"game" or "sim"

[addman]

I think it's a bit relative, BoP/WoP are games compared to CloD but after flying A2A planes, CloD seems more like a game. It's all about underlying aircraft systems and how or even if they are connected and how they respond to your input and the effects of outside factors such as weather, wear, temperature and air pressure. Clod is a relatively good combat flight game, I don't expect it to have the same high fidelity as a 50€ payware aircraft. It gives you a good sense of flying and have pretty good physics (well not the alien A.I) and it does combat at the same time. It has to take many other aspects in to consideration to be playable on even higher-end machines. Ballistics, advanced A.I (well not so yet), damage modeling etc. Compare the CloD Spitfire to the A2A Spitfire without taking anything but the aircraft systems and performance in to consideration, then yes, CloD is only a game. I mean, how often do you have to prime an engine in CloD to get it started? is it even possible to prime your engine in CloD? Does your spark plugs foul sometimes? How about the battery? does it ever drain? Do you have to turn on the carb heater when you are in very cold air at high altitude?

P.S To be honest, anything that can be installed and played on a regular PC within minutes is by definition a game, real simulators are for the military, airline companies and plane manufacturers. We just like to call them sims because it sounds more mature then games. I don't care, I call them all games because that's what they are, I know because I've played games since I was 4 years old.

[Chivas]

They are all games, and the best ones have options to make them feel more or less realistic to suit different peoples sense of gameplay.

Unfortunately these sims have become too complex, expensive, and time consuming. Developers who can afford to even think about developing them wouldn't bother when there is so much more monies to be made with less complex type sims. The only people willing to develope complex combat flight sims are enthusiasts who are eventually forced to release unfinished products to stay solvent long enough to finish them.

[ElAurens]

Real pilots laugh at us.

Right Tailspin??

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Real pilots laugh at us.

And I laugh each time a pilot introduces himself as a pilot before telling me his name..

But I digress

As for the topic at hand.. One of the best definitions I have found I found nearly 20 years ago. Keep that in mind when you read the following in that it was written back in the 286 days when he talks about PC flight simulators and their limitation. What with today's PCs the opposite is now true, that being a modern PC can do calculations a 20 yo military flight simulator wishes it could do in real time.. With that said I provide the following. (note I took the liberty of bolding some items)

Originally Posted by Robert Dorsett

This article is from the Flight Simulators FAQ
http://stason.org/TULARC/sports/flig...ors/index.html

What do you really mean by "realism" in a flight simulator?

There are two major issues to consider: realism and fidelity.

• Realism is how "real" a system feels.

• Fidelity relates to the actual models used.

Realism is a highly subjective issue: a simulator might model each blade of grass on the approach end of a runway, but if the user's flying overhead at 37,000', that won't affect his perception of *realism* at that point. Similarly, a graphics system might provide a high- resolution database, but if it only uses an orthographic projection, it won't win over many pilots!

Simulation is, therefore, the *art* of providing the expected cues and response characteristics for a specified mission. Most military simulators are so specialized that they're optimized for certain missions or flight regimes; airline simulators tend to be much more flexible (all regime).

For each regime, appropriate feedback must be maintained. Real-world systems models are usually (but not always) the cornerstone of high-fidelity simulation; final "realism", even in airline simulators, is obtained only after an exhaustive survey and fine-tuning process. The acceptance process for even a production-run simulator can take up to a year.

A third issue is perception, and the intent of the game as an entertainment product. For example, pilots realize that airplanes are essentially very easy to fly and land: non-pilots may expect them to be horrifyingly complex to fly, given a lot of the mystique surrounding aviation, a lot of which has been enthusiastically promoted by pilots themselves.

All retail flight simulators are just games, and, to some degree, help shape and feed off the perceptions of their users. So if the users expect an F-16 to be almost impossible to fly, an F-16 simulator that IS almost impossible to fly wouldn't disappoint anyone except real pilots. Conversely, a simulator that is actually easy to fly might disappoint game-players as too easy, or "arcade-ish," because it IS too realistic.

In discussing "realism," one should really pay attention to three factors:

1. The flight dynamics and flight instrumentation. (flight simulator)
2. The visual system.
3. The systems support. (systems simulator)

The basis for such discussions in this forum should be from the pilot, not entertainment, perspective.

How does the flight model influence fidelity?

How does the flight model influence fidelity?

True fidelity in a flight simulator comes from the flight equations used in the flight model. In general, the more complex the flight model, the better performance you are going to get, though there are instances where even a *good* flight model can lead to poor flight simulation (more on that in a minute).

In general, most of the low-end, low-cost simulators on the market use what is known as a "3 Degree of Freedom", or 3 DOF, flight model. This means that the equations of motion only determine x, y, and z displacements of the aircraft in space, and then use this information to determine the flight attitude. The actual characteristics are based on the so-called "performance" equations, which themselves are usually only defined for steady-state situations. Various other characteristics, such as roll rate, must be fudged by the author.

Some simulations don't even pay any attention to angle of attack, using stick input or airplane pitch as the final determining characteristic.

Most high-end simulators use a 6 DOF model, described below, and a lot of PC-based simulators tend to ignore these kinds of models completely, and rely on a "point-space" performance model instead.

The equations of motion do not make the flight model, however; they merely set the limit on what is and is not possible. In order to support these equations, you must also have good models for finding the lift-curve slope, drag coefficients, stability derivatives, and other parameters.

In addition, you have to decide how you want to calculate these parameters. Should you calculate your lift on each wing independently, or just the lift on the whole wing surface area? The latter method would be faster and easier, but the former would allow you to model such flight dynamics as the "Dutch roll" modes, stall-spin conditions, and other common effects. How about downwash effects, which alter the effective angle of attack of the tail? There are several issues that need to be considered.

Finally, after you have your flight model together, you need to find the parameters that fit your aircraft, so that your *plane* flies just as realistically as your flight model does. For example, you could have a high-end, 6 DOF flight model, but if your Cessna 172 has the wrong wing area modeled, it won't *fly* like one.

[Ailantd]

I would say CoD is not an aircraft simulator -as it doesnt try to model all the aircraft systems- but an air battle tactical simulator, as it try to model the fly behabiours of the aircraft in battle. Something like that.

[senseispcc]

50/50 it is both and none. With the limitation of the PC's but also the progress made by the hardware, the software does better than the first IL2 and less so than the future one! This is not reality and shall never be it.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by Ailantd

I would say CoD is not an aircraft simulator -as it doesnt try to model all the aircraft systems- but an air battle tactical simulator, as it try to model the fly behabiours of the aircraft in battle. Something like that.

It's not even a tactical simulator; most of the real tactics can't be used.

Clod is a demo of 3D modelling, nothing else.

It's very valuable if you're interested in screenshots.

What is the difference between "gun" game and sim?

Gun game - you run around with AK-47 and shoot some other person to the head, you take RPG and shoot it at running person, you feel like you are able to shoot with real guns...


Gun sim - not possible...


Same in "flight" world... In flight world you think you can fly with 6-8Gs couple of hours per day. You can make crazy maneuvers without vommiting your guts out. You never black out and you never feel smell of *hit when someone starts to shoot at you in 5+km from behing with 20mm cannons.. So almost everyone "starts" to fight back and turn like crazy... Some people here think they "play" simulator.



And I am not talking about a fact that here most of hardcore "pilots" are over 30. Many of them over 40... How many such old pilots was/are flying with real warplanes?