FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Yea, that better my doll statement, SH*T! DID I JUST SAY THAT!!!
Flight Sims are they really as real as actually flying?
- Thread starter syscom3
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
LOL you guys trip me up sometimes.
Eric!
JonJGoldberg
Airman 1st Class
You guys are funny to read sometimes... The emotion!!!
DerAdlerIstGelandet: Do not put words in my mouth, and thanks for trying not to mention me by name... But no, I don't think 14,000 aircraft were in the air at once, I never said that. What I did say still stand by, is that a country does not produce 40,593 aircraft (German aircraft production 1944) cause they look good. We don't have the gas or pilots to fly them, yet we CAN build them... Just what were we thinking? I would grant you some credit if you were to say, hey look, at least half went west, but to call me naive, that just tells me you have nothing to offer lending weight to your point other than school games.
The aircraft were built to hopefully reverse the trend, or simply defend themselves, and after they were built, Germany found itself in the predicament of not being able to field them... Why? Relevant to this forum; because enough bombers got through to do some serious damage. Why? Relevant to this forum the point I was making; because the fighter aircraft of Germany were not able to effectively stop them (...they almost did, almost). You all may make claim that the Allies overwhelmed Germany by 'sheer' volume. That's a fact, to be sure (96,318 US aircraft production 1944). But I'll counter that numerical superiority is a result of production (I'm not being bombed, why?) survival (the machines I build are not being destroyed as fast as I can replace them, why?). Meaning enough bombers, fighters, their crews made it back to fight again alongside the 'newly' produced aircraft pilots fresh from the factories, and flight training centers. The Brits managed to hold back superior numbers of aircraft during the BoB, with, primarily Hurricanes. They had problems with fuel and pilots, granted not the extent of Germany during it's final hours, but I'll argue that it never got that way for the Brits because they caused Germany and her Allies losses they could not, or did not want to sustain, while facing, at the time, the largest, longest aerial bombardment in history.
As for the 'Sim' thing: Your analogies were/are very good, but they are flawed. Women flying machines still exist to be compared to the sim. A flyable A6M does not; 1944 has past; there is no reality to compare the sim against. True, some 'simmers' believe the sim is real, and that they would be able to be the Ace of Aces if... But in everything there are some who 'abuse'. Used intelligently, Sims can open eyes, however the CFS series, IL-2 series of sim GAMES are that, just games. They can insightful, but both require a very large degree of modification before they should be considered a REALISTIC simulation of actual events. The gaming sims do allow the average person, interested in this 'stuff' to immerse themselves to a very much higher degree of 'reality' than if they did not exist. Most modern air forces and pilot schools use them (sims, not CFS-2/3; IL2). All pilots benefit from them; they gain 'experience' to better respond to situations too dangerous to properly experience in reality. Those who believe that sims are useless in their ability to reproduce reality are as hopelessly lost in their dream as Jon J Goldberg Ace of Aces, flying his moded (to be as close as these sims allow) P-51s, and Mc205Vs, in CFS-2/3 (Like I really think I could be a fighter pilot, especially a carrier pilot, because I fly in CFS2/3 well). PS >> If your stick forces were the same in two different aircraft while using a flight sim I would conclude that either or all was happening; the game can not run 'force feedback'; your stick and pedals are not 'force feedback' compatible; the 'force feedback' feature was turned off; the 'force feedback' models you were using are very bad.
DerAdlerIstGelandet: Do not put words in my mouth, and thanks for trying not to mention me by name... But no, I don't think 14,000 aircraft were in the air at once, I never said that. What I did say still stand by, is that a country does not produce 40,593 aircraft (German aircraft production 1944) cause they look good. We don't have the gas or pilots to fly them, yet we CAN build them... Just what were we thinking? I would grant you some credit if you were to say, hey look, at least half went west, but to call me naive, that just tells me you have nothing to offer lending weight to your point other than school games.
The aircraft were built to hopefully reverse the trend, or simply defend themselves, and after they were built, Germany found itself in the predicament of not being able to field them... Why? Relevant to this forum; because enough bombers got through to do some serious damage. Why? Relevant to this forum the point I was making; because the fighter aircraft of Germany were not able to effectively stop them (...they almost did, almost). You all may make claim that the Allies overwhelmed Germany by 'sheer' volume. That's a fact, to be sure (96,318 US aircraft production 1944). But I'll counter that numerical superiority is a result of production (I'm not being bombed, why?) survival (the machines I build are not being destroyed as fast as I can replace them, why?). Meaning enough bombers, fighters, their crews made it back to fight again alongside the 'newly' produced aircraft pilots fresh from the factories, and flight training centers. The Brits managed to hold back superior numbers of aircraft during the BoB, with, primarily Hurricanes. They had problems with fuel and pilots, granted not the extent of Germany during it's final hours, but I'll argue that it never got that way for the Brits because they caused Germany and her Allies losses they could not, or did not want to sustain, while facing, at the time, the largest, longest aerial bombardment in history.
As for the 'Sim' thing: Your analogies were/are very good, but they are flawed. Women flying machines still exist to be compared to the sim. A flyable A6M does not; 1944 has past; there is no reality to compare the sim against. True, some 'simmers' believe the sim is real, and that they would be able to be the Ace of Aces if... But in everything there are some who 'abuse'. Used intelligently, Sims can open eyes, however the CFS series, IL-2 series of sim GAMES are that, just games. They can insightful, but both require a very large degree of modification before they should be considered a REALISTIC simulation of actual events. The gaming sims do allow the average person, interested in this 'stuff' to immerse themselves to a very much higher degree of 'reality' than if they did not exist. Most modern air forces and pilot schools use them (sims, not CFS-2/3; IL2). All pilots benefit from them; they gain 'experience' to better respond to situations too dangerous to properly experience in reality. Those who believe that sims are useless in their ability to reproduce reality are as hopelessly lost in their dream as Jon J Goldberg Ace of Aces, flying his moded (to be as close as these sims allow) P-51s, and Mc205Vs, in CFS-2/3 (Like I really think I could be a fighter pilot, especially a carrier pilot, because I fly in CFS2/3 well). PS >> If your stick forces were the same in two different aircraft while using a flight sim I would conclude that either or all was happening; the game can not run 'force feedback'; your stick and pedals are not 'force feedback' compatible; the 'force feedback' feature was turned off; the 'force feedback' models you were using are very bad.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
i'm suprised no one's mentioned this yet, how can you experience G in a sim?? unless you get some special suit or, as someone mentioned, your brother's fat girlfriend, you can't feel G like you would in a real plane........
I think someone has mentioned it. The bottom line is, if you want to compare the aircrafts ability against another aircraft then a sim, even Il-2 can be pretty good to get the basic idea. Understanding the placement of instruments and flying by numbers can be partially learnt by using flight sims. Understanding what flying is really like cannot be done with a flight sim.
I believe syscom mentioned the aircraft doesn't take into account what the pilot is feeling. Which means in a sim the aircraft can be pushed to it's limit, in real life the plane can only be pushed to the pilot's limit.
I believe syscom mentioned the aircraft doesn't take into account what the pilot is feeling. Which means in a sim the aircraft can be pushed to it's limit, in real life the plane can only be pushed to the pilot's limit.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
and also in a sim the aircraft can be adjusted to exactly what the pilot wants.........
Parmigiano
Senior Airman
Jon, I agree on most content of yor post but I believe you have oversimplified some:
You are not being bombed and could replace loss of machines and pilots because you (US) could afford the luxury to have the war 5000 miles away from your homeland, factories and training centers, and the luxury to have England as logistic base to deploy your stuff in useful range to hit the enemy.
1 - Had you been in 'continental' range your factories would had been hit (remember that USSR had to redeploy all the war production in the eastern part of territory, losing about a year of output) and you could had not run safely the mass production of pilots, planes and other material. Building a Mustang in California in a big and safe facility was much easier and faster than building subassemblies of a FW in small factories and assembling them at night. And of course it was cheaper and faster to build than a Me109, NA had no constraints in the industrialization of the production flow!
Try to put together the parts of a P51 in a cave, transport them at night to the assembly place, bolt the pieces together when you are not interrupted by the alarm siren and you'll see how much the production rate goes down and the cost per unit goes up!
2 - Had UK not been available as 'air carrier', the nazi would had simply been out of practical range, like Boeing plants were for them.
The capability of maintaining numerical superiority has nothing to do with the quality of US fighters, had you produced CR42's or P35 instead of P47 and P51 you could probably have still been able to maintain numerical superiority in spite of the likely higher loss rate.
It is a completely different and non comparable dimension: Germany in BoB could deploy a max of about hundred of medium bombers per mission (and very rarely they had this numbers) and UK had the full RAF force available for defense, the Allied deployed 10 times more of heavy bombers (and on almost routine basis) and faced half of the Luftwaffe (the other half being busy with Russians).
Germany could had NEVER crippled UK production with a bomber offensive (and less than less defeat UK with that), not even without a single Hurri or Spit in the air, simply because they never had enough destruction power to deploy.
Had they won the BoB, the maximum they could had hoped was to force UK to cease hostilities and accept the current (1940) political status in Europe.
UK never had real strategic fuel problems, all that was in short supply was shipped via 'lend-lease'.
JonJGoldberg said:
You are not being bombed and could replace loss of machines and pilots because you (US) could afford the luxury to have the war 5000 miles away from your homeland, factories and training centers, and the luxury to have England as logistic base to deploy your stuff in useful range to hit the enemy.
1 - Had you been in 'continental' range your factories would had been hit (remember that USSR had to redeploy all the war production in the eastern part of territory, losing about a year of output) and you could had not run safely the mass production of pilots, planes and other material. Building a Mustang in California in a big and safe facility was much easier and faster than building subassemblies of a FW in small factories and assembling them at night. And of course it was cheaper and faster to build than a Me109, NA had no constraints in the industrialization of the production flow!
Try to put together the parts of a P51 in a cave, transport them at night to the assembly place, bolt the pieces together when you are not interrupted by the alarm siren and you'll see how much the production rate goes down and the cost per unit goes up!
2 - Had UK not been available as 'air carrier', the nazi would had simply been out of practical range, like Boeing plants were for them.
The capability of maintaining numerical superiority has nothing to do with the quality of US fighters, had you produced CR42's or P35 instead of P47 and P51 you could probably have still been able to maintain numerical superiority in spite of the likely higher loss rate.
JonJGoldberg said:
It is a completely different and non comparable dimension: Germany in BoB could deploy a max of about hundred of medium bombers per mission (and very rarely they had this numbers) and UK had the full RAF force available for defense, the Allied deployed 10 times more of heavy bombers (and on almost routine basis) and faced half of the Luftwaffe (the other half being busy with Russians).
Germany could had NEVER crippled UK production with a bomber offensive (and less than less defeat UK with that), not even without a single Hurri or Spit in the air, simply because they never had enough destruction power to deploy.
Had they won the BoB, the maximum they could had hoped was to force UK to cease hostilities and accept the current (1940) political status in Europe.
UK never had real strategic fuel problems, all that was in short supply was shipped via 'lend-lease'.
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
Parmigiano said:
Good post Parmigano.
I just have to quibble with one point ( I can't help it, I'm a pedant by nature)
Germany was more than able to send over 100 bombers in any one mission. The night blitz on London is the prime example. Each night, for 66 straight nights, 200 or more German bombers flew sorties against the Greater London area. There were multiple 200+ bomber raids during the Battle of Britain.
Germany could of slowed Spitfire and Hurricane production to a trickle, if only for a while, before mid-1940, if they had concentrated effectively on only the aircraft industry. Bombing the Merlin plants at Crew and Derby, the Spitfire factories at Southhampton and Castle Bromwich and the Hurricane factory in Kingstone would have had serious effects on the availability of replacement airframes.
The RAF situation during the Battle of Britain is easily comparable to the Luftwaffe's situation of 1944. It really was the same but on a smaller scale. The RAF were often out-numbered by anything up to 10:1 and managed to secure victory against a far numerically advanced opponent.
Also, the U.S lend-lease act did not materalise until 1941 some months after the Battle of Britain was over. The supplies that Britain was receiving during the Battle of Britain came from the Commonwealth or were bought from other nations.
Also, the U.S lend-lease act did not materalise until 1941 some months after the Battle of Britain was over. The supplies that Britain was receiving during the Battle of Britain came from the Commonwealth or were bought from other nations.
evangilder
"Shooter"
JonJGoldberg said:
Ummm...No flyable A6M? Would you care to wager some money on that?
JonJGoldberg said:
School Games? You are not even worth my time. Go play your flight sim.
Parmigiano
Senior Airman
No Plan,
'the same on a smaller scale', when the 'scale' is so big is not a correct assessment!
And Luftwaffe was constantly outnumbered 10:1 and more considering only fighter vs fighter in the day, plus there were day bombers.
If you add up P51,P47,P38,B17,B24 vs 109 and 190 you easily reach 20-30 and more to 1 in many missions.
If Spits and hurries were always outnumbered 10:1 by 109 there would have been no way for them to stop the bombers, like happened to 109 and 190 in 44-45. Maybe they could had managed it one or two times, but in a 6 months war they would had been annihilated.
Another matter is the fact that, in any case, German bombers were not enough in number and bombload to seriously cripple UK economy.
Even if Germans had optimally managed the bombing, UK could had easily survived until the arrival of the 'Liberty' ships and the Packard Merlins.
The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that without the US the war in 1941 would had been a big stall, with subsequent acceptance of the status-quo. Pending developments on the eastern front, of course.
'the same on a smaller scale', when the 'scale' is so big is not a correct assessment!
And Luftwaffe was constantly outnumbered 10:1 and more considering only fighter vs fighter in the day, plus there were day bombers.
If you add up P51,P47,P38,B17,B24 vs 109 and 190 you easily reach 20-30 and more to 1 in many missions.
If Spits and hurries were always outnumbered 10:1 by 109 there would have been no way for them to stop the bombers, like happened to 109 and 190 in 44-45. Maybe they could had managed it one or two times, but in a 6 months war they would had been annihilated.
Another matter is the fact that, in any case, German bombers were not enough in number and bombload to seriously cripple UK economy.
Even if Germans had optimally managed the bombing, UK could had easily survived until the arrival of the 'Liberty' ships and the Packard Merlins.
The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that without the US the war in 1941 would had been a big stall, with subsequent acceptance of the status-quo. Pending developments on the eastern front, of course.
That I believe too.
At times during the Battle of Britain the RAF interceptors could be out-numbered up to 20:1 also. Small flights of four aircraft would often rise to an opponent tens, even hundreds in size.
The RAF didn't stop the bombing raids against Britain. They caused a sustained increase in damage while production increased. This then out-stripped the German production of it's own aircraft thus creating a balance that was tipping favour of Britain by september 1940. The increasing losses for little strategic or operational value is what led to the cease of grand aerial offensives over Britain rather the massive loss in comparison to the strength of the Luftwaffe.
I disagree that the Luftwaffe lacked the hitting power for a quick hard punch against the RAF and the aerial industry had the RAF been smaller, or less well equipped. The Luftwaffe lacked the strength for a sustained strategic campaign against an increasing RAF strength.
One reason for the RAF success was the German forces were acting on a pinpoint assault. As with land attacks, no matter how large the force if the area of attack is small the enemy can react with equal or larger numbers at the point of the attack - on a whole. As it were, it took the RAF a few weeks to realise it's advantages.
The RAF didn't stop the bombing raids against Britain. They caused a sustained increase in damage while production increased. This then out-stripped the German production of it's own aircraft thus creating a balance that was tipping favour of Britain by september 1940. The increasing losses for little strategic or operational value is what led to the cease of grand aerial offensives over Britain rather the massive loss in comparison to the strength of the Luftwaffe.
I disagree that the Luftwaffe lacked the hitting power for a quick hard punch against the RAF and the aerial industry had the RAF been smaller, or less well equipped. The Luftwaffe lacked the strength for a sustained strategic campaign against an increasing RAF strength.
One reason for the RAF success was the German forces were acting on a pinpoint assault. As with land attacks, no matter how large the force if the area of attack is small the enemy can react with equal or larger numbers at the point of the attack - on a whole. As it were, it took the RAF a few weeks to realise it's advantages.
I believe it owes just as much success to the German Polotical blunders.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
JonJGoldberg said:
Never said they were useless - they will never reproduce 100% reality, even in full motion sims (which I have flown). I've seen a student with no formal flight training follow a PC sim PTS for a private pilot - when he got into a real airplane he did well but we had to work on an induced fear of "real world stimuli" (like not putting enough right rudder in during a power on stall, that imput varies from aircraft to aircraft, no sim designer could ever replicate that). Once he got the real world training he did fine and dismissed many false assumptions that the sim induced upon him. I know of a Pensacola Student who had a very expensive T-34C sim and he used it a s supplement to become one of the top grads from his flight training class; but for every 2 or 3 hors at his sim, he still had at least 1 hour in the real thing. Even myself - I used a PC sim for my Instrument Ticket training - I finished in the minimum time required by the FAA - it was a help, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it...
Take 100 hours in your best sim, program something simple like a Cessna 172 and come out and fly with me - I'll let you do the first landing. I'll wear a crash helmet, you make sure the aircraft insurance is paid up.
Sims (whether its a modern full motion sim or your top of the line home sim with all types of WW2 aircraft programed into it) will give you a basis for that aircraft, but you're not going to be able to intellegently compare notes with someone who actually flew the real thing unless you're there yourself.
- Thread starter
- #38
syscom3
Pacific Historian
I think sometimes we read to much into some of the posts. When I say a "realistic simulator", I referr solely to the flight dynamics modeling. If a three axis simultor can be hooked into the computer modeling, so much the better.
But lets not think that just because someone says that a simulator cant model human emotions to the events, its not accurate.
But lets not think that just because someone says that a simulator cant model human emotions to the events, its not accurate.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
syscom3 said:
Well taken - there are also little variances from aircraft to aircraft of the same type that can't be replicated as well...
JonJGoldberg
Airman 1st Class
I really wasn't trying to oversimplify, I also wasn't trying to point out nuances, I wanted to express what I did...
Yes there is 5,000 mi between the US and Europe. With WW2 tech. a very difficult undertaking... Had the Germans been successful in Britain, maybe the Argentines would have openly supported them with bases in the Americas from which expansion would have been possible... Oh but they couldn't produce enough to supply themselves for the BoB. The BoB was, until the Allied bombings on Germany, the largest aerial assault the world had seen, regardless of the actual number, and easily comparable to Germany's experience at the end of WW2. If I accept your arguments that since the scale of the Allied bombings dwarf that of the German bombings of England, how do you explain the fact that Germany fell under such conditions. After all...
Total U.S. bomb tonnage dropped during:
World War II = 2,057,244 tons
Vietnam War = 7,078,032 tons (3-1/2 times WWII
tonnage)
Bomb tonnage dropped during the Vietnam War amounted to
1,000 lbs. for every man, woman and child in Vietnam (about 14 million at the time).
...the Germans got away easy, relative to the Vietnamese, right? Given this fact, how can you say that the Germans lost due to superior Allied numbers, on the one hand, technical impossibilities on the other, yet the Vietnamese were victorious with nothing? Fascinating! Unless, humm, let me see... Oh, the Vietnamese had no production base to destroy, so the Americans wasted their bombs digging holes nobody wanted, had they done this during WW2, Germany would have had a different fate. You see, to me this would be like playing checkers with an eight year old, who changes the rules, upon discovery of impending doom. After all, the Americans should have killed every Vietnamese person with a 1,000lb present for each, yet that didn't happen. The American bombing strategy in Vietnam was as big of a failure, politics scandal aside, as Germany's was during BoB. My opinion.
...You're right, there are, or two flyable A6Ms, one near you (evangilder, in Chino CA) I believe, but the point was made...
Sorry guys, I got caught up myself I guess with the sim thing, and swung the pendulum too far to the other side. Didn't mean to over-stress the reality thing. I think we largely agree about the serious limitations usefulness of sims vs reality, and upon re-reading our posts seem to be bantering about the line.
Yes there is 5,000 mi between the US and Europe. With WW2 tech. a very difficult undertaking... Had the Germans been successful in Britain, maybe the Argentines would have openly supported them with bases in the Americas from which expansion would have been possible... Oh but they couldn't produce enough to supply themselves for the BoB. The BoB was, until the Allied bombings on Germany, the largest aerial assault the world had seen, regardless of the actual number, and easily comparable to Germany's experience at the end of WW2. If I accept your arguments that since the scale of the Allied bombings dwarf that of the German bombings of England, how do you explain the fact that Germany fell under such conditions. After all...
Total U.S. bomb tonnage dropped during:
World War II = 2,057,244 tons
Vietnam War = 7,078,032 tons (3-1/2 times WWII
tonnage)
Bomb tonnage dropped during the Vietnam War amounted to
1,000 lbs. for every man, woman and child in Vietnam (about 14 million at the time).
...the Germans got away easy, relative to the Vietnamese, right? Given this fact, how can you say that the Germans lost due to superior Allied numbers, on the one hand, technical impossibilities on the other, yet the Vietnamese were victorious with nothing? Fascinating! Unless, humm, let me see... Oh, the Vietnamese had no production base to destroy, so the Americans wasted their bombs digging holes nobody wanted, had they done this during WW2, Germany would have had a different fate. You see, to me this would be like playing checkers with an eight year old, who changes the rules, upon discovery of impending doom. After all, the Americans should have killed every Vietnamese person with a 1,000lb present for each, yet that didn't happen. The American bombing strategy in Vietnam was as big of a failure, politics scandal aside, as Germany's was during BoB. My opinion.
...You're right, there are, or two flyable A6Ms, one near you (evangilder, in Chino CA) I believe, but the point was made...
Sorry guys, I got caught up myself I guess with the sim thing, and swung the pendulum too far to the other side. Didn't mean to over-stress the reality thing. I think we largely agree about the serious limitations usefulness of sims vs reality, and upon re-reading our posts seem to be bantering about the line.
