PDA

View Full Version : The Final Word on Realism



georgeo76
01-09-2005, 07:25 PM
I think the biggest problem is definition. What makes a flight sim realistic? Everyone knows that realism is an absurd standard to apply to computer games. Even the word simulation implys something less than real; an approximation. So what we are left with is a choice of our own subjective standards of what we consider realistic. Which is pretty un-realistic.

The Slide rule guys:

Their whine: But the data says this is how it should be.

Their argument: Flight simulators should mirror recorded data. Flight simulators approximate at least some aspects of real flight behavior. Therefore, these aspects should identical to what was observed in real world cases. The ideal flight sim should have all the proper climb, dive, and turn performance.

what they want:
precision flight models
accurate ballistics
superior atmospheric conditions

Where they're wrong: If your subjective standard relies on objective material, your already a bit of a hypocrite. But luckally, most of the data available is somewhat subjective too. Pilot memoirs, flight testing, and records are contradictory, dated, and highly situationally Dependant. Any flight model is a best guess, and approximation.


The Immersion guys:

Their whine: But it should feel more like this.

Their argument: Flight simulators should give the sensation of WWII combat. That's why they fly these games. They want to pretend to be a sky-knight. They want the glory, the adrenaline, and the satisfaction.

What they want:
stunning graphics
gorgeous cockpits
superior view systems

Where they're wrong: The idealized idea of what combat should be like is likely poles apart from reality. Even the memory of the real pilots is probably questionable. I'd guess if a sim could re-create the experience of combat, no one would want to play it.


The history buffs:

Their whine: But this is how it really happened.

Their argument: Flight simulators are intended to recreate actual events. Therefore, they should consist of historic missions with accurate tactics and predictable outcomes.

What they want:
Attention to detail
Historic scenarios
Superior AI

Where they're wrong: The events of the past are as dynamic as the events of the present and future. To expect a recreation to approximate actual events is short sighted. History was not an inevitability, but the current of infante variables coming to fruition. The more times a simulator has the same outcome, the more primitive, and unrealistic it would be.

Standards of realism are subjective; unrealistic. Ultimately, a flight sim is a compromise. It's more to do with the programmers vision than it dose with the actual events. And we take from it what we want. In the case of the IL2 series, Maddox games has found a balance of these expectations so brilliant it's more art than science. There is plenty to be had, so take what you want.

JG52Uther
01-09-2005, 07:31 PM
Good post,but i dont really see the point http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Howie A
01-09-2005, 07:58 PM
I enjoyed it. I guess I'm more a full immersion guy except I do understand its my unique fantacy.

"Ultimately, a flight sim is a compromise. It's more to do with the programmers vision than it dose with the actual events. And we take from it what we want."
Sometimes its just too hard to take this one serious http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LEXX_Luthor
01-09-2005, 08:38 PM
A good start at listing these georgeo, I found myself looking in a mirror in a way.

76:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Immersion guys:

Their whine: But it should feel more like this.

Their argument: Flight simulators should give the sensation of WWII combat. That's why they fly these games. They want to pretend to be a sky-knight. They want the glory, the adrenaline, and the satisfaction.

What they want:
stunning graphics
gorgeous cockpits
superior view systems <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am Immersion. But I want "situation" good or bad. I find myself thinking like the MiG pilot Rybalko--an escort fighter pilot with predictably low air combat score but Xtreme mission success. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

My own personal hopes in my own "all sides" Dynamic Campaign I am very slowly working on...

5th post down http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=9801014162

emphasis added on "very slowly"

Tully__
01-09-2005, 08:43 PM
Excellent post.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG52Uther:
Good post,but i dont really see the point http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point is that while reasonable discussion about realism may reveal valuable insights about possible improvements to the game, there's no point arguing about the fine points as we're all using different criteria about what for each of us personall constitutes the most realistic combination of features and difficulty settings.

georgeo76
01-09-2005, 08:53 PM
There are two points:

1. realism is subjective.

2. While the game has shortcomings in aeronautical accuracy, immersiveness, and historical recreation, it's amazing how well it dose all three when you look @ it as a whole.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG52Uther:
Good post,but i dont really see the point http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Farkitt_
01-09-2005, 10:19 PM
Great post. but someone will soon be saying another final word. and so forth.

LEXX_Luthor
01-09-2005, 10:34 PM
I don't think its fair to condemn the whole thread cos a single slip-up.

VBF-83_Hawk
01-09-2005, 10:46 PM
Realistic = IL-2/PF
Arcade = Astroids

Realistc = complex cockpit management
Arcade = Left, right, up, down, a fire button and a thrust button.

Flight sims have come a long way..........

USAflyer
01-09-2005, 11:07 PM
So to sum up the original post: quit whinning.

civildog
01-09-2005, 11:11 PM
Arcade: FB/PF...my plane takes hits, catches fire, I bail out and hit "refly"

Realism: Having a buddy shake your seat while you play, smacking you on the side of the head during really sudden hard turns, then he starts pumping .45 rounds at you through your monitor while throwing hot oil and/or burning gasoline on your face and hands, then bodily throwing you out the window of the 10th floor with a chute that may or may not open in time.

I figure that if the sim feels like I would expect a real plane to behave then it's real enough for me. I've flown several kinds of civilian planes so I know what a plane ought to do under ordinary conditions. I've never flown a warbird so I wouldn't presume to know what one should behave like other than what I have read in books and heard firsthand from those who do, or have, flown them.

All the whines aside this is so far the most realistic-feeling sim I've yet to play. It looks like gun camera footage, the tame planes are easy to fly and the more tempermental high performance ones act as I would expect.

Except I would like more blood and hair on those cockpit walls when I blast a canopy. And the empty cockpit still looks weird.

Blackdog5555
01-10-2005, 01:19 AM
I think we should see flaming pilots bail out of burning planes. And Yes, More screaming, crying with chunks of flesh splattered in the cockpit. I love these threads that whine about whiners. i dont know which to whine about. Personally, I am a history buff (like anybody cares) so i dont like any innacuracies, and would like to see the game better attempt to recreate the actual battle maps and battle senario in the PTO. For those who dont know squirt about the PTO..im sure have a different opinion. not a whine..just disappointed. ill build my own maps.

Cajun76
01-10-2005, 01:29 AM
Outstanding post. I've said before, there are different levels of simulation. This game/sim is a great blend of whatever you want out of it.

jeroen-79
01-10-2005, 01:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by georgeo76:
1. realism is subjective. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There are different aspects that can be graded for realism.

Wether or not an aspect is realistically modelled can be determined (somewhat) objectively.
For performance you study the charts.
For feel you ask someone who has bee there.
For historical accuracy you read some books.

What is subjective is which aspects have the most priority to be modeled realistically.

falco_cz
01-10-2005, 01:54 AM
Actually it's all easy: realistic sim enbale using RL historical tactics.
Is the IL2/FB/PF the case? Yes, at least to some degree I guess.

BM357_TinMan
01-10-2005, 08:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CivilDog:
Arcade: FB/PF...my plane takes hits, catches fire, I bail out and hit "refly"

Realism: Having a buddy shake your seat while you play, smacking you on the side of the head during really sudden hard turns, then he starts pumping .45 rounds at you through your monitor while throwing hot oil and/or burning gasoline on your face and hands, then bodily throwing you out the window of the 10th floor with a chute that may or may not open in time.

Except I would like more blood and hair on those cockpit walls when I blast a canopy. And the empty cockpit still looks weird. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suppose SOMEBODY always HAS to make this statement http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ....

Farkitt_
01-10-2005, 08:36 AM
I love FB, don't get me wrong....

I'm more on the side of Mechanical realism, and that is why engine management is a big thing for me. And i would love to see full start up proceedures in BoB, with an option to do full start ups or not. because I think it can add alot to a sim where "Scrambles" are going to be common.

Stiglr
01-10-2005, 09:48 AM
About history buffs:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Their argument: Flight simulators are intended to recreate actual events. Therefore, they should consist of historic missions with accurate tactics and predictable outcomes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where the poster is wrong: we're not out to recreate anything, as this assumes a rote script, such as you'd find at a Civil War re-enactment. One should be able to do this with identical forces, identical tactical approaches, sure. But that's not the goal. No, what we want to see is that real life tactics will be borne out in the sim environment, and that the tactical commanders can explore all kinds of what ifs: what if you attack from a different altitude? What if you attack different objectives? What if you change the ratio of attackers to cover planes? What if the entire scenario is based on fabrication, only using representative forces of the time period? etc., etc., etc. The theory being, if it's accurate, so might be the conclusions derived from countless what ifs. The idea of changing history is desirable to the history buff.

I find the history camp is always misunderstood and misrepresented. We're actually closer to the sliderule guys, but we factor in the actual result more than just the pure numbers, realizing there is a lot to be gleaned from BOTH sources.

Da_Godfatha
01-10-2005, 09:59 AM
I play it to have...TaDa...FUN! If I want a dry techno simulation I will fly M$ Flight Simulator.

It just goes to show you, you can`t please all of the people all of the time!

Stiglr
01-10-2005, 10:05 AM
Even more on this bent...

The reason I feel that a mixture of the "sliderule camp" and the "history camp" is important:

The numbers should not lie, but we all know they do. "Lies, ****ed lies and statistics". Witness another post from yesterday that revealed a TSAGI test on some late war LW/VVS matchups: the German planes didn't use WEP in the test, but the VVS planes did. Producing some, er, interesting pro-VVS results. We can even sit here and argue for pages and pages about whether the TSAGI scientists even knew about the WEP or not. We know some tests will be better than others, some may or may not have political/morale intentions "skewing" the data, a captured plane might not be operating properly, like the Akutan Zero with the busted carb that led the US Navy to think that Zeros had negative G cutout problems they did NOT have, etc. Numbers are a great indication, especially when "backed up" by other tests performed by other agencies at other times. I think many would agree that a good averaging of several tests will likely arrive closer to the spot-on truth than any one test alone.

As for the history side of the coin, results shouldn't lie, either... but we have to make a large leap of faith that what is reported to us as "history" is 100% fact. The victors and survivors write the history, often years after the fact and from the safety of a comfy chair. Strike one. Also, pilot memoirs are a GREAT source of data, but one must also factor in time, and also the fact that a pilot may only have flown a few planes, and naturally the one that got him through the war was likely "his favorite" and "the best", even though he never flew his adversary's mount in combat. On the other side of the coin, the real life pilot might clearly remember important things that a clinical test might not reveal; for example, something like, "we used to make attacks at (specific speed, alt trim and formation) as a rule in our squadron, and the plane didn't vibrate, and wasn't hard to handle." That kind of thing cannot be dismissed as merely unscientific hogwash. It should be checked against hard data, sure, but it's not to be discounted lightly, since a guy who flew hundreds of combat missions knows more than a test pilot who flies according to a script and whose life is only in danger insofar as he's testing the plane (e.g., no bullets are flying at him)

Lucius_Esox
01-10-2005, 10:34 AM
Yeah good post,
I still think it truly amazing that this s/ware has managed to satisfy (mostly) so many for so long!

georgeo76
01-10-2005, 12:01 PM
I'm not disagreeing w/ you Stiglr. My intention was not to criticize the different points of view, just to categorize them. I think that a good sim should balance all three. Each viewpoint is valid and the pundits for each are valuable members of the community who contribute greatly to it's development. I'm not trying to 'end' the realism debate, I just want to frame it in a less adversarial, more constructive way. I know this contradicts the title of the thread, but it was intended as more a 'headline', something to get attention rather than a thesis.

Take Targetware for example. (not as a personal shot @ Stiglr, but because it's a good example of what I'm talking about)Targetware is reported to have the most accurate flight model of any combat sim. For sake of argument, let's assume that's true(pls don't turn this into a separate debate). Targetware caters to the 'slide rule' guys almost exclusively. While the 'history buffs' may be somewhat satisfied, organizing their scenarios exclusively in multi-player must be frustrating. And the dated graphics and effects disenfranchise the Immersion camp. So is Targetware more realistic than IL2? Yes, no, depends on what your looking for; subjective.

Also I don't mean to demean real-life pilots. I have a lot of admiration and respect for them. I'm just pointing out that human memory is a poor record of actual events. This is true immidately after the event, and only worsens w/ time.

Stiglr
01-10-2005, 03:10 PM
I understand ya. I was just clarifying myself.

Organizing scenarios in TW isn't "frustrating". At the very least, there isn't much "ueberplanism", because the historical planesets mandated by the scenario format takes that out of the equation. One has opportunities to fly many mounts, some of them good, some not so.

And, at any rate, the gameplay structure is going to have a big change in it, and much for the better. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

As for the immersion camp, I don't know how immersed I can get when you use "proper", proven effective tactics and poor flight modeling, invisible dots and other things totally make them useless. It may look pretty, but to me, that's not the be-all and end-all of immersion. Even the best graphics don't really come close to photorealism...yet.

JG7_Rall
01-10-2005, 03:21 PM
Good post. I guess I'm somewhere in between Slide Rule and Immersion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

joeap
01-10-2005, 03:24 PM
Really excellent post georgeo76 as a history buff (actually doing a phd in history while working part time) I do enjoy this and other war games and sims. As much for the what if and trying different tactics. Stiglr, two excellent posts by you...really not much to add, other than sims and games are to my mind like an artist painting or drawing a portrait rather than a photo, in other words an interpretation. Even photographers can set up (bias) their shots btw. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Jungmann
01-10-2005, 03:47 PM
Stiglr makes a good point about RL pilot memories. Just reading the dash-ones doesn't tell you how the pilots actually handled their a/c in the field in the face of 1)poor maintenance, 2)pilot shortages, 3) weather (like the P-38 prop control arcings at altitude in the ETO), etc. The real guys have real skinny you don't get from the manuals and the history books.

On the other hand, I once had a discussion (I backed off before it became an argument) with a P-51 driver who wouldn't concede his airplane had a large radiator airscoop on its belly under the cockpit.

So RL data is double-edged.

BBB_Hyperion
01-10-2005, 08:38 PM
I agree to the points posted by george76 that the comparison for reality on a flight simulator has limits. And i sorted myself somehow in all 3 categories. But on the other hand we have the flight sim producers that try to get their product sold and must concentrate on this groups and keep balance of this categories or concentrate on the bigger groups to be able to sell their product.

But one thing should never happen different standards of realities apply to different objects and that is what always happens. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

DONB3397
01-10-2005, 09:25 PM
Interesting thread. Which group is yours, Georgeo?

For me, this sim lets me try out, in a limited sense, the missions and events I've been reading about for years. And it looks different on the screen than it did in my mind, even if the planeset and numbers are about right. Even if the situations are roughly the same as those in the books, they sometimes leave me thinking, "This must have been dangerous, scary work. You could get hurt doing this stuff. Cripes, there must have been a hundred ways to die in combat with a fighter!"

When I reread the books (descriptions), I have a little different take and, maybe, a bit better understanding.

The sim allows us to create reasonable imitations of the missions, and to paint our planes in roughly the same way the actual planes were. It's hard to beat that...if history is your deal.

No question; it's about the history for me. But I don't expect it to be 'real.' Just instructive. That's okay with me.

SeminoleX
01-11-2005, 07:42 AM
I guess noticing that the in game Guam island looks nothing like the real world Guam Island is to be roundly condemned as whining.

Stiglr
01-11-2005, 10:29 AM
No, Seminole, just par for the course. Accuracy only counts in cockpit art around here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

georgeo76
01-11-2005, 12:46 PM
I'm probably about 90% Immersion. It's important to me that the AC be accurate, and I like the situations to be historic, but I'd rater that it feel correct than be correct.

It happens every time. Whenever I'm online and behind an unwary opponent, trying to sneak up, I always get nervous. I sweat, my hands shake and rhythmically grip the stick, I feel excellerated. My body has a physical response to simulated stimulation.... my imagination makes it real, for me; suspension of disbelief. That's what keeps me coming back. That's what keeps IL2 on my HDD while the likes of Doom3 and Half Life2 fade away; completed, fulfilled. But IL2 never loses it's shine, can't be beaten, only improved upon.

This game is an actual experience to me, and a real part of my life. Before we consider how pathetic that sounds, let me say that I've made friends, belong to a community, and feel a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction as my skills have improved. In a nerdy, Walter Mitty sort of way, I've gotten more from IL2 than I have from many of the brick-and-mortar aspects of my life.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DONB3397:
Interesting thread. Which group is yours, Georgeo?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

DONB3397
01-11-2005, 06:01 PM
Someone wrote in this forum once that the test of a simulator is whether you feel...fear! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

WTE_Galway
01-11-2005, 07:13 PM
when flying open cockpit I wear a flying helmet and goggles and sit a large fan above my monitor blowing in my face

if a thunderstorm shows up i get my girlfriend to throw a suacepan full of water into the fan

HerrGraf
01-11-2005, 08:14 PM
Must be awfully hard on the fan!

darkhorizon11
01-11-2005, 08:55 PM
I think the final word on realism is that it need not be taken too seriously. Its a game and no matter how much you turn the realism up its still a game. A game that no matter how much you play will still not make you even close to real WW2 pilot. Not that it still can't be enjoyed, but just because you turn all the settings FULL REAL or ACE skill level doesn't make you any better than a person who plays it on easy. Its just a game.

BTW I don't play online too much anymore and before someone asks yes I do play it on Full Real.

RusskiyeVityazi
01-11-2005, 09:00 PM
Why can't we have a real-time flight model engine like in X-Plane?

TAGERT.
01-11-2005, 11:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by georgeo76:
There are two points:

1. realism is subjective.

2. While the game has shortcomings in aeronautical accuracy, immersiveness, and historical recreation, it's amazing how well it dose all three when you look @ it as a whole.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%!

Destraex
01-11-2005, 11:42 PM
a) You do not strive for excellence in all areas then you do not get it. I do not mind people getting upset as long as they have solid justification and pref proof.

The only real proof offcourse is a primary source like a corsair that is flying today on the same engine and fuel etc.

b) I agree that sometimes people just need to be less obsessive and enjoy it for what it is. The best that current public tech can offer.

So I agree in essense while still wantin the community to whinge for change until its the best it possibly can be. (that is the winers who actually have a case other than OOHH my countries fighters look bad boohoo they should be uber because we are a mighty empire!)

TAGERT.
01-11-2005, 11:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I find the history camp is always misunderstood and misrepresented. We're actually closer to the sliderule guys, but we factor in the actual result more than just the pure numbers, realizing there is a lot to be gleaned from BOTH sources. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hardly.. In that the history camp seems to think that a combat pilot report is something that can be used as a test for accuracy... For the most part they cant because they consist of just one side fo the coin... That and they are a very small sample of the events.. For example.. Say there were 10,000 pilots that faught and flew P47s. After the war 1% of them wrote a book about thier experances.. Out of these 100 books 10 of them (ie 10%) make a reference to the time tehy avoided getting shot down by a Bf109 by pushing into a steap dive... And the Bf109 had to break off. So.. 10 storys out of 10,000 and we should conclude that the P47 should allways in every situation be able to dive away from a Bf109? Before you answer.. consider this.. Out of those 10,000 pilots 25% were killed.. They didnt live to write a book and describe how they died.. Which might have contained 10 storys about the time they got killed trying to dive away from a Bf109! You just dont know for sure why that Bf109 broke off.. In that out of the TWO STORYS (ie P47 pilot and Bf109 pilot) your only getting one side of it (one side of the coin). He may have simply realised that his job was to try and shoot down bombers not chase P47s to the deck.

Now my example was a bad one to use.. Because from FLIGHT TEST DATA it has been concluded that a P47 could out dive a Bf109. The combat reports only help support something we may allready know from TEST FLIGHTS. They make for neat reading and all.. And it is neat when they match up to real world data from TEST FLIGHTS.. But if they dont support it.. I would take the test data over the pilot report anyday.

That combined with the fact that the main reason one does not see real world tatics being employed is because the simulation online or offline is nothing like the real war.. Let alone the fact that the real fear of death is not sitting on your shoulder.. Funny how brave a lone pilot is when he bounces 5 enemy aircraft when the bullets are not real.. The current FM's are simulated just fine to employ realistic tatics.. Figure out a way to simulate death and purpose better and than and only than will you see more use of realistic tatics being used.

civildog
01-12-2005, 01:36 AM
As far as I'm concerned the only realistic way to play this sim (or anyother) is to fly mission-based coops. Not this AirQuake nonsense where everyone flies whatever they want. That's so dang boring.

If you know you need to accomplish a mission with the planes that you'd historically get, get back in one piece, and fly as a team to do it then you will be forced to use real tactics. You will feel real tension, not just "oh well, respawn!" No one will care about stupid things like "kill stealing" because it won't be everyman for himself. That's realism.

In wargaming the true test of realism is if the players eventually figure out that the tactics used in real life were the best ones. Yes, standing in a line and volley-firing at 50 yards was the best tactic. Ships of the line fighting in line was the best tactic. etc..

The same with flight sims. I knew about BnZ back when I was 10 years old reading about the Flying Tigers...long before people were complaining in IL2 online that it was a "cheat." Yet it was a real tactic. Now everyone uses it. That's realism. But in Co-ops nothing beats the pucker factor of seeing a flight of 109's use that tactic on your flight of shturmoviks. Really makes you think about what that felt like to the real pilots.

You just don't get that sort of thing in the dogfight servers, though.

Lucius_Esox
01-12-2005, 05:40 AM
Am with you here CivilDog 100%. Am an online newbie and so far have only experienced what your saying a few times, but boy was it good!!