Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I'm not a 17 year old kid, I'm not a fool, and I'm not ignorant. I've been around a bit, and I dislike being talked down to on this or any other issue, by you or anyone else.
S
......and they had a couple commuter crews overnighting there and I got to drink with the flight attendants, and now I understand about flying!Buuut...
I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night!
Then maybe you better crack out your wallet, get some more flight time and speak from PHYSICAL authority rather than the comforts of your air conditioned office, comfy chair and picturesque computer screen. Some of us have been in the military, flown MANY civilian and military aircraft and sometimes don't take too kindly to armchair generals who come across as knowing better than the rest of us.
Schweik,
I'm going to disagree with part of your comments. First I agree it can be learned, and second I disagree it's the same as learning to spot things at a distance on the ground. Looking at the sky in a scan allows your eyes to focus on nothing, which in turn makes it difficult for long range tally's. Eyes spot movement first or most easily, but a bug spot, glare, dust, etc., all make it difficult to get and maintain a long range tally. Over the ocean it can be more difficult due to no discernible horizon at times. Add boredom, the mind wanders and again it's easy to miss a guy at you visual limit. Trust me I used to teach this.
Cheers,
Biff
Ok fair enough, I'll take your word for it - spotting a tiny dot on a computer screen is nothing like spotting an aircraft. I'll try to make a list of things I thought I did learn from flight sims in a follow up post.
S
I served in the Military myself - you seem to be making assumptions about my life that have no reflection on reality. I too, live in the physical world, friend. I'm not some overgrown kid living in my parents basement just because I played a flight Sim a little bit. Please pause for a moment and consider what you are actually saying here. And what I actually wrote in this forum and didn't write.
I was not speaking from "authority", physical or otherwise, or claiming that Sims trump real world evidence. This whole segue and all the outraged posts sprang from one comment that I'd noticed a pattern in Sims which matched what someone else described from a poll of Aces. Someone who I gather is a prominent Aviation writer. I just said his post reminded me of some things I'd seen in the Sim.
I never claimed to know better than anyone else here. All I ever claimed was my own opinion.
I never once said that a Flight Sim is the same as air combat. Not in this thread or any other. So I don't know why anyone would make the claim that I did. I said you can learn something from a Sim which is a very different argument - and one which I stand by.
But I also stipulated right out of the gate that you should take anything to do with Sims with a grain of salt and feel free to dismiss it out of hand.
So I really don't understand the anitpathy over this issue. I can only guess that there may have been previous debates about it which were a lot less nuanced than I am being here, because you seem to be reading a lot into what I wrote.
S
Adler (and other pilots) I read in a book that pilots in WW2 RAF at altitude consistently misjudged altitude of other aircraft at long distance. Aircraft at the same altitude always being thought to be lower by 1 to 2,000ft. is this correct?It isn't...
Sadly, the "Combat Simulators" (aka games) are only as good as the program's algorithms.
In IL-2, for example, it's been proven that some types under-perform while others tend to have an "edge".
Example: it's been seen plenty of times, where an IL-2 will overtake an Fw190A-8 in a climb. There's also plenty of instances where attacking an AI bomber in a cloudbank will see you get nailed by a gunner.
The damage models are questionable, as in many cases, a mauled aircraft will continue to perform well, especially if it's piloted by AI. Some, like IL-2 don't provide split brakes for types that were so equipped.
Sims also don't provide environmental situations, like crosswind landing (maybe Microsofts Flight Simulator series might, but not Combat sims) or varying wind conditions at altitude.
What they do provide, is a means to learn about the various types and give an opportunity for a person (or teams) to challenge one another and kill hours of time. It was also a great way to blow off steam after a crappy day at work.
I've seen the progression of Sim quality since I first started with Airwarrior (and it's Air Arena) back in the late 80's. Then came Jane's WW2 Fighters - which actually had several Aces onboard for the development and still one of the best Sims out there.
Along the way, was Microsoft's Combat Flight Simulator series, the best was CFS3.
And then the IL-2: Sturmovik franchise, my favorites are still Forgotten Battles and Pacific Fighters.
But in the end, they are still Sims and come up way short of real flying.
From what I remember in the thread that 80% of the people shot down never saw their attacker, he brought up the flight sim thing to simply raise the possibilities that he'd observed.Just stumbled on this thread, and my blood pressure is up!
From what I remember in the thread that 80% of the people shot down never saw their attacker, he brought up the flight sim thing to simply raise the possibilities that he'd observed.
From there it kind of turned into a back and forth thing and he just kind locked into arguing his point, and here we are beating a long dead horse
In several of the Combat Sims (Jane's, CFS3, IL-2), the ID Tags can be switched off (and icons switched off in the map), which allows for a great deal of realism with the fact that distant aircraft appear as spots - assuming they are above the horizon. To prevent a bounce, keep your head on a swivel.
And during those types missions, I used to take advantage of camo and conditions to wreak havoc on my adversaries.
Adler (and other pilots) I read in a book that pilots in WW2 RAF at altitude consistently misjudged altitude of other aircraft at long distance. Aircraft at the same altitude always being thought to be lower by 1 to 2,000ft. is this correct?
I will, but I would think a modern fighter has a "gizmo" to tell you how high everything is even before you can see it.Biff would probably be the better person to answer this. He is the resident Fighter Pilot of the forum. All my combat flight time as an aircrew member was usually below 100 ft. AGL.
Having said that, there are all sorts of visual illusions that can occur that would make this difficult. Also the further off an object is, makes it more difficult to determine it's altitude.
I will, but I would think a modern fighter has a "gizmo" to tell you how high everything is even before you can see it.