PDA

View Full Version : the state we're in



bazzaah2
05-21-2004, 08:42 AM
A question for you all, particularly those with knowledge of RL flying.

I really like this product and appreciate all the work that has gone into it. What I'm interested in whether FB/AEP is now more of a game and less of a sim than it was? I mean, have flying traits been preserved or enhanced as more planes have been added?

Obviously IC have to work within certain constraints such as computing power and what have you, but curious to see what people think. I just want to say again that I'm personally very happy with the product and enjoy the whole thing immensely so am NOT staring this as a whining thread. Vain hope, perhaps but no flames please, just trying to get a feel for what you all think.

I'm really just trying to get a feel for the 'simminess' v the 'gameiness' of it all.

Ta. I'm off to the pub now. Byeeee.

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_05.gif

Crashing online as :FI:SpinyNorman

bazzaah2
05-21-2004, 08:42 AM
A question for you all, particularly those with knowledge of RL flying.

I really like this product and appreciate all the work that has gone into it. What I'm interested in whether FB/AEP is now more of a game and less of a sim than it was? I mean, have flying traits been preserved or enhanced as more planes have been added?

Obviously IC have to work within certain constraints such as computing power and what have you, but curious to see what people think. I just want to say again that I'm personally very happy with the product and enjoy the whole thing immensely so am NOT staring this as a whining thread. Vain hope, perhaps but no flames please, just trying to get a feel for what you all think.

I'm really just trying to get a feel for the 'simminess' v the 'gameiness' of it all.

Ta. I'm off to the pub now. Byeeee.

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_05.gif

Crashing online as :FI:SpinyNorman

lil_labbit
05-21-2004, 08:50 AM
Even though I think FB is a game not a sim, its very close and nothing has been dropped since the old Il2Sturmo things have only been added to it...

There are some things missing though - like real weather (no microbursts no thermals no real wind etc etc), and a better stall (FB goes into spin far too quick).

X-Plane (which is FAA approved for instrument flight logging - with $$$ added hardware ofcause) does not fly that much better...

The other games like M$ etc are light years behind.

http://members.home.nl/lil.labbit/lilseesya.jpg
Night is better than Day

CraigNT
05-21-2004, 09:09 AM
My dad has flown F-102's, F-111's, & F-16's for General Dynamics (the manufacturer of those planes) and I flew OV-10's and O-2's (USAF Reserves)and now I go up in a Cessna 182 every so often... and we both truly enjoy the simulator experience that this program gives. True, there are no g-forces or all the physical forces that are buffeting your body while flying... but it is very close to the reaction a real plane will give when you move the controls in a certain way. And my dad gets a real kick out of the realism of the clouds, sunlight, and battle damage.

If I can't get up in the real thing, this is a pretty good second choice!
cheers, http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
- CraigNT

ruekesj
05-21-2004, 09:09 AM
obviously, very few if any of us have the means or the chance to fly the machines depicted in this sim, but from my IRL experience as a pilot FB is the most realistic flight dynamics engine i've played followed closely by FS2004. previous versions of FS and CFS3 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif don't come close.

i once got the chance to go up with Air Combat in thier sf.260 marchetti's and the instructor who took me up said " ... you have a pretty good feel for what's going on, i haven't had to help you at all, you must do this on computers. ....why don't you let him ( the other non-instructor) win the next one..."

if you have track ir, this sim feels very much like the real thing even in nose high and inverted attitudes.

arcadeace
05-21-2004, 09:22 AM
I've always thought its more game - even if FMs, AI, ammo etc. were much better. On a 2D desktop display my imagination won't immerse deep enough. I saw video on the History Channel recently inside the cockpit with a modern day P-51. Even watching it on TV it was plenty obvious 'full real' doesn't come close.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/222_1082457373_222_1082441075_airaces.jpg

KarayaEine
05-21-2004, 09:23 AM
I've found this sim/game to be much better than anything else out there. I fly real and r/c planes and the one thing this sim does make you do is to always be aware of your situation. For example you're required to maintian power and attitude settings for landing patterns just like the real thing. The control inputs are very realistic although the performance is no where near what you'd expect from civilian, propeller driven aircraft.

In all the iterations of IL-2 it has never lost the need and requirement to use piloting skills (when flying in full real mode, obviously) and to pay attention to what you are doing. The extras that have come along with FB and AEP only enhance that and make it that much more enjoyable. Like CraigNT said, if I can't get up in the real thing then this is the next best thing. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Johann

Horrido!
"We need more ammo!"
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid106/p5f881fba318d7f0779ac1d9df0ace079/f96e6284.jpg

"Achtung Kommandant, sind Sie Fl├┬Ąche auf Feuer"

panther3485
05-21-2004, 10:13 AM
Hi guys!

My experience of RL flying is limited to gliding and a few stints in powered aircraft but I think I've worked out a reasonable answer to whether this is a 'game' or a 'sim'.

IMHO, it's a blend of the two and there's no definite line to show where you cross from one to the other. It's just up to you, how you think of it and how you want to play it.

It's possible to set up IL-2/FB to look, feel and play almost like a classic arcade game.

But it's also possible to set it up to become the CLOSEST THING YOU'LL GET (at the present time) to a serious WW2 combat flight sim FOR THE HOME COMPUTER.

Of course, there are the true military flight simulators used by many of the World's air forces, but how many of us have got one of those at home?

So, bottom line is, you have something that CAN take you as close as you're gonna get, IF you want it to and IF you've got the mindset for it.

Or, put it another way -

Think of it as a game and that's what it is.
Think of it as a sim, and it can be that too!

Think of it as both and, not only will you be closer (IMHO) to the truth, you'll also maximize your pleasure.....at least, that's what I do! I can get totally immersed in IL-2/FB/AEP (and a small number of other sim/games of comparable quality).

In my book, that's what it's all about and top marks to the developers for making a product of such quality, that can be different things to different people.

Best regards to all,
panther3485

HH Quazi
05-21-2004, 10:43 AM
Imho, real life sims that our military trains in looks more arcadish than FB. I am refering to the many programs I've watched on Discovery Wings channel that actually showed military ac pilots, including helicopter pilots, training on simulators with 3 different screens. And the graphics look, well quite frankly, look pitiful. It has just been proven by Ipoh and Red Death that by flying virtually in FB, they got in the cockpit of a CJ6 and flew the darn thing. Neither had ever flown in real life before. So I would have to say that FB is part game and part sim. With the heavy on the sim side. S!

http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/nightschpanker/QuasiPOWsmall.jpg

panther3485
05-22-2004, 12:40 PM
Hi QuaziMotto,

Yes, what you say about the graphics in the simulators used by military forces is true, they generally look very poor compared to the likes of FB or almost any flight sim product that's marketed for the home computer.

As for 'arcadish', I guess that's a matter of perception and what you choose to define as 'arcade' - perhaps my definition would differ a little from yours?

For example, another angle to consider is the purpose it's designed for.

On one hand, those used by military forces are designed strictly to simulate environments, weapon systems and combat conditions for TRAINING PURPOSES, to economise by reducing the time required in real machinery and to prepare military personnel for REAL LIFE situations. In this scenario, the 'eye-candy' quality of highly detailed graphics is generally considered unnecessary, provided all the ESSENTIAL details can be seen and understood by the trainee. In other words, the product is purely for BUSINESS, not pleasure.

On the other hand, even the more 'realistic' home computer flight sim/games are designed mainly to make a profit by giving us PLEASURE, and then to make us come back for more product BECAUSE WE LIKE IT. Breathtakingly beautiful graphics are just one of the many pleasures on offer.

That said, I would agree with you that the weight is towards simulation rather than merely gaming, so long as we remember that this remains true ONLY when the user sets it up that way. He/she can easily set it up to be very 'arcade' indeed, including such things as:

Have endless fuel
Have inexhaustible ammunition
Make yourself invulnerable
Dumb down flight characteristics to the easiest level available
Fly your plane from 30 feet behind its tail
etc, etc, etc.

If you consistently play this way, all the years of research and development that went into making the product a realistic simulation are not being utilised and NO AMOUNT of realistic graphics can rescue you from being 'arcade'.

In the simulations used by the military, these sorts of options would be unthinkable because you have to 'graduate' at 'full real' to pass your training. The main advantage is that trainees can make errors without killing themselves or wrecking millions of dollars worth of equipment! For this purpose, everything that NEEDS to be realistic is as good as the current era's technology can make it - they just aren't too fussed about 'eye candy'.

As for playing flight sims like FB and then jumping into a plane and flying it, well maybe you'd get away with it but I wouldn't risk being in a plane flown by somebody whose training was ONLY on simulators, no matter what kind of simulator it was. As far as I'm aware, flying schools and flying instructors around the World regard simulators as a VALUABLE AID to training, but some hours of hands-on training in a REAL aircraft will always be considered necessary. Simulators help by reducing the number of hours required.

Best regards,
panther3485