I was sent here from Aviation subforum, because I referred to sim experience there. Apparently it's not allowed to refer to sims, pretty much no matter the context. I consider this policy to be erroneous, and I'll try to support my stance here.
1. Raw numbers have no soul.
We can read spec-sheets all day long, but what does it mean to outmaneuver some plane in a dive? What does it mean to be fast? How relevant are maximum climb numbers often achieved at take-off power with closed radiator?
If it was allowed to refer to sims, like IL2, we could test some of the wilder claims people are prone to make sooner or later and simply dismiss them as unrealistic.
2. Engine management.
For example, 190 pilots used to joke that in a P-47 the pilot has no time for flying. He has to manage the engine all the time. If it was possible to refer to sims, we could show piloting one plane differed from another also on this level. Then it could mean that an "average" performer could be favored by pilots, because they were not distracted while in combat.
3. Cockpit layout and visibility.
Lots of work and it's all done already. For example, one person thought that the visibility in a Corsair was comparable to that of a Spit. It's very easy to simply show how it looked from the inside. 100% perfect? Probably not, but who cares, it's still very useful to "sit" in a "cockpit" and look around.
4. Tactics.
We can test tactics. For example I was told that attacking B-17 in a Zeke is close to impossible. I could try it out and write how it worked. Not 100% accurate, but telling nonetheless, especially if it worked against very good AI gunners in IL-2.
The same with Thach Weave. We can try this stuff out! Why not?
5. Internal structures.
War Thunder models internal structures of the planes and it shows them too. You can just look at a model and see where fuel tanks are, where the main spar goes, where are the armor plates, radiators and so on. Useful, not?
I was sent here from Aviation subforum, because I referred to sim experience there. Apparently it's not allowed to refer to sims, pretty much no matter the context. I consider this policy to be erroneous, and I'll try to support my stance here.
1. Raw numbers have no soul.
We can read spec-sheets all day long, but what does it mean to outmaneuver some plane in a dive? What does it mean to be fast? How relevant are maximum climb numbers often achieved at take-off power with closed radiator?
If it was allowed to refer to sims, like IL2, we could test some of the wilder claims people are prone to make sooner or later and simply dismiss them as unrealistic.
2. Engine management.
For example, 190 pilots used to joke that in a P-47 the pilot has no time for flying. He has to manage the engine all the time. If it was possible to refer to sims, we could show piloting one plane differed from another also on this level. Then it could mean that an "average" performer could be favored by pilots, because they were not distracted while in combat.
3. Cockpit layout and visibility.
Lots of work and it's all done already. For example, one person thought that the visibility in a Corsair was comparable to that of a Spit. It's very easy to simply show how it looked from the inside. 100% perfect? Probably not, but who cares, it's still very useful to "sit" in a "cockpit" and look around.
4. Tactics.
We can test tactics. For example I was told that attacking B-17 in a Zeke is close to impossible. I could try it out and write how it worked. Not 100% accurate, but telling nonetheless, especially if it worked against very good AI gunners in IL-2.
The same with Thach Weave. We can try this stuff out! Why not?
5. Internal structures.
War Thunder models internal structures of the planes and it shows them too. You can just look at a model and see where fuel tanks are, where the main spar goes, where are the armor plates, radiators and so on. Useful, not?
Sims are not reality, they are not 100% accurate, but it does not mean they are 100% useless!
1. Raw numbers have no soul.
We can read spec-sheets all day long, but what does it mean to outmaneuver some plane in a dive? What does it mean to be fast? How relevant are maximum climb numbers often achieved at take-off power with closed radiator?
If it was allowed to refer to sims, like IL2, we could test some of the wilder claims people are prone to make sooner or later and simply dismiss them as unrealistic.
2. Engine management.
For example, 190 pilots used to joke that in a P-47 the pilot has no time for flying. He has to manage the engine all the time. If it was possible to refer to sims, we could show piloting one plane differed from another also on this level. Then it could mean that an "average" performer could be favored by pilots, because they were not distracted while in combat.
3. Cockpit layout and visibility.
Lots of work and it's all done already. For example, one person thought that the visibility in a Corsair was comparable to that of a Spit. It's very easy to simply show how it looked from the inside. 100% perfect? Probably not, but who cares, it's still very useful to "sit" in a "cockpit" and look around.
4. Tactics.
We can test tactics. For example I was told that attacking B-17 in a Zeke is close to impossible. I could try it out and write how it worked. Not 100% accurate, but telling nonetheless, especially if it worked against very good AI gunners in IL-2.
The same with Thach Weave. We can try this stuff out! Why not?
5. Internal structures.
War Thunder models internal structures of the planes and it shows them too. You can just look at a model and see where fuel tanks are, where the main spar goes, where are the armor plates, radiators and so on. Useful, not?
I was sent here from Aviation subforum, because I referred to sim experience there. Apparently it's not allowed to refer to sims, pretty much no matter the context. I consider this policy to be erroneous, and I'll try to support my stance here.
1. Raw numbers have no soul.
We can read spec-sheets all day long, but what does it mean to outmaneuver some plane in a dive? What does it mean to be fast? How relevant are maximum climb numbers often achieved at take-off power with closed radiator?
If it was allowed to refer to sims, like IL2, we could test some of the wilder claims people are prone to make sooner or later and simply dismiss them as unrealistic.
2. Engine management.
For example, 190 pilots used to joke that in a P-47 the pilot has no time for flying. He has to manage the engine all the time. If it was possible to refer to sims, we could show piloting one plane differed from another also on this level. Then it could mean that an "average" performer could be favored by pilots, because they were not distracted while in combat.
3. Cockpit layout and visibility.
Lots of work and it's all done already. For example, one person thought that the visibility in a Corsair was comparable to that of a Spit. It's very easy to simply show how it looked from the inside. 100% perfect? Probably not, but who cares, it's still very useful to "sit" in a "cockpit" and look around.
4. Tactics.
We can test tactics. For example I was told that attacking B-17 in a Zeke is close to impossible. I could try it out and write how it worked. Not 100% accurate, but telling nonetheless, especially if it worked against very good AI gunners in IL-2.
The same with Thach Weave. We can try this stuff out! Why not?
5. Internal structures.
War Thunder models internal structures of the planes and it shows them too. You can just look at a model and see where fuel tanks are, where the main spar goes, where are the armor plates, radiators and so on. Useful, not?
Sims are not reality, they are not 100% accurate, but it does not mean they are 100% useless!