I think the major problem is a lack of physical feedback of any sort, not to mention the limited viewing system.
In terms of conceptualising 3D space and their location within it, I am sure they would do fine. However, there's no seat of the pants flying, and we as players have to rely completely on different indicators to tell us the state of the aircraft.
There's also the issue of computers being foreign and their not being used to controls, view switches, et cetera. I'm sure the first time any vet got into a new plane there was a certain surreality, too. With experience that quickly fades (as it does with flight sim pilots). It's about getting to know the habits and limits of your environment. I am sure they would feel as out of place in front of a computer for the first time and being told to "fly this!" as most of us would be if thrown into a WWII aircraft and told to take it up for a quick hop. I also suspect that some of us have much more virtual flight time than many vets had real flight time, and that's true without a doubt in terms of combat flying.
Then there's the fact that we'd be nervous as all get out in the real cockpit, whereas vets routinely put their lives on the line to serve and sitting in front of a computer just doesn't generate the same anxiety. Death and fear are pretty potent motivators and in that sense there's no comparison between a game and having actually flown in combat. We've got an interview to be published soon on Dogfighter with an F-15E Weapons System Officer and he's of the opinion that you can take what you learn in real flight and apply it to a well modeled sim, whereas you can't really do it the other way around.
As previously mentioned, the physical element is *totally* missing in sims. Not just G forces but all the other stuff that goes along with flying: cold, discomfort, tactile feedback, lack of sleep during wartime conditions. I suspect other elements are the same -- preparation, anticipation, manoeuvring.
I used to do track work in race-prepped Porsches, as well as having played
the racing sim,
Grand Prix Legends (still considered the pinnacle of driving sims). Obviously getting pushed around in the seat, smells of rubber and oil, and sheer exhilaration were missing in the latter. But there were also striking similarities: getting the car set up for the next corner, being aware of the hints that the simulated car was providing and being ready to react and dial in a little counter-steer or to lift off or, conversely, put the power down. In the physical sense there's no comparison -- in the mental sense there were many similarities. Good driving is all about anticipation so that when a car actually does something unexpected, it's not really all that unexpected and one can react almost instantaneously. It's about not being surprised when something happens because you were expecting it might happen all along so it's no big problem to deal with it when it does. No panic -- just anticipation. Glorious slides exiting a corner look spectacular on TV but are really quite tame when you get in the "groove". It's when something that is totally unaccounted for occurs that you get accidents and roll overs (a tire blowing, the car you're passing not seeing you and pulling into your line, a slick spot on the track that wasn't there last time around).
I know racing a car isn't like going to face death at the hands of an enemy, but that's what I can bring to the table from personal experience between a reality and a detailed simulation for a computer. I went up in a dogfight with Air Combat USA last summer, too (in a SIAI Marchetti SF260 light attack Fighter-Trainer), and pulled a few Gs against a real opponent. It was pretty tame stuff on many levels and under very controlled conditions. I still threw up three times.
Then once more in the rental car on the way back.
Happily, my opponent was just as green in the gills and I think we both lost about five pounds from prespiring so much both because of exhiliration and our convusling stomachs. Next time I flew
Aces High my perception of a barrel roll was
very different, as I could immediately reconcile the experience I had had in-flight with what was presented on the screen. I was very gentle on the controls for a loooong time after that. Time heals all wounds (and stomachs
) so I don't relate the two much more any longer and now yank and bank as hard as the rest of them.
More to the point, however, Dogfighter has interviewed quite a few WWII vets and
specifically asked them their opinions about combat flight simulations and a few of them have even flown on-line sims or been consultants to developers. Make sure to read our continuing
[series of interviews] with real aviators and you'll catch a few that have flown sims. Three in particular are revealing: Lt. Col.
[Bill Stark] who flew P-38s in the Pacific and also flies
WarBirds;
['Bob' Schmidt, USN] a veteran Naval and Air Guard pilot with nearly a thousand hours in the Grumman FM-2, F6F-5 Hellcat and North American P-51D who flew
WB for the first time earlier this year; and famed Col.
['Bud' Anderson] who not only has 16.25 kills in WWII to his credit flying P-51s, but also acted as a consultant on
Jane's WWII Fighters and did a lot of virtual flying as a result (he still flies Jack Roush's restored P-51, too, along with Chuck Yeager at airshows). All three have insights into flying a flight sim based on tremendous real world experience in WWII aircraft. There are a couple of reprints in there from the now late Saburo Sakai as well as Joe Foss who were consultants to Microsoft for
CFS2.
Anyhoo, sorry to go on so, but I find this subject incredibly interesting and I hope you find the interviews revealing, too!
Cheers,
phaetnAT
------------------
Gian "phaetn" Vitzthum
Managing Editor
Dogfighter.com--
Edited to correct a link.
[This message has been edited by phaetn (edited 01-11-2001).]
