What is a sim, what is not...

[louisv]

What is a sim...

Is Call of Duty a simulation ?

Is Battlefield 3 ?

Is Gears of War ?

Is SimHQ becoming FpsHQ ?

[Ali Fish]

its all simulation at varying levels. although it is fair to attach different titles, one ethos that remains is that alongside other titles the title sim has more character and explanation.

so to sim or not to sim for me depends on a comparative idea or notion of balancing one title against another to come to a conclusion of which is "more" sim in that comparison.

TBH its a very open ended discussion discussing this as it will mean many things for many people but i think at the core the title sim is derived from a want to replicate or duplicate real world events where physics and visuals are concerned.

[gonk]

Arma2 is a sim....
DCSA10/blackshark is a sim...
ROF is a sim..

[Ailantd]

Arma2 is a sim....
DCSA10/blackshark is a sim...
ROF is a sim..

Arma2 infantry could be considered a sim, more when you compare it with others fps, but Arma2 vehicles otherwise can not. I really would like Arma vehicles being full or realistically simulated even if no everybody could handle it.

[ChiefRedCloud]

Arma2 infantry could be considered a sim, more when you compare it with others fps, but Arma2 vehicles otherwise can not. I really would like Arma vehicles being full or realistically simulated even if no everybody could handle it.

I'm with you there (realistic vehicles) and they exist. Just not in the commercial version of ArmA 2. It is in the FULL military sim that BIS sells to governments to train their troops. At a nice price tag extending into the thousands of dollars.:cool:

[icarus]

Key word: Attempts.

Any software that attempts to simulate an experience is a sim. Some of course do a better job than others.


simulation definition
simulation, system
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. A great many simulation languages exist, e.g. Simula.
See also emulation, Markov chain.
Usenet newsgroup: news:comp.simulation.
(1995-02-23)

[theOden]

A simulator is a tool to make a person get used to execute specific sequences for critical situations.

In this forum I'd guess pilots is a good example of such persons but they are far from the only ones needing this tool to "learn reflexes".

Simulator games, such as Falcon4 or IL-2, could more precisely be labled "Study simulators" but are still games as the "tool" isn't really intended to make the user act in a specific way in a specific situation.

Removing "game" from "Simulator game" is probably to make it sound more adult as in the early days of the 80's and 90's computer graphics could never present anything that wouldn't be intepreted as a game for children and of course a good way to separate these products from those that do not require the user to read a considerable user-manual.

Still, they are no simulators.

First Person Shooters such as BF2 and COD will never ever be labled "sim" in any way by me but rather a fast paced game with exaggerated combinations of light and colors for the still growing instant gratification generation and the big ritalin-crowd that needs high-frequent impulses en masse.


Edit: Also please note that simulator and reality not necessary runs hand-in-hand as many loud-voicers in some forums seems to think.

[Ailantd]

In fact the first question its what are we talking about. Are we talking about the meaning of the word "simulation" itself, so almost every program running in a computer could be considered as a simulation, or are we talking about the gaming genre called simulation as opposite to arcade?

If we are talking about the gaming genre we call simulation then I consider a simulation all that programs that try to recreate every aspect of reality the better it can be accomplished and where matching the reality its always the first consideration and even more important that gameplay or game balancing, so if that plane was a crap in reality, then it should be a crap in the simulation because it was that way, even if that decision makes the plane unplayable from a game balancing point of view. That´s the reason I doub if simulation genre should be considered really a game genre even if a lot of times it is used like one.

If a game or program left reality for gameplay then I don´t consider it a sim, but and arcade game.

So even if Call of Duty, Battlefield or Gears of War can be considered simulations from the word meaning I don´t consider them as simulations as game genre but arcade games because in all them gameplay it´s over simulation and reality depict.

[ElAurens]

Basically if it's a port from, or the PC version of, a console title it is not a sim.

Simple as that.

None of the FPS big name titles are sims.

World of Tanks and all it's coming offspring are not sims.

WoP is not a sim either.

Sadly sims are a dying genre.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

What is a sim...

Is Call of Duty a simulation ?

Is Battlefield 3 ?

Is Gears of War ?

Is SimHQ becoming FpsHQ ?

simulation - the act of imitating the behavior of some situation or some process by means of something suitably analogous (especially for the purpose of study or personnel training)

computer simulation - (computer science) the technique of representing the real world by a computer program; "a simulation should imitate the internal processes and not merely the results of the thing being simulated"

[icarus]

By definition a computer simulation attempts to simulate a process or situation. Anything that attempts this is a sim.

Most people think a sim is a serious entity (I used to), but that is incorrect. What those people are (I was) actually arguing is how successful the sim is in its realism and accuracy or even immersion, not whether it is a sim or not.

The correct definition of a computer simulation makes it harder to differentiate sims like CoD and A-10 vs WoP and other game-like sims (even The Sims is a sim) that are less serious in their modelling etc., but it is the correct definition.

As long as they attempt to simulate they are sims. But we all know that there is a vast differences within that definition.

[Madfish]

I believe anything can be a sim if you allow the bending of real world laws of physics etc.

However, the way I define a sim is this: A simulation follows real world mechanics as closely as possible.

This means that for example Flight Unlimited isn't a sim anymore to me as the flight model is now arcade. The same goes for many older games and even IL-2 1946 will lose it's "sim" status at some point. This is simply because these games cannot simulate flight in the highest achievable fidelity anymore.


Many other games are following a different approach though. For example simplifying the flight models on purpose. Those are clearly arcade.

So my definition for arcade is clear. My definition for a sim changes over time.



Battlefield 3 is clearly arcade to me though. Too many shortcuts were taken that prevent the game from actually simulating - it's more of a fantasy demonstration if you will.
ArmA3 is a simulation in the genre of military shooters - for the flying part I don't know (yet) but ArmA2 is clearly not a flying sim.

[gonk]

- for the flying part I don't know (yet) but ArmA2 is clearly not a flying sim.

Agree....Arma2 is not a aircraft/vehicle sim... but it is the best Military tactical sim out there..Unless you want to buy the military versio.

ARMA2 ground troops with DCS -A10 CAS ... that would be a sim...:-P

[icarus]

I believe anything can be a sim if you allow the bending of real world laws of physics etc.

However, the way I define a sim is this: A simulation follows real world mechanics as closely as possible.

This means that for example Flight Unlimited isn't a sim anymore to me as the flight model is now arcade. The same goes for many older games and even IL-2 1946 will lose it's "sim" status at some point. This is simply because these games cannot simulate flight in the highest achievable fidelity anymore.


Many other games are following a different approach though. For example simplifying the flight models on purpose. Those are clearly arcade.

So my definition for arcade is clear. My definition for a sim changes over time.



Battlefield 3 is clearly arcade to me though. Too many shortcuts were taken that prevent the game from actually simulating - it's more of a fantasy demonstration if you will.
ArmA3 is a simulation in the genre of military shooters - for the flying part I don't know (yet) but ArmA2 is clearly not a flying sim.



You hit the nail on the head. Everyones def has changed which is why there is so much argument on the subject.

The dictionary def has not. If we all follow the accepted dictionary def, we won't be arguing over the definition, only discussing which sim is more realistic, accurate, etc.. Which is really the essence of what we are talking about here.

[Jaws2002]

ARMA2 ground troops with DCS -A10 CAS ... that would be a sim...:-P

Yeah. Is funy in some games how easy is to bring down planes and choppers. I just shake my head.
Let's face it. Not many shooter players would want to play a game where 95% of the ground forces can't do a damn thing against air power.

[Stefem]

Arma2 infantry could be considered a sim, more when you compare it with others fps, but Arma2 vehicles otherwise can not. I really would like Arma vehicles being full or realistically simulated even if no everybody could handle it.

Yea, it seems that Arma 3 will resolve this lacuna with vehicles and objects handled by a real physics engine

[whoarmongar]

The problem with Arma2 isnt the physics engine its the fact that the vehicles in particular the choppers and fixed wing are far to easy to kill. This was done in the interests of "balance" and "gameplay" but this game would be so much better if the damage model was more realistic in my opinion.
Even with its faults its still a superb game and I love it.
Very soon I expect in the game world we will be able to fly in a CloD type flightsim game and when we bail out bail into a Arma2 type world, all with hundreds of people online.

[ElAurens]

Another problem with ArmA2 is that the maps are far too small for any real simulated modern air warfare. Any jet fighter would be across the entire map in seconds.

[Robotic Pope]

I believe anything can be a sim if you allow the bending of real world laws of physics etc.

However, the way I define a sim is this: A simulation follows real world mechanics as closely as possible.

This means that for example Flight Unlimited isn't a sim anymore to me as the flight model is now arcade. The same goes for many older games and even IL-2 1946 will lose it's "sim" status at some point. This is simply because these games cannot simulate flight in the highest achievable fidelity anymore.


Many other games are following a different approach though. For example simplifying the flight models on purpose. Those are clearly arcade.

So my definition for arcade is clear. My definition for a sim changes over time.



I don't think you should start calling an old flight sim an arcade game just because something has since surpassed it. An old flight sim will always be a flight sim, it may seem to be less realistic than it once did obviously because of technology advances, but more "arcade" is the wrong word.

The original IL-2 will never become an arcde game.

[Rattlehead]

If we're talking about a game ie software used for entertainment purposes, then I would say a sim is a game that tries, as near as is possible, to accurately replicate the subject content.

To me, it is more about the idea than the actual execution. Like the old Il-2 for example, is most definitely a simulator for me because the idea behind it was to make a sim that was as close to real life as was possible at the time.
Sure, with many more years of coding and advancement in computing power it could have been more realistic, but at it's heart it tried to be as close to 'the real thing' as was possible without spending an obscene amount of money and time on it.
They still had to make it work within the context of a video game.

By contrast, a game is not particularly bothered with being as close to the real thing as is possible as long as people have fun with it. The entertainment value far outweighs the need to accurately replicate the subject content.
Some aspects may be fairly accurate to the real thing, like for example the 3D models, but the fun factor is king.

[Rattlehead]

Basically if it's a port from, or the PC version of, a console title it is not a sim.

Simple as that.



Pretty much, I'd say. There is nothing on consoles these days that attempts a proper simulation.
For one, the typical console player just isn't interested in simulators, and two, the controls are terribly limited. Imagine flying Clod or DCS A-10 on a gamepad only. (!!)

I like consoles (I own an Xbox 360) but if you're looking for a sim, look elsewhere.

[hiro]

For me


Arcade = less detail + not dealing with certain factors. For flying this would be ammo, engine management, dealing with wind / air characteristics / storms, fuel consumption, map reading, navigation. Convergence, aerial gunnery. Use of tactics / strategy will make a difference but is not critical to game play, not have to really put effort into non action things such as take off / landing etc

Arcade you don't have to worry about where the enemies are, situational awareness in't paramount . . .

Arcade is you are the hero of the day. mistakes aren't compounding . .

Arcade is non stop action and everything is right up there. You can repair your plane by flying over your hanger, each kill you fly over the enemy's wreckage and you get reloaded . . . you get super powers like cyclone spinner or tidal waves etc . . .

this is a game that simulates a flight sim







Sim: more detail, more things modelled. You have to deal with everything. CEM, gunnery, fuel, ammo consumption etc. And all details are critical

If your tactics and strategy aren't used, this makes a clear difference of success or failure and is key to game play. SA is living.

If your plane is damaged, you have to do what they used to do, fly it back and land (if possible)

In a sim, you aren't the hero, you just do what you've been trained and work in as part of a team. if everything comes together you make it back.



this is a game that models realistically as much as a pilot went through.

[Robotic Pope]

Pretty much, I'd say. There is nothing on consoles these days that attempts a proper simulation.
For one, the typical console player just isn't interested in simulators, and two, the controls are terribly limited. Imagine flying Clod or DCS A-10 on a gamepad only. (!!)

I like consoles (I own an Xbox 360) but if you're looking for a sim, look elsewhere.

I know of one true simulation on xbox 360. Its a Snipping sim and its very accurate. Makes you realise how hard snipping is and how simplified it is in popular fps games. Its definatly worth the 80 ms points.
http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/MILITARY-SNIPER-SIM-318/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d802585505fb

[ACE-OF-ACES]

As icarus and others have pointed out..

By definition..

There all simulations..

With that out of the way..

That leads to the next question..

How 'realistic' is the simulation?

Problem with 'realistic' is it means different things to different people.. That is to say ask ten people what it means and you are likely to get ten similar but different answers.

For me the first question about realism has to do with how 'accurate' are the planes performance simulated

One would think that would be an easy question to answer, what with all the WWII performance tests to compare too, but you would be suspired how even that can be debated

If you think that is hard..

Try and debate how realistic the immersion is! Good luck! Because that is a very subjective area that can mean different things to different people. Or better yet, try and debate how realistic the 'handling' of the aircraft is.. Those are the ones that tend to give me the biggest smiles!

In summary.. there is an easy rule of thumb test you can do to tell if it is a simulation or not.. Basically check to see if 'it' is running on a PC.. If it is, you can bet it is a simulation! ;) From that point on, the only questions left is how 'realistic' is that simulation.

Just my 2 cents on the subject

Dont spend it all in one place ;)

[ACE-OF-ACES]

One other thing to remember..

No simulation every 'was', 'is' or 'will be' truly realistic

Hence the name simulation :grin:

[Madfish]

One other thing to remember..

No simulation every 'was', 'is' or 'will be' truly realistic

Hence the name simulation :grin:

But then again - nothing is "realistic" by that definition as even human experiences are completely unique. For example if you go outside and run are you as good at it as others? Experience the same emotions? Thoughts?

It's hard to compare thus we have that many rules in competitions.

I believe that simulations have their "limits" but also have an additional level of freedom. For example the sandbox effect: you can't harm, be harmed or die.

This is a MAJOR difference. For example take the flight sim genre. WWII.
We now know the flaws and weaknesses of the planes. The pilots back in the days paid with their lives to discover them. We can also train and perfection our playstyle - could the pilots at the time?

Hence it's getting more and more difficult for a sim to be fair AND a simulation. That is why so much balancing is necessary. And that's also why I believe it would be great to have dogfight servers that aren't faction based and have co-op and other servers that could be faction based. Let people fight in the plane they want - that'd be the only way to be fair and a simulation.

[Seeker]

Traditionally, in flight games, the border between "Sim" and "game" has always been whether or not the title considers angle of attack.

It's why Red Baron 1 is a Sim, and Tie Fighter isn't.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

But then again - nothing is "realistic" by that definition as even human experiences are completely unique.
But I was not providing a 'definition' of simulation or reality..

I was just pointing out that no simulation is, was, or ever will be reality to emphasize the point that they are and allways will be two different things

[Rextar]

Pretty much, I'd say. There is nothing on consoles these days that attempts a proper simulation.
For one, the typical console player just isn't interested in simulators, and two, the controls are terribly limited. Imagine flying Clod or DCS A-10 on a gamepad only. (!!)

I like consoles (I own an Xbox 360) but if you're looking for a sim, look elsewhere.

I agree i think apache air assault did a good job on xbox not a sim but very good take on the ah64.

[Rattlehead]

I know of one true simulation on xbox 360. Its a Snipping sim and its very accurate. Makes you realise how hard snipping is and how simplified it is in popular fps games. Its definatly worth the 80 ms points.
http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/MILITARY-SNIPER-SIM-318/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d802585505fb

Wha...? Interesting, thanks.

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

lol i was looking for a tailors game as in snipping :)thanks

[icarus]

What is a sim?

Falcon 4 BMS 4.3

This classic just keeps going.

[Robotic Pope]

lol i was looking for a tailors game as in snipping :)thanks

lol Yes, stupid spell check couldn't help my bad spelling there.