PDA

View Full Version : Its Pacific Fighter a game or Simulator



MiamiEagle
09-28-2004, 11:28 AM
I have been reading on a previous Post about a previous comment made by Ubi that this progam calling it a game. Well gentelmen it is a game after all. Its a game that simulates WW11 air combat.If you are thinking this program is a simulator. You are wrong. A real Simulator would be unplayable and very very boring.Most of us are not real pilots evendow we are smart enough and knowlegable enough to have good notion of what it must have like to fly this war birds.If you want a real combat flight Simulator you would have to join the Airforce. Then if you qualify as a Fighter Pilot than you would be practicing with a real combat flight Simulator.I have heard its really tough. Combat flying in World War 11 was for the most part dangerous but uneventfull. Most combat mission you did not have contact with enemy Fighters. Most missions where about ground support.For the most part it was Axis Pilots who the most contact with the enemy.In most missions you flew for hours without ever seeing a enenmy plane . Especially in the Pacific War. Most of us I beleive do not want that king of realism.I think we want a Combat Simulator that mimic World War11 flying combat but it does not dwell on the boring aspect of it.Its great that you are demanding and knowledgable. The better for developer. The better the product the more they will sell. Beside I get the impression they love their art and have a lot of pride in its final result. Do not live under impression that you could have been a good Pilot in that Era. No matter how well you have done in your missions in this game. You still did not risk your life for a moment. It does not matter what Simulator you have been flying. This game will only give you a tates of what it was like to fly in that era. Its impossible to expect total realism from a Home PC with a 15 to 19 inch screen. This should be treted as tribute to all those Brave air crew who really risk their lives so we can enjoy our present freedom.
Miamieagle

MiamiEagle
09-28-2004, 11:28 AM
I have been reading on a previous Post about a previous comment made by Ubi that this progam calling it a game. Well gentelmen it is a game after all. Its a game that simulates WW11 air combat.If you are thinking this program is a simulator. You are wrong. A real Simulator would be unplayable and very very boring.Most of us are not real pilots evendow we are smart enough and knowlegable enough to have good notion of what it must have like to fly this war birds.If you want a real combat flight Simulator you would have to join the Airforce. Then if you qualify as a Fighter Pilot than you would be practicing with a real combat flight Simulator.I have heard its really tough. Combat flying in World War 11 was for the most part dangerous but uneventfull. Most combat mission you did not have contact with enemy Fighters. Most missions where about ground support.For the most part it was Axis Pilots who the most contact with the enemy.In most missions you flew for hours without ever seeing a enenmy plane . Especially in the Pacific War. Most of us I beleive do not want that king of realism.I think we want a Combat Simulator that mimic World War11 flying combat but it does not dwell on the boring aspect of it.Its great that you are demanding and knowledgable. The better for developer. The better the product the more they will sell. Beside I get the impression they love their art and have a lot of pride in its final result. Do not live under impression that you could have been a good Pilot in that Era. No matter how well you have done in your missions in this game. You still did not risk your life for a moment. It does not matter what Simulator you have been flying. This game will only give you a tates of what it was like to fly in that era. Its impossible to expect total realism from a Home PC with a 15 to 19 inch screen. This should be treted as tribute to all those Brave air crew who really risk their lives so we can enjoy our present freedom.
Miamieagle

Chuck_Older
09-28-2004, 11:36 AM
...entertainment...simulating...flying...game...si mulation...game...simulation...cannot be both...mutually exclusive...black...white...no gray area...logic.... must...prevail...game...simulation...self destruct mode....in...10...9...8...7...whirrrrr! whirrrr!

Kwiatos
09-28-2004, 11:36 AM
With the same FM/DM like in FB/AEP for me it will be more game than simulator http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Weather_Man
09-28-2004, 12:24 PM
It's a game in the simulation genre, right?

What's the point of arguing semantics as long as it's fun?

Chuck_Older
09-28-2004, 12:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiamiEagle:
I have been reading on a previous Post about a previous comment made by Ubi that this progam calling it a game. Well gentelmen it is a game after all. Its a game that simulates WW11 air combat. If you are thinking this program is a simulator. You are wrong. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On a serious note this time:

The bold face is mine, but the quote is MiamiEagles.

You are contradicting yourself Eagle. In one sentence you say it simulates WWII combat, in the next you say it's not a simulator.

OK, look. FB doesn't have all the features of a true flight simulator. I have two points to make about that, however

1) You mention our lives are not on the line. NO flight simulator puts a life on the line

2) In WWII they had a true flight simulator. Called the Link Trainer. Best the US government could buy. FB is light years ahead of that flight simulator

In addition, FB lacks most of the essential elements of a "game", at least for me. I don't see any cheat codes, I don't see any point scores popping up when I shoot down an enemy, I don't see any respawn in single player mode at least.

You make it seem as if this is "Super Mario Fighters".

In the post you refer to, I think, a member states his rudder co-ordination was pretty good for a cadet pilot, probably from FB.

So....what? FB made him aware that coordinated turns exist and he needs to pay attention to the rudder or the nose drops? And you're warning folks that this game doesn't qualify you as a real life pilot?

Well, duh! An FB pilot couldn't even turn on a Cessna's electrical system based on knowledge gained from flying the virtual skies.

Furthermore, your Fishing License is revoked.

BfHeFwMe
09-28-2004, 02:10 PM
Never seen a simulator that kept score. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

nearmiss
09-28-2004, 02:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Never seen a simulator that kept score. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or have campaigns that let you re-contruct the war on your terms... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Chuck_Older
09-28-2004, 02:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Never seen a simulator that kept score. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oh Lordy. Then I guess no PC based flight program can be a sim...because you can find things that don't jibe in MS FS2004, too.

Fliger747
09-28-2004, 08:37 PM
A simulator allows one to re-create the experience, or train for a new one. Having flown lots of real airplanes and real simulators, there are times when one hollers Bullchitt even in the $50,000,000 ones! PC sims have come a long way. I use Microsoft FS9 to practice the particulat instrument procedures that we use for proficency checks in the 747-400 which I fly. Not perfect, but I make it challenging and it hones the skills well for what I need.

What this will be remainds to be seen. My guess is that it will be an 'in-between'. Game yes, sim, sort of, but not as accurate as might be possible for EACH aircraft. Over at the MS side, much of the possibilities were accomplished by outside 'geeky' (not a prejorative) types who have done amazing work.

Apple computer has stayed where it is by holding everything too close to the vest.

It will be what it is, let us enjoy it while it lasts. Open arcitecture would prolong the life of the sim, though not the game or the sales.

Snootles
09-28-2004, 08:46 PM
Maybe after Maddox and Ubi have finished with the Il-2 pedigree and moved on to BoB's engine, they will open up the PF source code. Not likely...

LEXX_Luthor
09-28-2004, 08:48 PM
Miami:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Its a game that simulates WW11 air combat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sounds good to me.

MK2aw
09-28-2004, 09:58 PM
Well I did fly a plane this past weekend...you can read what I think about Il2 and real planes in this thread:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=2191087422

Mk2aw

Fliger747
09-28-2004, 10:57 PM
Congrats to the world or real flying! So far I have survived about 17,000 hrs of the real thing. What makes it real is many of my friends and associates did not survive. My daughter is just going up for her pilots lisc this week. Sim's are good for teaching energy management, spatial orientation and looking ahead.

The first time I ever been in the cockpit of a 747-400 and sat in the left seat was as a Captain. Those were pretty good sim's, and I had a lot of previous experience, but it illustrates that it isn't wasted time. Conversely, I hadn't flown a light aircraft in years and recently started flying the supercub again, sim flying helped!

Stick with the flying, beats work!

TAGERT.
09-28-2004, 11:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiamiEagle:
I have been reading on a previous Post about a previous comment made by Ubi that this progam calling it a game. Well gentelmen it is a game after all. Its a game that simulates WW11 air combat.If you are thinking this program is a simulator. You are wrong. A real Simulator would be unplayable and very very boring.Most of us are not real pilots evendow we are smart enough and knowlegable enough to have good notion of what it must have like to fly this war birds.If you want a real combat flight Simulator you would have to join the Airforce. Then if you qualify as a Fighter Pilot than you would be practicing with a real combat flight Simulator.I have heard its really tough. Combat flying in World War 11 was for the most part dangerous but uneventfull. Most combat mission you did not have contact with enemy Fighters. Most missions where about ground support.For the most part it was Axis Pilots who the most contact with the enemy.In most missions you flew for hours without ever seeing a enenmy plane . Especially in the Pacific War. Most of us I beleive do not want that king of realism.I think we want a Combat Simulator that mimic World War11 flying combat but it does not dwell on the boring aspect of it.Its great that you are demanding and knowledgable. The better for developer. The better the product the more they will sell. Beside I get the impression they love their art and have a lot of pride in its final result. Do not live under impression that you could have been a good Pilot in that Era. No matter how well you have done in your missions in this game. You still did not risk your life for a moment. It does not matter what Simulator you have been flying. This game will only give you a tates of what it was like to fly in that era. Its impossible to expect total realism from a Home PC with a 15 to 19 inch screen. This should be treted as tribute to all those Brave air crew who really risk their lives so we can enjoy our present freedom.
Miamieagle <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sense this thread is nothing more than a re-hash of another recent thread.. One so resent that it still shows up on the first page.. I wont feel so bad just re-hashing my answer to this statement/question.

By definition PF is a SIMULATOR! i.e.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=simulation
Attempting to predict aspects of the behaviour of some system by creating an approximate (mathematical) model of it. This can be done by physical modelling, by writing a special-purpose computer program or using a more general simulation package, probably still aimed at a particular kind of simulation (e.g. structural engineering, fluid flow). Typical examples are aircraft flight simlators or electronic circuit simulators

and

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=simulator
a device that enables the operator to reproduce or represent under test conditions phenomena likely to occur in actual performance &lt;a driving simulator used to study behavior in highway emergencies&gt;

Where most of you are confused is in thinking that that word simulation means more than that.. It doesn't. Just because people are lazy and use the word simulation when talking about a specific type of flight simulation tool does not change the actual definition of the word.

A F16 fighting falcon air force training tool contains many simulators.. Simulations of flight, Simulations of radios, Simulations of weapons, Simulations of g forces, etc. Most people don't take the time to call it what it is and simply refer to it as a simulator. So, in that sense I don't blame most of you for *thinking* the word means more.. It gets used incorrectly a lot. But that does not change the FACT that PF is a GAME that contains many simulators.. Like the fighting falcon air force training tool it contains a lot of the same simulations.. Different degrees of them.. But than again PF wont cost you tens of millions of dollars either.

So, for future reference, remember PF is both.. It is a SIMULATOR and a GAME.. By definition. The air force versions is a SIMULATOR and a TRAINING TOOL.

PS if you have a problem with that FACT.. You don't have a problem with me.. The messenger.. You have a problem with Websters

TAGERT.
09-28-2004, 11:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Never seen a simulator that kept score. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually some of the military combat flight trainers do score the pilots.

darkhorizon11
09-29-2004, 01:22 AM
Its all in your opinion honestly. FBAEP is a game, no doubt, since well, ITS NOT REAL. Although some people seem to be infatuated with it.

I do consider it a sorta sim. As attempts it simulate WW2 aerial combat accuratly, and it does a good job of it I might add.

As for def. thats all personal preference. I take anything Webster's dictionary has to say with a grain of salt, since your citing the same dictionary that included words like HERSTORY, yes herstory. This is because some bumbling idiot assumed that history was gender specific (when gender had nothing to do with the origins of the word at all) and had to make it politically correct.

But back to topic.

Since I'm training for instrument myself I did some research. The FAA officially decides what is a sim and what is not through realism. The only real "sims" are the million dollar ones major carriers train with. Over looking that there are also Flight Training Devices or FTDs. FTDs are far more common and generally cost about $30,000 plus, mostly in use by schools the world around. Next step down is personal computer based aircraft training devices or PCATD. PCATDs aren't all that FTDs are with full panel and ops., basically a dumbed down version with approved software and hardware.

Basically what I got from all this is that techically, what makes a sim, a sim, is mostly hardware. Theres been an infinite number of complaints on flight models in the game by people who never flew the planes in the first place. Truth be told, accurate questionable flight models the big thing is the setup you have. Most of us play at our desktops with a keyboard and joystick which is far from the setup a real fighter jock had. Even if Oleg fixed every aircraft flight model perfectly (and this could somehow be varified for planes that never flew), you would need an accurate and sensitive moving cockpit to seal the deal. Although I do recognize that some people have made their own crates!

Legally IL2 AEP, CFS3, or Microsoft flight sim aren't even close to being a flight sim.

My own conclusion is that IL2 isn't really a flight "sim" per say, not because of the reasons above but simply because it lacks basic features a flight sim needs like realistic weather effects (wind, clouds, precip), and the ability to simulate instrument failures, as well as cleareance and procedures encountered by pilots back then just like now. These were just as big of issues for a pilot as how to fight the enemy.
BUT, it is in my opinion an accurate WW2 Combat simulator. A lot of time is put into damage modeling, physics, tactics, and AI so that it simulates the trials and tribulations experienced by those who fought so many years ago.

These of course are only my conclusions. Its all in what standpoint you want to take on the issue.


Sources: http://www.avshop.com/pcatd-faq.html

WUAF_Badsight
09-29-2004, 06:07 AM
applying the label "simulation" to FB is . . . . well cheesy lol

its a game with hints of simulation dwelling inside

TAGERT.
09-29-2004, 09:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
Its all in your opinion honestly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, the definition of simulation is NOT based opinions.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
FBAEP is a game, no doubt, since well, ITS NOT REAL. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>REAL or NOT REAL is not used to define a game. There is a game called baseball.. It's real. There are also games on PC's that simulate baseball. They are not real, they are simulations of the real thing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
Although some people seem to be infatuated with it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, the definition of simulation is NOT based on infatuation.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
I do consider it a sorta sim. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Do you have a link to darkhorizonll's dictionary? In the mean time Ill stick with Webster's.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
As attempts it simulate WW2 aerial combat accuratly, and it does a good job of it I might add. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually that is the one thing I think it simulates poorly. But that is just my opinion. The FACT remains that it is a SIMULATOR by definition.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
As for def. thats all personal preference. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, the definition of simulation is NOT based on personal preference.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
I take anything Webster's dictionary has to say with a grain of salt, since your citing the same dictionary that included words like HERSTORY, yes herstory. This is because some bumbling idiot assumed that history was gender specific (when gender had nothing to do with the origins of the word at all) and had to make it politically correct. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sense the English languages is not a dead one like Latin.. It will change with time. New words are added, and other words will change. And, like simulations, they are prone to errors. Humans are funny like that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
But back to topic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Been

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
Since I'm training for instrument myself I did some research. The FAA officially decides what is a sim and what is not through realism. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, they decide if a simulation meets the requirements to be used as a training device. i.e.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> http://www.avshop.com/pcatd-faq.html:
AC61-126 specifies the standards computer-based flight simulators must meet in order to receive FAA approval, as well as the requirements that must be met in order for a PCATD to be used as part of an instrument rating training program and the limitations associated with their use <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which does not change the DEFINITION of the word SIMULATION, it simply says what types of SIMULATIONS must be included to be approved.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
The only real "sims" are the million dollar ones major carriers train with. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, the definition of simulation is NOT based on price.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
Over looking that there are also Flight Training Devices or FTDs. FTDs are far more common and generally cost about $30,000 plus, mostly in use by schools the world around. Next step down is personal computer based aircraft training devices or PCATD. PCATDs aren't all that FTDs are with full panel and ops., basically a dumbed down version with approved software and hardware. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Some have better cockpit hardware than others.. Some focus more on navigation then say flight modeling but it does not change the fact that they are all simulators.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
Basically what I got from all this is that techically, what makes a sim, a sim, is mostly hardware. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, the definition of simulation is NOT based on hardware.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
Theres been an infinite number of complaints on flight models in the game by people who never flew the planes in the first place. Truth be told, accurate questionable flight models the big thing is the setup you have. Most of us play at our desktops with a keyboard and joystick which is far from the setup a real fighter jock had. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hence the word simulation. If the box said it contains a REAL WORKING WWII fighter then you would have cause to be upset.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
Even if Oleg fixed every aircraft flight model perfectly (and this could somehow be varified for planes that never flew), you would need an accurate and sensitive moving cockpit to seal the deal. Although I do recognize that some people have made their own crates! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, the definition of simulation is NOT based on a moving cockpit.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
Legally IL2 AEP, CFS3, or Microsoft flight sim aren't even close to being a flight sim. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, the definition of simulation in Websters is all that would be needed to legally call it a simulation.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
My own conclusion is that IL2 isn't really a flight "sim" per say, not because of the reasons above but simply because it lacks basic features a flight sim needs like realistic weather effects (wind, clouds, precip), and the ability to simulate instrument failures, as well as cleareance and procedures encountered by pilots back then just like now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, the definition of simulation is NOT based on realistic weather effects (wind, clouds, precip), and the ability to simulate instrument failures, as well as clearances and procedures encountered by pilots back then just like now. That is a list of the things a simulator might need for the FAA to approve it to be used as a training tool.. But it does not change the FACT that it is a simulation... By definition.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
These were just as big of issues for a pilot as how to fight the enemy. BUT, it is in my opinion an accurate WW2 Combat simulator. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is your opinion, and your welcome to it, I don't agree with it. And your opinion does not change the definition of simulation.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
A lot of time is put into damage modeling, physics, tactics, and AI so that it simulates the trials and tribulations experienced by those who fought so many years ago. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Now you getting close.. THIS SIMULATION we call IL2 focuses on entertainment not training. Therefore it wont get an FFA approval to be used as a pilot training device to fly the bean, or fly by gauges, or get clearance from the tower.. But then those types of sims would not get OUR approval as a WWII combat flight simulation either. Two different markets for sure.. But BOTH are simulations by definition.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
These of course are only my conclusions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Most of which are wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
Its all in what standpoint you want to take on the issue. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, the definition of simulation is NOT based on your standpoint.

Metalarms
09-29-2004, 09:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fliger747:
Congrats to the world or real flying! So far I have survived about 17,000 hrs of the real thing. What makes it real is many of my friends and associates did not survive. My daughter is just going up for her pilots lisc this week. Sim's are good for teaching energy management, spatial orientation and looking ahead.


The first time I ever been in the cockpit of a 747-400 and sat in the left seat was as a Captain. Those were pretty good sim's, and I had a lot of previous experience, but it illustrates that it isn't wasted time. Conversely, I hadn't flown a light aircraft in years and recently started flying the supercub again, sim flying helped!

Stick with the flying, beats work! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's very rare that civilian pilotes are interested in military sims.
Bad school orientation ? I'm kidding.
Respects

Earwicker
09-29-2004, 11:54 AM
Pacific Fighters (as well as Il2, CFS, FS2004, and so on) is a type of game called a "flight simulator". It is a game that simulates flight, in this case in a combat situation. It is not a professional level simulator - but the game does indeed simulate flight all the same. Much the same as, say, SimCity 4 is a "city building simulator". Something does not have to be 100% accurate or authentic to be a simulator, because there are different degress of simulators and there is no need for a casual game player to be using what professional airline pilots use - but both are simulators. And, in a sense, games. In fact, when you come down to it, most games are simulators of some type.

The terms "game" and "simulator" are not mutually exclusive. In fact they are close to being synonyms.

Chuck_Older
09-29-2004, 04:07 PM
Anytime this comes up again, I'm just gonna PM Tag and Earwicker for their input on the subject http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

falconuwm
09-29-2004, 04:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
With the same FM/DM like in FB/AEP for me it will be more game than simulator http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The thing is with very few to almost no real life aircraft to model after, making this a true fully accurate simulator is next to impossible. however since the dynamics of the game resemble (or a synonym simulate) an aircraft in flight, I would have to conclude this is a SIMUGAME!! hehe But addressing teh quote; what is your basis fro comparison? Are you a pilot? did you ever fly these aircraft? I mean no disrespect I seriously wanna know. In face that would be a good thread for all. I am not saying that I have flown a lot, (a whole wopping 6 hours front seat) however it feels like it reasonalbely simualtes flight at a cost to us of only $40.

Earwicker
09-29-2004, 05:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Anytime this comes up again, I'm just gonna PM Tag and Earwicker for their input on the subject http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no idea how to send or recieve PM's here since Ubi "renovated" the forums. PM me at CWOS :P

LEXX_Luthor
09-29-2004, 06:33 PM
When they score internet brownie points, they call it Sim.

When they get shot down, they call it Game.

heywooood
09-29-2004, 06:38 PM
edzackley, Cloudboy.

TAGERT.
09-29-2004, 09:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Earwicker:
The terms "game" and "simulator" are not mutually exclusive. In fact they are close to being synonyms. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally!

WUAF_Badsight
09-29-2004, 10:27 PM
the term simulation , when used to talk about computer games , is not going on the most accurate & literal usage of the word

TAGERT.
09-29-2004, 10:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
the term simulation , when used to talk about computer games , is not going on the most accurate & literal usage of the word <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not understanding the word and using it incorrectly does not change the definition of the word.

BfHeFwMe
09-29-2004, 11:55 PM
It's like threatening their manhood, it's only a game, so what, who cares. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

PikeBishop
09-30-2004, 04:31 AM
I think that it depends what your requirements as an enthusiast are. In my case it is whether or not the responses that you are requiered to make in the game bear any resemblence to those in reality. Many years ago when I was a fledgling wargamer and there were only 286 computers I always hoped that Simulations could be done. At the time I was working on a WWI aerial game which could be done on tabletop and to scale at 1:300 scale. Movement was at 3 sec intervals. I had no idea of tactics and just wanted to get the dynamics of the dogfight situation right. As the devlopement progressed with the gameplay over a period of months/years I noticed that specific patterns were emerging which made the stages in the dogfight become predictable. As I always had the impression from the old John Wayne movies that air combat was a very undisciplined and random affair I thought there was something wrong.
So I went back to the books and discovered that the tacticts that had developed were a mirror of Boelckers DICTAT which did suprise me.
What I and my group of friends had done was rediscovered all the original rules for air combat.
The point of this is to say that IL-2fb still forces the players to learn the techniques actually used if they are to succeed in the game. I knew that our game was 'right' in terms of climbs dives turns rolls and accellerations and I know that IL-2fb is 'right'. I think that it can only grow with more and more perfection and we have come a long way even to the point of stress levels. One day we'll even feel the 'g' loads get very fatigued and be sent home from work off sick with combat fatigue and shellshock........frightening.

regards,
SLP

TAGERT.
09-30-2004, 09:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
It's like threatening their manhood, it's only a game, so what, who cares. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Only a game... Some consider and call WAR a GAME. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

karost
09-30-2004, 12:53 PM
For me:

Game &gt; when I play a game I feel fun! And fun! And fun!

Simulation &gt; when I training in simulators I feel hard and boring and harder and harder but the final it will help me to survival when the times come.

That is my meaning.

S!

BfHeFwMe
09-30-2004, 04:44 PM
Mainly those who've never been in one.

Simulator- to start they run a full engine starting checklist, physically setting every switch and control in sequence while watching engine instruments to keep within parameters.

Game- press E http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Chuck_Older
09-30-2004, 05:00 PM
If I felt harder and harder and harder and harder, for no good reason, I'd see a doctor. Too much blood down there for too long can cause real problems with tissue damage

Nanuk66
09-30-2004, 08:34 PM
I cant believe that people actually give a flock and actually get wound up by what others consider this game/simulator/real-thing to be.

Especially ripping peoples threads to bits and quoting dictionaries!

To me its a game, and i couldnt give a flying ferrets hairy nutsack what anyone else thinks!

TAGERT.
09-30-2004, 08:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NaNuK66:
I cant believe that people actually give a flock and actually get wound up by what others consider this game/simulator/real-thing to be. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You New Here?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NaNuK66:
Especially ripping peoples threads to bits and quoting dictionaries! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>When you see someone using a word incorrectly... What would you do?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NaNuK66:
To me its a game, and i couldnt give a flying ferrets hairy nutsack what anyone else thinks! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In the past I have found that the people who go out of their way to say they dont care.. They are actually the one that care the most.. If you really didnt care.. You wouldnt have takin the time to reply.

Nanuk66
09-30-2004, 09:31 PM
'You New Here?'

Nope. And if i were wtf does that matter? You got something against new people on these forums or something? Can new people not contribute to the issue of whether THEY think IL2 is a game or a simulator?

'When you see someone using a word incorrectly... What would you do?'

I write it in my sig like i have done for the last 6-8 months. I personally get pissed off with people using 'lose' and 'loose' incorrectly so i put it into my sig in the vain hope that people might realise the error of their ways but, alas, it made no difference so i recently changed my sig. This, however, has no relevance to the way people use the word 'simulator' in this game and is in no way a comparison of this particular issue as people generally dont spell 'simulator' wrong which may give a totally different meaning.

'In the past I have found that the people who go out of their way to say they dont care.. They are actually the one that care the most.. If you really didnt care.. You wouldnt have takin the time to reply.'

I think a combination of being bored at work and reading your post of belittling another poster because of his views towards the game prompted me to post.

And no, what i wrote is how i personally feel which is to say that if that someone tries to tell me that IL2 isnt a game and is in fact a simulator that i couldnt give a rats *** about their opinion especially if they are trying to belittle me in the process. I wont lose (not loose) any sleep about it.

And to say ive 'gone out my way' to reply is stupid as well. I hardly think typing for less than a minute is 'going out my way'. Maybe you think different?

Your life 'philosophy' in the above quote may work in your mind but i hate to tell you that usually people that state that they couldnt care about something really couldnt. And to say that they usually care 'the MOST' is absurd.

But 'different horses, different courses' as they say.

P.S. Ive got 1hr30mins til i finish work.

TAGERT.
09-30-2004, 09:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NaNuK66:
Nope. And if i were wtf does that matter? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Doesnt mater.. It just might have explained how you could have made such an uninformed statement. In that 99% of what goes on here is people giving a flock about something and geting wound up.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NaNuK66:
You got something against new people on these forums or something? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, just people who are not new but act like they are... Or maybe it is not an act and just a problem?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NaNuK66:
Can new people not contribute to the issue of whether THEY think IL2 is a game or a simulator? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>One thing for sure.. They would have a better take on it then you.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NaNuK66:
I write it in my sig like i have done for the last 6-8 months. I personally get pissed off with people using 'lose' and 'loose' incorrectly so i put it into my sig in the vain hope that people might realise the error of their ways but, alas, it made no difference so i recently changed my sig. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So.. you do understand that people actully give a flock and actually get wound up... Or is your long term memory lacking?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NaNuK66:
This, however, has no relevance to the way people use the word 'simulator' in this game and is in no way a comparison of this particular issue as people generally dont spell 'simulator' wrong which may give a totally different meaning. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NaNuK66:
I think a combination of being bored at work and reading your post of belittling another poster because of his views towards the game prompted me to post. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>See.. you do care.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NaNuK66:
And no, what i wrote is how i personally feel which is to say that if that someone tries to tell me that IL2 isnt a game and is in fact a simulator that i couldnt give a rats *** about their opinion especially if they are trying to belittle me in the process. I wont lose (not loose) any sleep about it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I belive you.. Just like I belive you dont care.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NaNuK66:
And to say ive 'gone out my way' to reply is stupid as well. I hardly think typing for less than a minute is 'going out my way'. Maybe you think different? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes I do.. In that it showed that you do care.. And this post ever proved it further.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NaNuK66:
Your life 'philosophy' in the above quote may work in your mind but i hate to tell you that usually people that state that they couldnt care about something really couldnt. And to say that they usually care 'the MOST' is absurd. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Dont go out of your way now.. I would hate to think you care! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NaNuK66:
But 'different horses, different courses' as they say. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But do they care?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NaNuK66:
P.S. Ive got 1hr30mins til i finish work. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I dont care! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Nanuk66
09-30-2004, 10:19 PM
TBH m8, i dont care anymore http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT.
09-30-2004, 10:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NaNuK66:
TBH m8, i dont care anymore http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Anymore? Ah, so you did care once! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bearcat99
10-01-2004, 04:28 AM
IMHO it all depends on how you have it set up. If you have arrows floating around your screen and you dont have to navigate or pay attention to your engine controls etc than ... it is more like a game. But if you have to constantly be aware of what is going on around you.. actually identify targets before pulling the trigger.... conserve your fuel and ammo and watch your flying so as to not damage control surfaces etc..... it is more like a sim IMO.

Chuck_Older
10-01-2004, 08:31 AM
Wait a seond. Ferrets can fly? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

TAGERT.
10-01-2004, 09:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Wait a seond. Ferrets can fly? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I dont have any flight data on it.. Most of it was lost during the bombings.. but..

http://angelpetmemorials.com/ferret.jpg

Loki-PF
10-01-2004, 09:13 AM
Hi All...

Just wanted to interject this little bit of information into this discussion. Although it has nothing to do with IL2 directly it has a great deal to do with the topic at hand, and some might find it interesting. First a little background.

My company sells engineering and analysis software as well as doing consulting and services for same.

One of my customers in the area is NATCO. NATCO is short for Northwest Aerospace Training Co. They are a subset of Northwest Airlines that is dedicated to running the HUGE multimillion dollar "simulators" that pilots have to "qualify" in. These are life size cockpit enclosures mounted on huge hydraulic acuators with many degrees of freedom that will move the cockpit enclosure realtime in response to the pilots control inputs. These "simulators" are so expensive that they run virtually 24/7. The rooms housing all the support equipment to make the "simulator" do what it's supposed to do, dwarf the life size cockpits. There are ROOMS full of computers and engines and cableing etc. etc. They are only NOT running a few days a year for repair/refit/calibration or some holidays. Pilots come from every country all over the world to test in these fabulous machines.

I had the great pleasure of getting a tour some years ago and got to see all this and more. What was even more interesting was getting to talk to some of the crew that had just finished some testing in one of the "simulators". They had been in a "simulator" for a two engine passenger jet and were being tested on their reactions to having one of their engines fail on takeoff and landing. The pilot I talked to had actually had this happen to him in real life and obviously lived to talk about it. He thought that the simulator hardware and software had done a "pretty good job" of reproducing what it really felt like when that happened. A "pretty good job". A multimillion dollar device with a support staff of ME's EE's and AE's that takes up the space of a large two story house did a "pretty good job" of "simulating" what it was really like.

Do I want PF or whatever sim I fly to be as accurate as possible? SURE! Of course I do! But when setting expectations about what a ~$50 program that runs decently on my home PC I try to keep it real.

TAGERT.
10-01-2004, 09:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Loki-PF:
Hi All...

Just wanted to interject this little bit of information into this discussion. Although it has nothing to do with IL2 directly it has a great deal to do with the topic at hand, and some might find it interesting. First a little background.

My company sells engineering and analysis software as well as doing consulting and services for same.

One of my customers in the area is NATCO. NATCO is short for Northwest Aerospace Training Co. They are a subset of Northwest Airlines that is dedicated to running the HUGE multimillion dollar "simulators" that pilots have to "qualify" in. These are life size cockpit enclosures mounted on huge hydraulic acuators with many degrees of freedom that will move the cockpit enclosure realtime in response to the pilots control inputs. These "simulators" are so expensive that they run virtually 24/7. The rooms housing all the support equipment to make the "simulator" do what it's supposed to do, dwarf the life size cockpits. There are ROOMS full of computers and engines and cableing etc. etc. They are only NOT running a few days a year for repair/refit/calibration or some holidays. Pilots come from every country all over the world to test in these fabulous machines.

I had the great pleasure of getting a tour some years ago and got to see all this and more. What was even more interesting was getting to talk to some of the crew that had just finished some testing in one of the "simulators". They had been in a "simulator" for a two engine passenger jet and were being tested on their reactions to having one of their engines fail on takeoff and landing. The pilot I talked to had actually had this happen to him in real life and obviously lived to talk about it. He thought that the simulator hardware and software had done a "pretty good job" of reproducing what it really felt like when that happened. A "pretty good job". A multimillion dollar device with a support staff of ME's EE's and AE's that takes up the space of a large two story house did a "pretty good job" of "simulating" what it was really like.

Do I want PF or whatever sim I fly to be as accurate as possible? SURE! Of course I do! But when setting expectations about what a ~$50 program that runs decently on my home PC I try to keep it real. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Didnt Brown say IL2 did a "pretty good job" too? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Eitherway, some simulators are better than others.. Some are games and some are training tools.. But both are simulators.

Loki-PF
10-01-2004, 09:06 PM
Man o man... The proof has been right here in front of us the whole time ! :P

Link (http://home.mchsi.com/~mack_rc51/simulation.JPG)

DL Moffet
10-09-2004, 09:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiamiEagle:
I have been reading on a previous Post about a previous comment made by Ubi that this progam calling it a game. Well gentelmen it is a game after all. Its a game that simulates WW11 air combat.If you are thinking this program is a simulator. You are wrong. A real Simulator would be unplayable and very very boring.Most of us are not real pilots evendow we are smart enough and knowlegable enough to have good notion of what it must have like to fly this war birds.If you want a real combat flight Simulator you would have to join the Airforce. Then if you qualify as a Fighter Pilot than you would be practicing with a real combat flight Simulator.I have heard its really tough. Combat flying in World War 11 was for the most part dangerous but uneventfull. Most combat mission you did not have contact with enemy Fighters. Most missions where about ground support.For the most part it was Axis Pilots who the most contact with the enemy.In most missions you flew for hours without ever seeing a enenmy plane . Especially in the Pacific War. Most of us I beleive do not want that king of realism.I think we want a Combat Simulator that mimic World War11 flying combat but it does not dwell on the boring aspect of it.Its great that you are demanding and knowledgable. The better for developer. The better the product the more they will sell. Beside I get the impression they love their art and have a lot of pride in its final result. Do not live under impression that you could have been a good Pilot in that Era. No matter how well you have done in your missions in this game. You still did not risk your life for a moment. It does not matter what Simulator you have been flying. This game will only give you a tates of what it was like to fly in that era. Its impossible to expect total realism from a Home PC with a 15 to 19 inch screen. This should be treted as tribute to all those Brave air crew who really risk their lives so we can enjoy our present freedom.
Miamieagle <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WW11? Uhm, and when, exactly, is that going to happen? We've had four world wars so far: the one sparked by the American Revolution opening in 1775, the Napoleonic Wars, the misnomered WWI and the likewise misnomered WWII. What are the other 7? Which one are you calling WW Eleven?

RAF74_Buzzsaw
10-09-2004, 09:43 PM
Salute

Anyone who understands how much dedication and research Oleg puts into these games knows that while they may not be "Simulators" in the Professional sense of the word, they are as close he can make them within the bounds of real life budgets.

And the experience the game gives us is clearly the best which can be obtained ANYWHERE.

Fliger747
10-10-2004, 04:08 AM
Having flown both the 747-200 and 400 sims at NATCO (actually there are several of each) and later had to perform some of the emergencies in real life, they do provide amazingly good training. My comment afterwards, "it's just like the sim"!

That said, there are levels of training devices, sim's if you will. I practice for real world events (including sim evaluations) for the 747-400 with FS9. I found a recent re-transition from the 747 to the Supercub aided a lot by flying computer sim's! My daughter (a third generation lady flier) gave my son a flight for his b-day and his skill for a novice was noted by his instructor, and was due to 'sim' experience.

The IL series is fun to 'fly and fight' but perhaps emphasizes the graphics and game end of things a bit more than what is possible over at the M$ end of things. This is due to the OPEN arcitecture, where great things have been done by individuals which would not otherwise have been ecomonically viable. Those sims have continued to grow, where unfortunatlly this one will begin to fade the day the box is opened.

Looking forward to opening the box!

Jungmann
10-10-2004, 09:40 AM
This thread sounds like something you'd overhear at the Cheesy Lawyer's convention.

Cheers.