PDA

View Full Version : Il-2 Veterans in the Defence of the Reich



CastleBravo
04-17-2007, 04:54 AM
I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I find it fascinating to think how would a good Il-2 player have faired in the final months before the collapse of the Third Reich, especially compared to the woefully undertrained flyers that were put up in the skies. Same logic can be applied to late war Japan. I know I would have ended as a burning corpse somewhere on the airfield, but what do you think?

CastleBravo
04-17-2007, 04:54 AM
I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I find it fascinating to think how would a good Il-2 player have faired in the final months before the collapse of the Third Reich, especially compared to the woefully undertrained flyers that were put up in the skies. Same logic can be applied to late war Japan. I know I would have ended as a burning corpse somewhere on the airfield, but what do you think?

Brain32
04-17-2007, 04:58 AM
Here I come Argentinaaaaaaaaa http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Well anyway, that's how the smart/lucky ones ended...

WWSensei
04-17-2007, 05:15 AM
If historical trends are correct and for easy math let's say there are 100 IL2 sim fliers. 90 of the people playing this sim would have ground looped and most likely died on takeoff without leaving the ground.

Of the remaining 10 who got airborne 5 would have never seen an enemy and landed safely with little to tell.

1 would have died landing.

Leaving 4 to encounter the enemy. 3 of whom would have been killed without ever seeing who shot them or tried to pull even one extreme maneuver this sim let's you get away with and died as a result. 1 would have survived the contact with the enemy. Whether he/she would have put rounds into anyone would have been an issue of sheer luck.

leitmotiv
04-17-2007, 05:17 AM
IL-2 players are like people who watch football instead of playing football. The important difference is that your decisions entail pain and damage when you play football. Remove this factor and there is no reality, thus, there is no way to ever judge how one would behave in a real air campaign where one's stamina and psychology would be tested to the maximum.

CastleBravo
04-17-2007, 05:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
IL-2 players are like people who watch football instead of play football. The important difference is that your decisions entail pain and damage when you play football. Remove this factor and there is no reality, thus, there is no way to ever judge how one would behave in a real air campaign where one's stamina and psychology would be tested to the maximum. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a very good point. I don't really know, but I would presume that the flyers in the final months were at least physically suited for the job. Was it so?

CastleBravo
04-17-2007, 05:21 AM
Very interesting figures WWSensei, can I ask where do you get those?

leitmotiv
04-17-2007, 05:26 AM
IL-2 "veterans" is a contradiction. IL-2 gamers are not veterans. Veterans have been in the services and have tossed the coin---they could have been under fire. Il-2 players, unless they live in California, or are combat veterans have not been under fire.

mrsiCkstar
04-17-2007, 05:33 AM
wrong, veteran is not strictly a military term.

from dictionary.com:

vet·er·an

1. a person who has had long service or experience in an occupation, office, or the like: a veteran of the police force; a veteran of many sports competitions.
2. a person who has served in a military force, esp. one who has fought in a war: a Vietnam veteran.

so you would be prefectly correct to call a long time IL-2 player a veteran... just the same as you could say Mark Martin is a NASCAR veteran...

by the way leit, when are we going to fly our FWs and P-47's in formation in FS9? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

The-Pizza-Man
04-17-2007, 05:44 AM
Assuming they actually get the same training as late war German pilots I can't see how they could do any worse so long as they are physically fit and have decent eyesight. Simulators do help train pilots(just ask any modern airforce) and a simulator like Il-2, even as flawed as is it is, is a lot better than no simulator at all.

leitmotiv
04-17-2007, 05:44 AM
The point is, when you can't really get hurt, your decisions are meaningless because they occur in a vacuum. Gamers have no idea how they would perform in a real air campaign where they would have to deal with fear, exhaustion, pain, and intimidation + as Sensei wryly noted most wouldn't get off the ground in the first place and, if they did, real pilots would have eaten them for breakfast. Gamers would have hated sitting on hard packed chutes, in stinking, freezing, cramped cockpits with the sun blinding them at 25,000 feet, and sucking oxygen out of a rubber mask which makes their sinuses ache.

leitmotiv
04-17-2007, 05:50 AM
Nice work, mrsiCkstar---I'd quibble over IL-2 being an "occupation", but oh well what the hell! I'm ready to have at your P-47 with my nasty 109K anytime you are ready! Now you've given me a reason to download the rest of the 109 set! PM me when ready!

BGs_Ricky
04-17-2007, 05:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
If historical trends are correct and for easy math let's say there are 100 IL2 sim fliers. 90 of the people playing this sim would have ground looped and most likely died on takeoff without leaving the ground.

Of the remaining 10 who got airborne 5 would have never seen an enemy and landed safely with little to tell.

1 would have died landing.

Leaving 4 to encounter the enemy. 3 of whom would have been killed without ever seeing who shot them or tried to pull even one extreme maneuver this sim let's you get away with and died as a result. 1 would have survived the contact with the enemy. Whether he/she would have put rounds into anyone would have been an issue of sheer luck. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

rnzoli
04-17-2007, 05:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
If historical trends are correct and for easy math let's say there are 100 IL2 sim fliers. 90 of the people playing this sim would have ground looped and most likely died on takeoff without leaving the ground.

Of the remaining 10 who got airborne 5 would have never seen an enemy and landed safely with little to tell.

1 would have died landing.

Leaving 4 to encounter the enemy. 3 of whom would have been killed without ever seeing who shot them or tried to pull even one extreme maneuver this sim let's you get away with and died as a result. 1 would have survived the contact with the enemy. Whether he/she would have put rounds into anyone would have been an issue of sheer luck. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

But your a bit off with your figures, and you don't have charts http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I suspect that out of 100 IL-2 veteran players
- 20 wouldn't even know how to get into the cockpit
- 20 wouldn't be able to start engine, even with guidance from technicians (they would miss the keyboard and trackir)
- 10 would brown their pants when the engine roars to life and the aircraft starts to rattle
- 10 would be unable to taxi to runway, due to ground looping or crasing into something on the way
- 10 would crash on takeoff (half killed, half mimed for life)
- 10 would crash land in 10 minutes due to cooking the enginge while waiting for an Overheate message on windscreen
- 10 would disapper and crash land hours later due to fuel starvation, when they aren't able to find airbase (still trying to activate minimap)
- 5 would get to the combat zone and RTB, without seeing enemy
- 3 would die being shot down without seeing enemy in time
- 1 would die colliding with enemy aircraft while doing a usual IL-2 head-on approach
- 1 would be able to bail from his burning aircraft in time.

That's the one who would complain a lot about real life FM and DM http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

mrsiCkstar
04-17-2007, 06:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I'd quibble over IL-2 being an "occupation" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, but I've seen some rather scary pictures of so called professional gamers out there... damn.

and I'd put IL-2 in the "or the like" category... as maybe a hobby... but no matter.

I'm at work currently... afterwards I'm going to a store to grab some more memory for the PC and then heading home... I'll try to PM you in the near future so we can have our duel lol.

Deadmeat313
04-17-2007, 07:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
Assuming they actually get the same training as late war German pilots I can't see how they could do any worse so long as they are physically fit and have decent eyesight. Simulators do help train pilots(just ask any modern airforce) and a simulator like Il-2, even as flawed as is it is, is a lot better than no simulator at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif It couldn't possibly do any harm, though I entirely agree with leitmotiv's argument that many of the pilots would not be psychologically fit to serve as combat pilots.

Personally - in addition to any psychological trouble I might experience - I'd have serious issues with finding myself flying against my countrymen in the RAF. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Okay. If I HAD to, go on then. I'd request a FW-190 though, so I could resolve the 'bar' issue once and for all. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif


T.

Jaws2002
04-17-2007, 08:17 AM
I don't think our so called experience would hurt anything.

Not long ago a 13 years kid stole a Cesna, took of with it, flew it a bit, did a touch and go and crashed it at the second try. But survived with minor injuries.
He had .... "experience" .... playing Play Station. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Jaws2002
04-17-2007, 08:19 AM
Ah by the way.

Can I get airstart please. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif



So i have a better chance to make it to Argentina. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

T_O_A_D
04-17-2007, 08:48 AM
If thrown in a real plane with only IL2 for training, They wold be Dead! BE SURE!!!!

PFflyer
04-17-2007, 08:48 AM
The experience would not hurt at all for sure.

Right now, the United States Armed Forces uses advanced computer "video games" to train special forces and combat pilots and many others, and civilian pilot schools also use them, so there is something to it for sure.

If you fly this sim "full real" you can also develop knowledge of tactics, and what to do and what not to do to increase your chances of survival and success. Also you can learn to I.D. the silhouettes of various aircraft.

Take someone who has been flying full-real settings for the six years that this sim has come out, flying in "combat" with his stick and rudder pedals for maybe 20-30 hours a week, and you have someone with many, many more hours of "virtual experience" and training than even the experten of WWII.

I am also sure that those with the quick thinking and reflexes to do well in this sim would more likely to have an aptitude for the real thing than those who don't have the knack for it.

As for the immersion factor, oftentimes during combat flying this sim, my heart pounds and I sweat, just as if I was in a real-life stressful situation.

No, the physical aspect is not there for flying a WWII fighter craft, I am sure not all WWII combat simmers are physically fit from hours of sitting in chairs watching monitors.

If I had to take people to train for combat in WWII that I had to fly with and have on my wing, I could do a lot worse than to start with some of the amazing full-real aces we have in this community, who have great decision-making ability and reflexes and thousands of hours of virtual experience.

Most of our virtual experten are also huge students of flight dynamics, WWII history and other aspects of WWII flight that no one had knowledge of in WWII.

They certainly have a great shot at being good in the seat of a real warbird for sure.

leitmotiv
04-17-2007, 09:35 AM
Bunk. If war were all about reflexes and thinking, anybody could be Achilles or Richard Bong. The problem is that 90% of the species bolt when they see the enemy. Read your S.L.A. Marshall on the psychology of people in combat or save yourself some time and watch Audie Murphy in THE RED BADGE OF COURAGE. There is a lot more to being a great pilot than being an online hero. If you saw a real live 109G flown by a real live Heinz Baer---hooooo boy. I for one would be in my chute in less time than it would take to type Hals und beinbruch. The military pilots have their virtual stick time leavened with real stick time which is the magnitude one reality check gamers never get.

horseback
04-17-2007, 10:40 AM
Sensei may have underestimated it.

Consider what happened the first time you attempted to drive a stick-shift automobile (assuming you've tried that). Even if you had a clear 'theoretical' understanding of the operation of using a clutch and changing gears, what happened? Screech-clunk-grind, 99% of the time, and it continued for the next several times you tried it.

Even assuming that they 'know' what to do, the actual physical force required to control a WWII fighter--even a 'forgiving' one, just taxiing, would be beyond most of us fresh off the couch. It takes time to master the most minor skills with something so overpowered and touchy.

Experienced general aviation pilots who get a shot at flying these aircraft without a lot of preparation ALWAYS report that they were terrified/on the edge of losing control/surprised at the amount of torque, etc, etc, etc.

What would happen to wienies like us?

cheers

horseback

T_O_A_D
04-17-2007, 11:32 AM
Oh I'll admit some of us would probably make it, and do well, if given proper training with a real aircraft.

They taught all kinds to do it, from all kinds of backgrounds in real life.

But most of us with out some training would even get one started correctly and of the ground.

If we could get an air start over enemy territory maybey we could get a kill or two with what we have, but then again most of us would not know enough to fly it safley home from there, and then land it.

I'd hope to think these thousands of hours, in Full real would be worth something, maybey

leitmotiv
04-17-2007, 11:38 AM
Wish on. They'd see real tracers freeze and die. Games are preparation for playing games. Military training is preparation for war. The most important part of military training is training in overcoming fear. Even with all this training novices still tend to freeze their first time in action. All their training is to give them something to use while their brains are numb with fear. Gaming can never replicate the real terror of war. Therefore, gaming will always be artificial.

WWSpinDry
04-17-2007, 11:52 AM
I'll have a ground loop, please; with fries.

RAF74_Raptor
04-17-2007, 12:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
IL-2 "veterans" is a contradiction. IL-2 gamers are not veterans. Veterans have been in the services and have tossed the coin---they could have been under fire. Il-2 players, unless they live in California, or are combat veterans have not been under fire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


California Love LOL

crazyivan1970
04-17-2007, 12:06 PM
I think Sensei is being too gentle.... i say out of 100 IL-2 aces without any RL flight training.... nobody would take off in 109 or 190. Game is game... RL is RL. Plane is not a car. Remember when you drove first time? Doing 5mph http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Now you are talking about late WW2 fighter with 2000hp under the hood that needs 120 mph at least to get off the ground. Oh wait, and you have to hold it on the runway too. And, on the top of all that, even if you manage to get it rolling, fear along will make you poop your pants and throttle back. There will be no second chance.... there is no refly button. How`s that for observation? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWSpinDry
04-17-2007, 12:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I think Sensei is being too gentle.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Okay, that image is just too damned funny. You have no idea. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

crazyivan1970
04-17-2007, 12:09 PM
Hehe... i`ll take you word for it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

leitmotiv
04-17-2007, 12:16 PM
I'll go with Sensei and Ivan 100%!

BM357_Sniper
04-17-2007, 12:22 PM
I hope none of you seriously think that because you can game, I mean fly on this sim that you could fly a real plane. I had considered at one time putting this game away because it was giving me too many bad habits in a real plane. This game is NO substitute for being a qualified/rated pilot, not even close.

So, to answer the question.....I'd bet the bank on the guy that had actual training, no matter how lacking it may have been, over the gamer.

BaldieJr
04-17-2007, 12:24 PM
I'd like to be included in the 100 il2 pilots so our community will have at least one real Ace to represent.

crazyivan1970
04-17-2007, 12:33 PM
We would love to Baldie... but we need real aces, not the forum ones http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

lowfighter
04-17-2007, 12:35 PM
I think a better question would be: suppose you take 100 il2 game veterans, transport them back in time and give them the real life training, then send them into combat. Compare their performance to that of 100 real WWII recruits undergoing the same training.
Which team would have more losses during training?
Which team would learn faster?
etc.
Of course assuming the 100 game volunteers have passed the physical and psychological tests required for starting the training.
If you just take a game veteran and put it into a fighter plane and ask him to take off, well, then it's pretty obvious what will happen, as everybody mentioned http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Just rememebered, couple of years before a colegue of mine arranged for a flight in a small aircraft for his son who was mad about airplanes (flying MFS all day long haha). The kid was about 14 years old. After reaching some safe altitude the pilot gave him the controls. Seems he did a very impressive job of turning, banking, climbing and diving a bit...

Monty_Thrud
04-17-2007, 12:51 PM
It would be quite easy...my Liege...i would have surrounded them single handedly, in my Fockin-Bif-WULF910, at this point they would have realised how over-modelled my crate was...AND!...surrenderd...Monty1...rest of world nil....NEXT!

leitmotiv
04-17-2007, 01:06 PM
First of all, those IL-2 gamers would have so many bad habits, and game-inspired phantasms guiding them, they would likely be impossible to train. Add to that they would likely be too high-strung to be pilots anyway. On the other hand, a bunch of people who had systematically and boringly learned how to fly using the Microsoft simulator would know aircraft systems, how to fly across country using RDF, etc, and they would be trainable. All the hours they grindingly put in mastering "uninteresting" systems would demonstrate to the recruiters they had the right stuff.

MrMojok
04-17-2007, 01:26 PM
If able to even take off, which is doubtful, once airborne we'd spend too much time *****ing about the flight model to accomplish anything.

Lunix
04-17-2007, 04:43 PM
Assuming we received the same compressed late war 2 weeks training course that the other kiddies got I like the think that a few years experience siming would give us an advantage, all things being equal. However I doubt the odds would be good with a distinct disadvantage in numbers, machine quality and veteran squad mates to rely upon.

leitmotiv
04-17-2007, 04:51 PM
Playing a toy gave no training in anything that matters in real combat like how to keep a clear head under pressure.

LStarosta
04-17-2007, 05:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:
If able to even take off, which is doubtful, once airborne we'd spend too much time *****ing about the flight model to accomplish anything. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Umm.. How about turning the engine on?

IRL, turning on an engine is a tad bit more involving that hitting the "I" button.

BfHeFwMe
04-17-2007, 05:05 PM
Don't make the mistake of over rating military simulators. You go through the real stuff before you get near them. I remember back in SAC the KC-135 pilots had to fly supplemental sorties in T-38's, they would double up pilots in it. There were sims available on the base, but they can never substitute for actual flying. With all the alert birds there simply weren't enough 135's to keep current with flight sorties.

You must log so many sorties per quarter, never saw any sim time required. The crew sims I went through, the pilots wouldn't even bother looking out the so called windows, fly purely on instruments. Of course we weren't there to log time or train, but to get examinations in systems failures and our responses to them. Never did any takeoffs or landings, what would be the training value in that?

Lots of fuel leaks and fires, breakers popping like crazy and fire lights, sometimes all at once. It was a headrush, but flying, no way.

leitmotiv
04-17-2007, 05:05 PM
Ummm, you there---uh, mechanic. Turn on this thing, will you, like a good chap?

Waldo.Pepper
04-17-2007, 05:12 PM
Surprisingly good thread. Should be stickied so that when we all get our big heads on we can easily reference it.

LStarosta
04-17-2007, 06:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Don't make the mistake of over rating military simulators. You go through the real stuff before you get near them. I remember back in SAC the KC-135 pilots had to fly supplemental sorties in T-38's, they would double up pilots in it. There were sims available on the base, but they can never substitute for actual flying. With all the alert birds there simply weren't enough 135's to keep current with flight sorties.

You must log so many sorties per quarter, never saw any sim time required. The crew sims I went through, the pilots wouldn't even bother looking out the so called windows, fly purely on instruments. Of course we weren't there to log time or train, but to get examinations in systems failures and our responses to them. Never did any takeoffs or landings, what would be the training value in that?

Lots of fuel leaks and fires, breakers popping like crazy and fire lights, sometimes all at once. It was a headrush, but flying, no way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh how I wish they'd bring back SAC...

SeaNorris
04-17-2007, 06:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CastleBravo:
I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I find it fascinating to think how would a good Il-2 player have faired in the final months before the collapse of the Third Reich, especially compared to the woefully undertrained flyers that were put up in the skies. Same logic can be applied to late war Japan. I know I would have ended as a burning corpse somewhere on the airfield, but what do you think? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No F6 button, no wonder woman view and can't bail out and hit refly, oh and, constant complaints about enemy UFO's.

SpartanHoplite
04-17-2007, 07:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:

- 10 would crash on takeoff (half killed, half mimed for life)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

5 mimed for life? Like, they'd have to go to Paris, wear a stripped shirt and face paint, and entertain tourists? harsh!

SH

crazyivan1970
04-17-2007, 10:40 PM
Imagine Tank or Messershmidt getting calls about their planes being undermodelled http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Hitler all furious about it.... man...

Maj.Kaos
04-17-2007, 10:42 PM
quote:
Originally posted by rnzoli:

- 10 would crash on takeoff (half killed, half mimed for life)

5 mimed for life? Like, they'd have to go to Paris, wear a stripped shirt and face paint, and entertain tourists? harsh!

SH

....I think he meant 10 would be half killed and THEN half mimed for life! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

I'd much rather be fully killed and skip the mime part. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

RC

Maj.Kaos
04-17-2007, 11:02 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by WWSensei:
If historical trends are correct and for easy math let's say there are 100 IL2 sim fliers. 90 of the people playing this sim would have ground looped and most likely died on takeoff without leaving the ground.

Of the remaining 10 who got airborne 5 would have never seen an enemy and landed safely with little to tell.
------------------------------------------------
I think 5 landed safely is way too generous, even if "safely" is interpreted as "any landing you can walk away from". Landing is THE most difficult part, and I highly doubt any IL2 player (barring the few real pilots who could pull off a safe landing in a warbird) would walk away, but rather be carried away in a box.

10 get off the ground, I can accept. One way ticket, BE SURE.

How many hours air time did Luft boys get between Jan - Apr 1945 before they were sling-shotted into the air? I read a meager 25 hours from some source long ago. Wonder how many actually got into combat, how many survived?

lowfighter
04-17-2007, 11:18 PM
I think we, il2 fans, have a tendency to overestimate the real life wwII pilots as a whole. After all they are our heroes, we love them...
Also when discussing this are we talking about the average wwII pilot or about the "Hartmans"?
Further, why underestimating (mocking in fact)the ability of a virtual pilot to adapt to real life conditions? A virtual pilot is a human being first of all, exactly as the real life pilot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

leitmotiv
04-17-2007, 11:22 PM
None of 'em were getting into the air because Adolph cut off the little gas available when he saw the stats which showed flak was downing more Allied bombers than the pitiful remains of the day fighter force! Imagine getting no air time and suddenly having to face a bunch of hungry American escort fighters! It's too ghastly to contemplate!

BM357_Sniper
04-18-2007, 12:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lowfighter:
I think we, il2 fans, have a tendency to overestimate the real life wwII pilots as a whole. After all they are our heroes, we love them...
Also when discussing this are we talking about the average wwII pilot or about the "Hartmans"?
Further, why underestimating (mocking in fact)the ability of a virtual pilot to adapt to real life conditions? A virtual pilot is a human being first of all, exactly as the real life pilot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are SO hoping someone will say you can fly a real plane because you "play" IL2. LOL

I_KG100_Prien
04-18-2007, 01:46 PM
Love to play flight sims. Would never assume that because I can fly a plane in a simulator, that I could replicate said behavior for real.

However, I do think that all the time I've spent learning how to use instruments etc. in FSX that I would be a little better prepared for... Ground School maybe. Only way you're going to catch me trying to fly a real plane is with a qualified flight instructor sitting next to me. After the recently mentioned.. Ground School..

BfHeFwMe
04-18-2007, 10:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:

Oh how I wish they'd bring back SAC... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You wouldn't say that if you were in that miserable mess of a monster, I'm glad its in the assh heap of history. It was the place the AF dumped people who couldn't hack real world mission flexability. Now MAC , TAC, and AAC were sweet, they actually had things they could and did accomplish. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif