Quote:
Originally Posted by rakinroll
You are right but it is not a sim, just a game.
|
What defines a flight simulator? We all have our own definition. Is it graphics, FM, takeoffs and landings, complex engine controls, energy management, real maps and planes, historical campaigns, or all of the above? I'm sure I'm missing some additional categories and I'm not going to check the dictionary. But the point is that we "keyboard pilots" all have our own definitions of what is a sim and what is a game. In most games you earn points for achieving objectives. You "win" by defeating your opponent.
Such is the case for WoP AND for IL2 1946. Both award points for achieving mission objectives. Both have plane dependent FM's, take offs, landings, real maps, complex engine controls, available cockpit only views, TIR support, require gunnery skills and allow you to energy fight. These are some of the factors that allow me to "simulate" WWII aerial combat. Since I'm not a pilot (yet) my only frame of reference is WWII movies. WOP's highly detailed graphics make me feel like I'm "in" the movie (I especially enjoy the cinematic replays which look photo realistic when viewed at a normal distance from a 32" HDTV). Ignore the principles of flight in WoP or 1946 and you'll crash and lose.
Men are visual beings and I equate WOP to a young, beautiful model. WoP is drop dead gorgeous and fun to play with. However WoP is a bit shallow and currently lacks the intellectual stimulation necessary for a long term relationship. Whereas IL2-1946 is like a Cougar. Older, more mature, complex, still looks good after a few upgrades, and can teach you a thing or two. Bottom line both will make you feel good doing the thing you want to do most with them, fly
Both require the same techniques to successfully get up, stay up and get down. So at their core, both are WWII aerial combat simulators. Only time and experience will tell if my affair with WoP will last. Thankfully, 1946 is more forgiving than its other lovers.