PDA

View Full Version : Game vs Reality



XyZspineZyX
06-26-2003, 11:41 PM
I just don't understand why so much noise about sights. I wonder how many of authors of all of these posts really sat down in cockpit of real WWII fighter. As far as I know cockpits were mostly very tight. In Bf-109 for instance, it was recomended that pilot has narrow shoulders (see photo of Hans Joachim Marseille). Tall pilots were exception. Space for head movement is at least limited. Forward view (even when sitting with parachute) is limited. Feel of narrowness, tightness and merging with machine is quite impossible to describe and impossible to compare it with sitting in a chair and watching something on a computer screen.
FB is just a game, and even if it is claimed to be a most realistic WWII simulator game, it's just a game, not real thing.

XyZspineZyX
06-26-2003, 11:41 PM
I just don't understand why so much noise about sights. I wonder how many of authors of all of these posts really sat down in cockpit of real WWII fighter. As far as I know cockpits were mostly very tight. In Bf-109 for instance, it was recomended that pilot has narrow shoulders (see photo of Hans Joachim Marseille). Tall pilots were exception. Space for head movement is at least limited. Forward view (even when sitting with parachute) is limited. Feel of narrowness, tightness and merging with machine is quite impossible to describe and impossible to compare it with sitting in a chair and watching something on a computer screen.
FB is just a game, and even if it is claimed to be a most realistic WWII simulator game, it's just a game, not real thing.

XyZspineZyX
06-26-2003, 11:45 PM
and ?

XyZspineZyX
06-26-2003, 11:53 PM
Just feel there's no point in arguing about sights. Difference between higher Revi or lower Revi in the matter of milimeters isn't nothing compared to the difference of either to the real thing. In cockpit, of a plane, just like of a car. some things are more felt than focused on. Anyway, my first post wasn't meant to be start of a thread.

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 12:01 AM
You`re right there`s no point in arguing but not for that particular reason.

"degustibus non disputandum"

<center>http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

<center>"Weder Tod noch Teufel!"</font>[/B]</center> (http://www.jzg23.de>[B]<font)

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 12:15 AM
Rab03
-- I just don't understand why so much noise about sights.

Another gunsight thread. http://www.boardy.de/images/smilies/kopfpatsch.gif



Message Edited on 06/26/0311:16PM by LEXX_Luthor

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 12:24 AM
Well its not like there's 19 pages to be surprised by on this very subject....

I thought this was going to be one of those "have you ever given your AI squad a talk about how to do BNZ properly?" kind of threads.

And more to the point have they ever taken any notice?

Sorry, it's been a long day.

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 04:56 AM
You call it a game,
I believe it is a Simulator!

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 05:25 AM
the fw whinner seem to have gone to sleep, pleae dont trat to wake them up again

"Never forget the past so we dont make the same mistakes in the future"

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 05:49 AM
Flydutch wrote:
- You call it a game,
- I believe it is a Simulator!
-
-

That is the problem http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Online in dogfights GAME balance is important so even a slight disadvantage can translate to a big problem in an online game. SO ... online you get satisfaction from beating your human opponents and you want a fair game and the historical accuracy comes second to a fair balanced game.

On the otherhand offline you do not get the satisfaction of defeating a human opponent however the next best thing is doing well in a game that you know is a good historical simulation. For survivng and doing well offline to mean anything the simulation needs to be as accurate historically as possible first and foremost.


In summary --
Online game balance takes precedence.
Offline historical accuracy takes precedence


This means it is very hard to get a game/simulation like FB that is suited to BOTH online and offline play because the requirements are different.

Hence all the arguments on these forums.

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 09:23 AM
Flydutch wrote:
- You call it a game,
- I believe it is a Simulator!

can't 100% agree with this one. The day a sim will stretch my guts as a real plane does i'll call that a simulator, this is a good and immersive game, but as i go on playing it i'm realising that some things that of course now can't be simulated make things a bit unrealistic. Let's just think about g-forces, as someone stated in a few threads ago it would be important to consider that the human body can't just keep on loading Gs, loosing senses and then start again... all the violent manouvers we do to avoid enemy fire are a punch in the belly, first time i pulled soem real Gs on an airplane it was awful, then u get used and it's ok. I think we should find a way to reproduce pilot's phisical stress in a more accurate way.

SJ

P.S:
sorry for the OT

http://www.il2sturmovik.it/topbar2.jpg

Visita il portale italiano di IL-2 Sturmovik!!!

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 09:38 AM
@ ---> Sternjager , your sig is messing up the text in your posts, its too wide, and makes us either (1) scroll left and right or (2) just skip over it. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

---------------------

hmmm...they try various ways to simulate physical effects through visual means on the monitor. The original Flanker 1.0 had the best blackouts/redouts I have seen yet. They were very smooth--everything got redder or faded to uniform darkish grey, and not the annoying patterns you see in Flanker 2.51. I tried FB's blackout once, but it too was lousy looking, so I don't use it.

*

Read the book by that dude who flew MiG~29 to Turkey. He wrote about a dude who flew MiG~21s since the early 1960s. Flew them for 20 years he did. And his insides were all "displaced" and messed up because of 20 years of gee forces. ~~ gee belly.



Message Edited on 06/27/03 08:39AM by LEXX_Luthor

Message Edited on 06/27/0309:41AM by LEXX_Luthor

Tully__
06-27-2003, 12:46 PM
Not a topic for the ready room.

<center> ================================================== ========================= </center>

<center> <img src=http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/Corsair.jpg> </center>

<center> The "under performing planes" thread (http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=35;t=007540) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </center>
<center> Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm) </center>


Salut
Tully