blew the intercept with poor geometry several times. My only bitch is that he took off at full lean, fine pitch and full throttle and did not burn up the engine before climbing out. A SIM failure, or switches set to fun, not realistic?

#12 NeoConShooter

NeoConShooter

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,454 posts
  • Joined 2 Years and 11 Days
  • 5 topics

Posted 01 May 2012 - 02:56 AM

Thanks Flo! I'll look into it and a very hearty thank YOU.

Don't let Neo get to you. If he has done what he SAYS he has, then he wouldn't be posting this stuff. Siimulator operators can get an occasional ride, but not too many. If he IS a simulator operator, why isn't he all over THIS post? ... about simulations ...

He might be a 15-year old PC gamer trying to upset things and display his "knowledge." As he continues to post it sounds more like that than a real pilot and simulator operator person ... he might even be Gaston, God forbid.

Beware of the dreaded "thrust column" and the deadly microsecond motion of the center of lift ...

YOUR posts suppport your experience and I respect your opinion. Wish you could attend our airshow next weekend at Chino (May 5 - 6).

Cheers! - Greg


Never claimed to be a SIM operator! Ever! In part, I was a teacher of sorts. In fact I have denied it several times on this board. I said that on weekends/days off when there is little else to do in places like Taif, KSA, AND you had an in, you could have fun at Govm't expense! Furthermore, if some of the Dome Nerds were WW-II/Korea fans, they could re-program the dome to mimic other planes for a fee, or small gratuity if you had other duty free privileges and a Bar-B-Q pit. Many of the old timers were WW-II/Korea Vets! Three years in country and you make lots of friends?

#13 NeoConShooter

NeoConShooter

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,454 posts
  • Joined 2 Years and 11 Days
  • 5 topics

Posted 01 May 2012 - 02:57 AM

Thanks Flo! I'll look into it and a very hearty thank YOU.

Don't let Neo get to you. If he has done what he SAYS he has, then he wouldn't be posting this stuff. Siimulator operators can get an occasional ride, but not too many. If he IS a simulator operator, why isn't he all over THIS post? ... about simulations ...

He might be a 15-year old PC gamer trying to upset things and display his "knowledge." As he continues to post it sounds more like that than a real pilot and simulator operator person ... he might even be Gaston, God forbid.

Beware of the dreaded "thrust column" and the deadly microsecond motion of the center of lift ...

YOUR posts suppport your experience and I respect your opinion. Wish you could attend our airshow next weekend at Chino (May 5 - 6).

Cheers! - Greg


Can you get an old DAV in if I drive out? Sincerely, Stewart. We can meet IRL! I'll bring out some of my Ex-Professional toys and we can both have some fun! But you have yo buy your own ammo. It's now way to expencive to give away any more. Sincerely, SFD.

Edited by NeoConShooter, 01 May 2012 - 03:04 AM.
PS.


#14 Flo

Flo

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 923 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 7 Months and 23 Days
  • 46 topics

Posted 01 May 2012 - 06:50 PM

Just my opinions!

1. SIMs do have several valid uses, including those mentioned and the ability of some SIMs, to accurately mimic the real aircraft's performance. You have to search and buy the right one, set the switches to max reality and realize that even the best of them do not mimic weapons effects well, or even fairly! At least according to the real live service pilots I used to hang with and the acquaintances who own some war birds. (Living next to a Spit owner and two hours ride from Oshkosh!)

2. Buy a SIM which has the "Padlock" view setting! It will keep your vision box locked on the target regardless of how it twists and turns, except that some, (most?) of them loose the lock when the target goes out of sight under your plane, on into a cloud.

3. The tags should be enabled IF you want to get any sort of semblance as to what the experts see. If you do not have 99th %-tile Visual Acuity which all military pilots who actually shot any one down in the war had, your typical vision is less than 40% of theirs if it is 20-20! I can not over state this in the least! The lack of distance accuracy makes doing the right maneuvers hard if not impossible! If you do not have 8-20 or at best 10-20 vision, you can not see and recognize planes that the Aces CAN see and recognize. In other words the computer makes those of us with extraordinary visual acuity as blind as the rest of you. Tags gives you the experience of the experts/aces? They also make the maneuvers you read about in the books possible. This last is important if you really want to get the flavor of those great planes.

4. In the Goodyear Aerospace dome, they enlarge the apparent size of the target to make up for the lack of projection resolution against the dome to the pilots. This relates to part three above.

5. The various "Top Gun" "Experiences" are not that expensive, if you consider the life time memories and film you might create, if you are any good! I recommend them to all, every chance I get, even the least of them is so much better and educational than the best of the dome Sims! I guarantee that some Cessna 150s Rat Racing all over the sky is better and more rewarding than any SIM! Google that and spend a thousand bucks for the cheap seats if that is all you can afford. It's like HEROIN! Once you do it you will go back and spend much more money!
Hope this helps.


...that you bemoan the level of realism available to most sims, yet advise disabling features that are and praise an unrealistic modification employed by your favourite (?) one.

That's 'interesting' as in it's interesting to see what you imagine to be 'fair', not 'interesting' as in sarcastic.

1.} What makes you believe weapons effects aren't well modelled in most sims, Stewart?
The way I see it, bullets are easy to model- they travel ballistically, more or less straight ahead, at a known velocity. You could do the math with a slide rule. Likewise, accounts of how much damage was done to shot down enemy aircraft is freely available.
Since you can accurately model the collision between bullet/shell and aircraft, you can combine that with a reasonable estimate of the average number of hits sustained by destroyed aircraft in the real world to decide whether your simulation allows an aircraft to survive being shot. Hardly perfect, but as long as your sim matches the averages it's accurately modelling real life.
Cumulative damage is likewise easily simulated. Take accounts of aircraft damaged in the real world, make your sim mimic them. The random nature of battle damage will moderate the limited number of system failures you can generate in a commercially viable home simulation. Again, on the average, the sim will accurately model real life.
What am I missing?

2.} Padlocking is a great tool for making videos, but it isn't something that simulates anything that was available within the aircraft to warbird pilots. Most communities won't allow it for that reason alone. Personally I think it detracts from the experience I'm trying to simulate. I want to feel a little of what it was like to fly in combat in a warbird. I want to be nervous and edgy. I want my situational awareness and cockpit visibility reduced. I'm not looking for the high score; I want to feel relieved if I can survive the mission!

3.4.} As above, if the sim doesn't give me much more than a spec to chase after, if my long planned, much practised and carefully executed manoeuvre doesn't quite pan out, I'm more likely to sweat, more likely to be challenged by the bot while I practice, more likely to be out foxed by my human opponent on line.
We're definitely after different experiences, Stewart. I think you want to 'role play' at being an ace? I'm not so interested in the glory. I want to get closer to the brave young men who fought these machines. I think that's more about sharing their difficulties than enjoying the mastery of environment and machine that the very best might have had.
Besides, they weren't all dead eye dicks! Richard Bong had decidedly average eyesight, which he sometimes used as his excuse for getting so close to enemy aircraft. ;) You like WW1 flying? Edward Mannock was practically blind in one eye...

5.} It might be worth asking Greg where he learned to fly before you get all gushy about a few minutes in a Cesna 150. (Place devil smiley here.)

This is the kind of guy I want to emulate. I'll never experience the hardships and terror he subjected himself to, fighting for my future, but if I get a little twitchy flying my virtual plane, if I feel relieved getting it back down intact, then I'm a little closer to understanding what Ian went through. MacLennan was a 23 year old Flight Sargent during the Battle of Malta.


#15 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,486 posts
  • Joined 10 Years, 7 Months and 23 Days
  • 193 topics

Posted 02 May 2012 - 04:39 AM

What the hell did Neo say in post 13? I can't translate it ... but I'm not surprised.

#16 Flo

Flo

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 923 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 7 Months and 23 Days
  • 46 topics

Posted 02 May 2012 - 11:04 AM

:D I thought he was talking 'merican, Greg. You chaps are supposed to have your own language, I thought that was it?

#17 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,486 posts
  • Joined 10 Years, 7 Months and 23 Days
  • 193 topics

Posted 03 May 2012 - 03:13 AM

Nope, it isn't American English ... probably internet abbreviations. I don't ever text anybody so I am not "up" on texting shortcuts, either.

If I want to talk with someone I do, if I don't, why text them? Just my take on it.

In any case, if he wanted me to know, he'd post in English.

#18 NeoConShooter

NeoConShooter

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,454 posts
  • Joined 2 Years and 11 Days
  • 5 topics

Posted 03 May 2012 - 04:23 AM

...that you bemoan the level of realism available to most sims, yet advise disabling features that are and praise an unrealistic modification employed by your favourite (?) one. I just pointed out the most maneuvers require more distance than the player can recognise the target at because of display resolution failure. In real life it is easy to recognise targets at ranges that the screen only displays dots.

That's 'interesting' as in it's interesting to see what you imagine to be 'fair', not 'interesting' as in sarcastic. I did not know that "Interesting" was sarcastic.

1.} What makes you believe weapons effects aren't well modelled in most sims, Stewart? The SIM's use the display picture to determing hits and thus damage. In Real Life, planes with wing mounted guns had a very difficult time getting damaging hits. Yet if the target is shown centered under the Piper, it is destroyed instead of missed! If the wing guns are 7-11 feet off of the LoS, then at ranges much under or over the Zero/Harmonizing, or convergence range, they are absolutely guarunteed to miss when under the Piper!
The way I see it, bullets are easy to model- they travel ballistically, more or less straight ahead, at a known velocity.Wrong! They do not model the bullets at all. They score from the image on the screen. Next time you are up in the Sim, use the "Practice" mode to blast a sitting transport target. Just before you fire at 50-100 yards range, roll the wings to vertical and put the engine under the Piper and fire! In real Life, 100% of the bullets would miss above and below the wing/engine!( They start out 7-11 feet from the line of sight, then converge at the zero range then diverge to where they are 35-55 feet either side of the piper at 1000 yards.) That is why weapons are poorly modeled. The P-38 and Me-109, Fw-109 could all shoot their CL guns a thousand yards with ease, 2000 yards with skill, but does your sim allow that? No it does not! You could do the math with a slide rule. Likewise, accounts of how much damage was done to shot down enemy aircraft is freely available.
Since you can accurately model the collision between bullet/shell and aircraft, you can combine that with a reasonable estimate of the average number of hits sustained by destroyed aircraft in the real world to decide whether your simulation allows an aircraft to survive being shot. Hardly perfect, but as long as your sim matches the averages it's accurately modelling real life.
Cumulative damage is likewise easily simulated. Take accounts of aircraft damaged in the real world, make your sim mimic them. The random nature of battle damage will moderate the limited number of system failures you can generate in a commercially viable home simulation. Again, on the average, the sim will accurately model real life.
What am I missing? See above.

2.} Padlocking is a great tool for making videos, but it isn't something that simulates anything that was available within the aircraft to warbird pilots. Most communities won't allow it for that reason alone. Personally I think it detracts from the experience I'm trying to simulate. I want to feel a little of what it was like to fly in combat in a warbird. I want to be nervous and edgy. I want my situational awareness and cockpit visibility reduced. I'm not looking for the high score; I want to feel relieved if I can survive the mission!More power to you! I feel the same, only more so! I was only telling the other guy how to keep his target in sight, just as if in real life he had "Target Fixation" and did not take his eyes off of it.

3.4.} As above, if the sim doesn't give me much more than a spec to chase after, if my long planned, much practised and carefully executed manoeuvre doesn't quite pan out, I'm more likely to sweat, more likely to be challenged by the bot while I practice, more likely to be out foxed by my human opponent on line. But what if the SIM is cheating you of the realistice expectation that you can recognise targets two miles away very easily, if you are average vission and twice that if you were better.
We're definitely after different experiences, Stewart. I think you want to 'role play' at being an ace?Not at all! I have three desires and meet then in different means. First is the compitition between people. The second is me Vs the Bot for training and fun and finnaly as a tool to research real world ideas. I'm not so interested in the glory.I freely admit to being very competitive, both in life and my games. You have to have ambition to succeed in life and it caries over. I want to get closer to the brave young men who fought these machines.I have talked to ~1-200 of them, and I know I'll never be able to get close to their expiriancees. I think that's more about sharing their difficulties than enjoying the mastery of environment and machine that the very best might have had.
Besides, they weren't all dead eye dicks! Richard Bong had decidedly average eyesight, which he sometimes used as his excuse for getting so close to enemy aircraft. ;) You like WW1 flying? Edward Mannock was practically blind in one eye...Visual accuity was not dependant on one eye or two. But the idea that Bong had average eyesight is silly! You could not be a fighter pilot with less than 20-15 vision. That is the top 8-9%.

5.} It might be worth asking Greg where he learned to fly before you get all gushy about a few minutes in a Cesna 150. (Place devil smiley here.)Getting gushy about a few minutes in anything is my thing, not his. I am easy to please and even easier to lite up like a Christmass tree!

This is the kind of guy I want to emulate. I'll never experience the hardships and terror he subjected himself to, fighting for my future, but if I get a little twitchy flying my virtual plane, if I feel relieved getting it back down intact, then I'm a little closer to understanding what Ian went through. MacLennan was a 23 year old Flight Sargent during the Battle of Malta.


I know and understand this last. More than you can ever know.

#19 Jabberwocky

Jabberwocky

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Joined 2 Years and 7 Days
  • 0 topics

Posted 03 May 2012 - 07:09 AM

The way I see it, bullets are easy to model- they travel ballistically, more or less straight ahead, at a known velocity.

Wrong! They do not model the bullets at all. They score from the image on the screen. Next time you are up in the Sim, use the "Practice" mode to blast a sitting transport target. Just before you fire at 50-100 yards range, roll the wings to vertical and put the engine under the Piper and fire! In real Life, 100% of the bullets would miss above and below the wing/engine!( They start out 7-11 feet from the line of sight, then converge at the zero range then diverge to where they are 35-55 feet either side of the piper at 1000 yards.) That is why weapons are poorly modeled. The P-38 and Me-109, Fw-109 could all shoot their CL guns a thousand yards with ease, 2000 yards with skill, but does your sim allow that? No it does not!


You've obviously not had much (any?) experience with WW1 or WW2 flight simulators over the past decade.

Il-2, BoB II Wings of Victory, Aces High 2, Rise of Flight and Cliffs of Dover all realistically model weapon ballistics.

Cliffs of Dover for example, models every bullet fired - in real time - with a proper ballistic trajectory (including rate of bullet drop, ballistic coefficient, sectional density and a number of other factors), as well as horizontal and vertical dispersion and the individual round power (both kinetic and chemical) and relative velocity at impact. The different physical aspects of the round on target are also included, so an AP round has a different effect to a HE round, which has a different effect again to an API round.

Thus, when fired in the Cliffs of Dover simulation a 20 x 80RB AP shell fired from a Bf 109E-4 MG-FF wing cannon will have notably different trajectory and different effect on target compared to a less aerodynamic but higher velocity 20 x 80 Minengeschoss round. These rounds will have notably different trajectories in the game to the 7.92 x 57 rounds fired from the nose guns.

This sort of detail has been around since Il-2 came out in 2001. Il-2 set a new standard for this sort of thing.

The forum howlings in that game/sim whenever the modelling of the M2 .50 cal or MG151/20 were adjusted (for better or worse) were always a comedy triumph. The developers were willing to 'show their work' as it was, posting, at various times, their ballistics data and damage modeling calculations at various times on the forums.

Il-2 had 'arcade mode' that would show you where your bullets were hitting and the direction they were heading when they hit. Great for working out how well/poorly you were leading a target. An example:

http://i18.photobuck.../BredaSAFAT.gif

Edited by Jabberwocky, 03 May 2012 - 07:28 AM.
Added links and more info


#20 Flo

Flo

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 923 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 7 Months and 23 Days
  • 46 topics

Posted 03 May 2012 - 02:09 PM

Il-2 never had the flashiest graphics, but I always felt it 'flew' so much better than its' rivals. Eventually I gave up on the pretenders to its' crown! ;)

I still flash it up every now and again- usually to try out something I read in a forum. Thus my OP!

Things like this become possible if the sim tries hard enough:



(Dart's my hero...:o)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com Avitop.com