Schweiks Sim vs. Real Flying Debate Thread

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Havent read all the thread guys, but enough to get the drift.

As an ex-PWO (principal Warfare officer), I did some operational training at the RAN's Tac warfare school at Watsons Bay in Sydney. The building is a 9 storey top secret structure used for "playing games". Not the PC based stuff that you guys are talking about. It was a series of interconnected rooms in which flight simulators, ships bridge and ops room analogs and a referees control panel in a separate space within the building. The computers were there mostly to simulate the sensors, with manual overrides for the refs to feed in things like combat damage or weather state.

We used this gigantic toy to trst operational procedures and tactics, but the fly boys just had to get out into the real world and test the theories that we developed in that place. For example, we used the tac warfare school to work out how best to deliver a simulated attack against the USS Constellation in advance of one of the RIMPAC exercise We determined the best methos of attack with our A-4s was to use them as decoys, whilst the land based f-111s delivered a high speed low altitude attack using stand off weaponary. Our guys had to
come in as low as they could to try and blur the radar signature. At one point the the f-111 and the A-4 had to cross flight paths to confuse the "enemy". Then the two groups separated and confused the DCAP for the CV. Both forces made out they were attacking , once our AEW was able to determine that the defenders had taken to the bait, we could release the attack code to the f-111s and off they went.
The Tac warfare simulators were fine to work out the operational procedures we would use, but the jocks, even the ships involved had to practice I the real world to perfect the various techniques. Playing computer games with a 9 storey building, with human referees able to alter the sim parameters was a lot of fun to be honest. I don't know that you would get that with a home based PC.
 
That's where sims (flying, driving, etc.) falls short - the feel.

In a sim, when flying, you can't feel when you're on the edge of a stall in a hard turn - it just makes a "rattling" sound and the view gets a little wobbly, but where's the feel of the threshold? I've done stalls in various types (Ercoupe, 172, Cub, Bonanza, Cherokee, etc.) and while each has it's own threshold, you know that feeling and when to react.

Same for a driving sim - I used to push my '79 BMW 320i to it's limits when I was carving up canyon roads in the area. It was fully equipped with high performance lowering springs, stressbars, sway bars, Koni struts and so on. I could literally steer that E21 in a hard corner by the gas pedal and that required "feel". If it was on the threshold of turning too hard in a corner, you could feel it in the rear-end and the steering wheel - a sim will not provide that.
 
GrauGeist said:
That's where sims (flying, driving, etc.) falls short - the feel.
you could feel it in the rear-end and the steering wheel - a sim will not provide that.
Click to expand...


Of course, the Sims have many limits. Many, many limits - not just the feel or the lack of mortal danger or the difference between a computer monitor or a window. The debate seems to hinge on the one hand, on one group of people pointing out the obvious limitations of Sims, which to me says they can't give you everything, as a way to shout down the people (like myself) who dare to suggest that they can give you anything.

It feels a little dishonest to be frank.

As do the assumptions that somebody who plays a computer game once in a while (or did at some point in their life) has no other real life pursuits, or spends most of their money on a computer, and etc.

I know a lot of gamers these days do use VR or at least Track IR setups, and quite a few have rudder pedals and other fancy gear, but I don't. I have a $25 joystick and two monitors. The biggest expense I incurred was the graphic card but as someone else pointed out, that is kind of a once in 3 or 4 year purchase. I definitely spend more on my car and I don't race.

Just because it's not 100% or even 80% of a real experience, doesn't mean it's nothing or worthless. The real question is what can you learn from a Sim and what can't you. How useful is it.

I've enumerated the kind of things I learned from the Sim, while repeatedly stipulating that it is not the equivalent of real flying or real warfare. How could it be? But it is a tool you can learn from, I have tried to be as diplomatic as possible but I think that is obvious.

S
 
Already posted some time ago.
A Friend of mine that made the last course on piston fighters, G-59s and Mustangs, very early '60s, told me an amusing little story about his training.
One Colleague of his was having an instructional session in a Link-Trainer, something like this I imagine


(source: You tube )

a very crude one in comparison with one of today, like a Paleolithic chopper to an M.16.
The Chief Instructor, from outside, set the instruments in a position that simulated a flat spin and started to shout trough the intercom:
"You are in a flat spin!You are in a flat spin!You are in a flat spin!Jump! Jump! Jump!"

The pilot inside opened the canopy and parachuted himself out of the linkTrainer.

The poor fella had to pay drinks for a whole month at the Officer's Mess.
 
tyrodtom said:
I think some don't realize how much pulling Gs, or being way off from horizontal can effect a persons perception of whats going on.
Click to expand...
Keeping your head on straight while earth and sky gyrate wildly, your vision grays (or reds) out, your helmet weighs a ton, sweat runs into your eyes, and your "long johns" squeeze your nether regions while you're trying to keep that tiny dot in sight over your shoulder or overhead takes practice. Practice a PC sim is never going to provide.
It's not all up close and personal like the shots you see in Topgun. Your opponent goes from in your face to a tiny dot in the periphery of your vision in a few seconds, and if you're in the back seat the aft hemisphere is your responsibility to keep track of the opponent(s) and keep your pilot informed, plus backstop him/her by monitoring speed/altitude/AOA for energy bleed and activate any ECM that may be required.
On a bomb run it's your responsibility to call airspeed, altitudes, and dive angle while your pilot focusses on bomb aiming and drift correction. A little less critical in today's world of HUDs and helmet mounted aiming devices, but still, you are the antidote to target fixation.
Cheers,
Wes
 
Last edited:
XBe02Drvr said:
ROGER THAT!
Click to expand...

Given the choice, I think most, or perhaps all of us would prefer to learn about flying fighters by flying fighters. Whether WW1 or II or modern Jets. It would probably be more fun than I've ever had with my clothes on. Or at least in the top ten.

But most of us never will. I'm pretty certain I won't. So we rely on books, interviews, TV shows & documentaries, videos... and yeah also Sims.

It occurs to me that learning about air combat from reading books is also very limited, and yet I don't see the visceral criticism of the concept of reading about combat or flying. Of course the reality is far beyond anything you can get out of a book. But for most of us, the book is all we will get.

In my opinion, a Sim - including a desktop Sim game, is not necessarily any more limited than a book. In both cases, books or Sim, the quality of the data being presented is what matters. I have probably 200 books on WW2 aircraft and I suspect many here have more than I do. we all know there are plenty of really bad, and in fact virtually useless books on WW2 planes out there. And there are a few good ones - out of the 200 books I have probably 15 of them are really useful. But all of them give you something, if only the visual representation. Some are just far more useful than others - and it's the same for Sims.

And they will only continue to get better because the general knowledge is spreading, largely thanks to the internet.

S
 

Schweik,

I own probably the same amount of aviation books you do, but they are not the same ones I started with. The more immersed I've become the different the books I like. Or in other words I might have 15 I really like and use, it doesn't mean the others are bad just that they are aimed at a different target reader than myself. I look at it as an internal way to gauge my change in knowledge or what it is that I'm looking for.

Books are generally written by those who fly, design, or build or by writers that interview them. You get first hand accounts. While I own IL2 I would bet that not one of the designers actually spoke with a designer, pilot or adversary that flew or fought them. I like IL2 but warn that what we would take away from it may or may not be accurate, it depends on what it is.

Just an opinion and nothing more.

Cheers,
Biff
 

No doubt - I was not suggesting I had more books than anyone else here, to the contrary like I said - I figure I'm pretty typical in this forum in terms of the size of my little aviation library, and by no means the most well read either. Some of you have real flying experience to boost what you know from books. The rest of us are mainly stuck with the books.

I don't rely on Il2, so much as it is just an ancillary to the books and articles etc., which can help visualize what you read. Rather the way they used the simulators on that TV show "Dogfights" to illustrate what the pilots were talking about.

I do believe they did consult with some pilots though, I thought I had read some articles to that effect anyway. I know some RAF pilots tried the game a few years after it came out (but as they were still kind of ongoing in development from version to version), I think Neville Duke was one of them. This was a while back though & I couldn't find the article.

That doesn't mean that much necessarily, I've talked to a half dozen or so WWII Aces but it doesn't make me an expert either.

But the quality of a given Sim (or Sim game) varies just like the quality of the books. The Sims seem to get better year to year.

S
 
BiffF15 said:
And things never work as well in the jet as they do in the sim...
Click to expand...

Many things don't quite work the same in the simulator as in real life.

The tactical situations are contrived: How often did Allies and Axis meet in the air in equal numbers and with essentially equal quality pilots?
As you stated, aeroplanes work as they were designed. There are no manufacturing, maintenance, or supply problems.
They don't get over-G'ed and bent or war-weary.

Besides the accuracy of modelling, there are other issues that are somewhat harder to control.

EVERYONE flies the latest and greatest.
The virtual skies are full of Shiden-Kai's, Me 109K, FW 190D, Spitfire XIV, Tempests and such.
There don't tend to be a lot of tired old A6M2 that are more suitable for a Kamikaze assignment.
That is the "Historical" scenario in Combat Flight Simulators.

WW2 has been fought in the virtual skies for 20 years now and there is still no end in sight!

- Ivan.
 
While it's true that they don't really simulate maintenance issues, it isn't true (necessarily) that it's all about Shiden Kais and Fw 190Ds and so forth. That is what you see in certain games but not the ones I was referring to necessarily. Those would be typically the "Arcade" servers or quasi arcade games like WarThunder.

The more "realistic" Historical (and especially the "Full Switch") Il2 servers tended to have (I used past tense because I haven't played online in a while) more emphasis on the earlier war and less glamorous aircraft, specific to a certain time and place, and the best planes would usually be limited. For example in Il2 there might be a 1941 Russian Front scenario with 6 Yak 1 available, 5 Hurricanes, 10 LaGG 3 and the rest I-16s and I-153s and various bombers on the Soviet side. If you weren't one of the lucky first few to pick a Yak 1 you were stuck with what was left. And you had to figure out how to make that work.

Il2 did also have some 'field mod' aircraft which were typically of inferior quality, usually featuring less powerful engines.

From what I have seen in the modern incarnation of Il2 most of the combat seems to be with LaGG-3s vs Bf 109E, Bf 110, Stuka etc. I.e. not super glamorous.

Pilot quality also does vary. In those little arenas, you would have "squadrons" coming in with people used to flying together, often on the German side (though by no means limited to them). This is partly what I was alluding to upthread regarding the effect of radios. The equivalent of radios in online Sims is Comm software, no doubt much more reliable and better than the actual 1940's era radios (which makes it unrealistic), but similar in effect. If you had 30 people who didn't know each other milling about on one side, and 12 people show up who are in the same group, used to flying together, experienced at using the Sim (which does have a steep learning curve), familiar with period tactics, and most importantly - communicating on the 'radio", be prepared to witness a very one-sided slaughter of the 30 guys flying around, unless they could rally and start working together (rare) or another more organized squadron showed up on their side.
 
I should add in Il2 for the AI, (i.e. when playing off-line), you can set the AI experience level to "Ace", Veteran, Average, or "Rookie". There is a big difference in those settings. I'm probably not that good at the game but if I go up against AI planes set to "Ace" experience level with roughly equivalent wartime aircraft I find it pretty challenging.

If you want to play a more realistic early war scenario you would set Allied pilots to "Rookie" and "Average" and maybe just a few "Veteran", while Axis - or at least specifically German or Japanese pilots would be set to a mix of "Average", "Veteran" and "Ace". That makes it much harder.

The AI is pretty simple but it does use tactical doctrines from the War, such as you read about in books, and will fly to the strengths of the aircraft. Pilots will work together very efficiently as a team and use techniques which are effective against your aircraft. Like I said, set to "Ace" level it definitely gives me a hard time.
 
Hello Schweik,

As I see it, games like War Thunder are as you describe it: Arcade games. Yes, they do try to represent flight dynamics, but since I don't play them, I don't know the quality of representation. The "Realism" aspect is probably closer to the old Crimson Skies game. The idea is to make things "Fair" but real life often is not fair. Some countries such as Italy for example never did have a really great fighter by late-war standards (not that they needed one past 1943). When the Kawasaki Ki 61 becomes selectable as an American fighter, a game has lost all respect as far as I am concerned.
They also apparently have a JATO option to gain altitude quickly to avoid suffering through a boring climb to altitude!

I have played IL2 a few times and still have it installed on one machine. CFS, CFS2, and CFS3 and possibly FS98 and FS2000 also live on the same machine. I find these days that I spend the most time with the original Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator. The graphics are mediocre, but I am really more interested in the flight dynamics and CFS has a lot of features I am still trying to figure out. The stock flight models are pretty bad, but you can always tune things if you are not satisfied with the original.
Trying to figure out how the simulator works has been the greatest driver for me to learn more about how things work in the real world.


Regarding Pilot Quality: I don't think we are discussing the same thing.
I was referring to the generally high level of training of German Pilots at the beginning of the war with Russia or the vastly superior training of British and American Pilots as versus Japanese or Germans at the end of the war.

Consider that dominance by the Allies was so great that there was simply no need for camouflage by the end of the war.

- Ivan.
 
Ivan1GFP said:
Hello Schweik,

...
Trying to figure out how the simulator works has been the greatest driver for me to learn more about how things work in the real world.
Click to expand...

Well that alone is probably a good thing...


Yes, I think we were actually discussing the same thing. What I was saying is that Il2 allows you to set pilot skill at 1-4, 1 being pretty pathetic, 4 being quite dangerous. This, in turn, allows you to play the game offline at least, with equivalent breakdown of pilot training to a specific period. In other words, if you were simulating the Early War on the Russian front, perhaps you have a lot of pilots rated 1 or 2 and maybe a few at 3 on the Soviet side, while you can have a bunch of 2, 3, and 4 level pilots on the German side. That would definitely make it a lot harder for the Russians in their I-16s.

Conversely, if you wanted to depict say Germany in late 1944, you might have 2,3 and a few 4s on the Allied side, and a lot of 1s and 2s, with just a few 4s left on the German side.

Or an even shorter way of saying it is, you can within the limitations of the game simulate wide or marginal disparities in pilot experience.


Similarly, even playing online, you do also see these same disparities, usually with the people who fly together in groups in online-"Squadrons", most of whom (at least back when I played) happened to be playing the German or Axis side usually.

S
 
I was given a track day out at the Nurburgring as a present the year before last. So just as rough guide to the track layout and experience i bought the latest Gran Turismo game on my PS4. The game developers proudly stated how they had been to the actual track with laser guided precision instruments to map out and recreate every corner, straight, bump or gradient of the track to give the gamer the most realistic experience of a real track to date. Now, i know what your probably thinking, mastering the Nurburgring on a computer game is nothing like actually driving the track in a car. Im only using my hands and fingers pushing buttons and my feet are totally redundant. So i wasn't expecting to become the next Lewis Hamilton! But at least i thought i could learn the layout of the track. Get familiar with all the corners, the racing line and how fast to go, when to brake, turning into the corner correctly etc etc.... So anyway, i got pretty damn good at this game and was hugely confident that when i got onto the track for real i would at least know what to expect. WRONG! After a month of practice every day on my console mastering the bends, corners, lines etc, it did me absolutely no good whatsoever. The difference between simulation and reality was huge. Now i know a/c sims are a little different, and as a training tool before actual flight they can be very useful. But no matter how good the computer program there is just no substitute for the real thing. One instructor pilot i talked to was appalled by the poor standard of trainees (who while in the simulator, taking off and landing in between long periods of autopilot and monitoring instruments was fine) But when it came to actually taking control of the aircraft when a genuine problem or emergency emerged, the student pilots reacted poorly or simply didnt react at all because they had no knowledge of basic flight. Old school flying instead of todays fly by wire, where the pilots on average actually take control of the aircraft for ten mins max on two or ten hour flight. My point is, history has proved many circumstances simply cannot be recreated or taught in a simulator. A good pilot must have at least a basic grasp of manually flying an aircraft in real world conditions. Technology as good as it is, can also create problems that nobody could have foreseen. If some young pilots had had more hands on experience of real flying instead of just sitting back staring at a digital control panel and letting the autopilot do all the work then a lot of people might still have their family members here today. Simulation is simply that, a simulation of real world events/actions. I also believe it gives the person a false sense of security relying too heavily on the premise that the computer wont let the aircraft crash or get into difficulty. Sadly as we know, that's exactly what happens sometimes. And the outcome relies hugely then on the shoulders of the senior officer in the cockpit. I know what kind of pilot i would want flying me in that kind of a situation. An old school flyer who got his wings by actually flying an aircraft and who has passion and experience of flight. And not the new generation switch on the autopilot as soon as the wheels leave the ground and when disaster strikes they are frozen in fear and confusion because they dont know how to do such a basic thing as being able to take back manual control. Mankind is relying evermore on AI to do the jobs human beings used to do. The problem is when the AI can no longer function because of an error, unlike a human being, it just switches off and says "im no longer in control, here you have the aircraft and figure out whats wrong!" Its a double edged sword in a way.
 

If you were an experienced racer it would have been a small but useful benefit. F1 drivers use sims to learn stuff like engine management systems and starting procedures. Nürburgring Nordschleife is notoriously difficult to learn, like the Isle of Man. You would probably get the same benefit watching a video repeatedly at a lap speed you could reasonably expect to go. When I raced motorcycles it took me a day of practice (10 laps) and 3 races (15 laps) to get within 0.5 to 1 second of the class lap record. However that is the club class lap record. One time at Donnington park I was racing 2 top class GP racers on the same bike (they were practicing for the pro AM) club class is 2 seconds a lap slower than the top guys on the same bike lol. I have no idea where that 2 seconds comes from, that's why I am not a GP racer.
 
Following the comments exchanged in this thread has been very informative. Interesting to note how the use of Sims and Air Training has progressed in the Commercial Airline field. I had the pleasure of witnessing a training session in a DC-10 Simulator. I couldn't believe the things they could do. However, it couldn't replace Air Time Training. The Sim experience did better prepare the pilot in transition to new aircraft without risk of accident. I am sure it was less expensive also. Airlines from all over the world sent pilots to North West Airlines for their noted Sim Training Programs.
Following a career in Commercial Aviation Marketing and Sales I am convinced the two types of training go hand in hand.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
spicmart
S
Vickers Wellington vs. Warwick
Replies
6
Views
524
SaparotRob
WWI Aces Flying WWII Planes
Replies
17
Views
1K
Admiral Beez
A
N
The Great P-47 Range Debate on you tube now.
4 5 6
Replies
105
Views
8K
Holtzauge
Sakai Saburo Vs Sugita Sho-ichi
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
4K
GrauGeist
Menu
Log in
Register