What is a sim, what is not...

[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.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by louisv

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]

Originally Posted by Madfish

- 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...

[Jaws2002]

Originally Posted by gonk

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

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.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Robotic Pope]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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