Throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Discussion in 'IL-2 Sturmovik Pilot's Lounge' started by bakters, Dec 21, 2015.

  1. bakters

    bakters Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2015
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    8
    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!
     
  2. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,198
    Likes Received:
    784
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt - I told you to discuss your sims here because some of the gibberish you were spouting on the other threads were flat out BS. If you have a problem with the way this form is run then LEAVE!!! If you continue to make sarcastic comments I WILL BAN YOU!!! I'm going to refer you to this again because it seems it didn't sink in the first time...

    Okay, to avoid any confusion around here, there are a few rules that must be followed:

    1. NEVER disparage anyone's service to their country. Call him a putz, tell him he's full of crap, whatever. But insulting anyone's military service will be grounds for immediate banning. There will be no appeal.

    2. The administrators and moderators run a fairly tight ship. We do let some banter go on for a bit, but when any one of us tells you to settle down, just do it. Do not pick a fight with any one of them, because they stand pretty united, and you WILL lose.

    3. If you have a problem, question or beef, you can PM any one of us for assistance, if it is handled with respect.

    4. Disagreements will happen from time to time and some of these debates can get heated. The personal attacks are a sign that your facts or data are weak, or you are not doing a good job at expressing your point of view. This should not turn into insults and personal attacks. Warnings will be issued for infractions.

    5. If you decide to start a fight with someone, be prepared to take your licks. This is the World Wide Web, the new "old west" and it can get rough on the web at times. Don't be thin-skinned. We will watch for this kind of activity and do our best to tone it down before it gets out of hand, but mods/admins can not be everywhere, all the time.

    Please take some time reading through some threads and get a feel for the place. Use the search function to look for threads of interest or if you have a question. There have been a lot of topics discussed here and some of your questions may already be answered. Plus reading through some of the threads will give you a better idea of who the people are and what subjects they know well.

    Enjoy, have fun and be respectful. Any questions, feel free to ask.


    http://ww2aircraft.net/forum/basic/ground-rules-folks-7159.html
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. pbehn

    pbehn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,231
    Likes Received:
    411
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The P 47 must be one of the most joked about aircraft in WW2, i think just because of its size and looks, however its record speaks for itself.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,198
    Likes Received:
    784
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    Engine Management - evidently our friend hasn't a clue about operating a REAL aircraft engine. The Fw 190 did have an early automatic mixture control system that was used by Mooney aircraft years later, aside from that engine management of a P-47 was little different than any other radial engine fighter of the period. :rolleyes:
     
  5. GrauGeist

    GrauGeist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    15,185
    Likes Received:
    2,027
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Public Safety Automotive Technician
    Location:
    Redding, California
    Home Page:
    Nooooo...nobody would ever make fun of the "seven ton milk bottle", would they? :lol:
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Aaron Brooks Wolters

    Aaron Brooks Wolters Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Messages:
    15,719
    Likes Received:
    339
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Auto Restoration
    Location:
    Abingdon, VA.
    Make fun of it................................yes. Respect................................................................YES.
     
  7. pbehn

    pbehn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,231
    Likes Received:
    411
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I think people do make jokes about the opposition and the P 47 attracted a lot of jokes. I would say such a joke has no bearing on reality, more a sign of respect than anything else.
     
  8. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,198
    Likes Received:
    784
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    I don't know - after reading some of the posts from the "original contributor," anything is possible!
     
  9. Marcel

    Marcel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    Messages:
    6,976
    Likes Received:
    570
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Bioinformatician
    Location:
    Dordrecht
    On topic: I agree somewhat with the topic starter that Sims can give some insight into flying for people who don't fly. When I had my first flying lesson, my instructor told me he could tell I played FLightSim as I had the right reflexes already.
    Having said that, one should wonder how accurate a flightsim is, especially IL-2 as it is a game first, a Sim later.
    So for feeling somewhat what it is like, yes (you'll notice you fall out off the sky if your corner is too tight), but nothing more than that.
     
  10. vikingBerserker

    vikingBerserker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    24,064
    Likes Received:
    655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Korporate Kontrolleur
    Location:
    South Carolina
    I will say some SIMs are great practice for flying, not as good as actually piloting the aircraft but it does allow you to help practice the routine.

    In regards to military aircraft SIMs its only as good as the programming and I think in order to accurately program it you have to fly the aircraft being programmed.
     
  11. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,198
    Likes Received:
    784
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    Flight sims do give you a good basic perspective. Marcel's experience echoes many other who played on a sim and jumped into a real aircraft - they provide a basic feel. When I was working on my instrument rating I used to hit my flight sim for hours practicing approaches and it made my check ride really easy, but then again, instrument flying is based on course precision and published procedures.

    Without the external stimuli, one will never get the real perspective on how to fly a real aircraft. The multi million dollar full motion sims are very close if you're flying large aircraft, but even with those, there are limitations.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. VALENGO

    VALENGO Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    404
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    engineer
    Location:
    Zárate city, Argentina
    Home Page:
    When I was giving my son and my daughter their first lessons of car driving she needed her time to learn and think, meanwhile he started driving like an adult average driver in his very first time. Immediately I said: of course, you have thousands of hours of drive simulation in your Play Station, but your sister doesn´t play at all!.

    I work in the nuclear industry, been 17 years in control room and I can say for myself that training in a simulator enhances incredibly your skills and your perception.

    As a free time gamer, not involved in real aviation, I can note differences in handling between diferent planes when I play. So, I suppose that a PC game could be better than nothing when talking about performance and other issues referred to aircrafts. I have read that Maddox is aeronautical engineer, their models has to be reasonably good. Obviously a real pilot´s word has more weight than a gamer´s one!.
     
  13. bobbysocks

    bobbysocks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    3,809
    Likes Received:
    181
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    #13 bobbysocks, Jan 20, 2016
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2016
    having played some pretty good ww2 combat flight and other sims over the past 7 years and also being a pilot i will weigh in here.

    1) you absolutely cannot be of the understanding that the flight models portrayed in these sims is accurate. some get really close but those are generally GA sims where you are flying a Cessna 150, cub, etc. and done in a single player mode where you do not have connection issues. dev of these games have to sacrifice parts of the flight model and some have no clue what to even look at. all you have to do is go to that specific game's forum and read the posts by players. some of them will actually do some research and tell you that the turn rate is off, speed is slow/fast....same with rate of climb...and the list goes on. they will tell you some planes are turn and burn and others are zoom and boom. the real fact is in the game they are that way...in real life it wasn't. p51s could turn with 109s and 190s with out a problem but in several of the games you sealed your doom if you tried turning with a german fighter. some devs are totally biased and give the ac of their nation a little embellishment when it comes to firepower and flight models.

    2) it is a money making scheme. as such realism is skewed to enhance fascination. to be able to get online and get 15 kills in one hour is absurd. that alone shows you something is deeply amiss. only about 5 percent of American pilots made ace and those who did, accomplished that during 300 hours of missions...and some took 2 tours to get to be a double or triple ace. 95 percent of the pilots flew the same number of hours and had less than 4 kills and some did not have any. i have yet to meet any sim pilot who has been playing for more than a week and not made ace several times over. to keep things interesting and competitive things are dummied down...nerfed is the gamer term. 109Es are able to mix it up with 47D and 51Ds with no problem. it is designed that way so entry level players do not lose interest and quit playing. they still get beat but there is enough of a glimmer of hope to keep them going.

    in this forum we have some extremely knowledgeable people....who are engineers, historians, pilots, long time ww2 aviation buffs. some of these people eat, breath, and dream ww2 ac or did it once in their life and still hold that knowledge. some of them have actually flown some of the planes.....if you are trying to get to the bottom of how things were...this is a pretty good crowd to furnish this info. to fly war thunder and base your knowledge on that is folly.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. VALENGO

    VALENGO Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    404
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    engineer
    Location:
    Zárate city, Argentina
    Home Page:
    #14 VALENGO, Jan 21, 2016
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2016
    Well, the word of a real pilot does not admit discussion. When I played online (some years ago) I was aware of one fact: in every battle there was a mix of extremely good players (perhaps real pilots?) and people with 0.00 hours of flight (just like me) and it could be the reason for an Emil (with a good player) beating a P51 (with a real bad player inside).
    Anyway, I always play for fun and don´t care about accuracy. I prefer good graphics more than spend hours "testing" an AC in my PC.

    About your last paragraph (copy and paste):
    in this forum we have some extremely knowledgeable people....who are engineers, historians, pilots, long time ww2 aviation buffs. some of these people eat, breath, and dream ww2 ac or did it once in their life and still hold that knowledge. some of them have actually flown some of the planes.....if you are trying to get to the bottom of how things were...this is a pretty good crowd to furnish this info. to fly war thunder and base your knowledge on that is folly.

    As electromechanical engineer I never underestimate the knowledge of others, and I dont believe that a game can give the same knowledge that the education and experience of engineers, technicians, pilots, etc.
    I know in the flesh how much effort takes to have a degree, make a career, etc.
    I was just making (wrong) assumptions about games, not about people. Indeed, the reason why I decided come in this forum is because I can see the great amount of knowledge that many members over here have. :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,198
    Likes Received:
    784
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    Good discussion guys! My final take on this is it's one thing to do sims and try to model authenticy for entertainment, educational purposes, etc. There's others who do these games and try to apply their on-line experience with real technical data and pilot reports. What irks me is when you have some of these folks who want to talk about things like "rudder authority" and G loading when the only flying experience they have is sitting behind their computer screens on their fat keesters. Eventually they convince them selves that they are an authority on said subject matter. I think the originator of this thread is suspect.

    I'm probably preaching to the choir, my vent for the day is complete!
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...

Share This Page