Dale wrote:
And your switches are not real in any way shape or form, can you reach out and grab the switch and raise it? If not how can you call your game a sim.
This truly shows how little you understand about simulation. You don't need to be able to "grab a physical switch" to simulate doing it, nor to simulate the importance of doing that task in the real plane. That's why it's a
simulation instead of a "virtual reality". I don't also need to tell you that even though you can't feel Gs and you don't really black out, having your screen go tunnel vision and having the simulator start ignoring stick input is a pretty good simulation of G-LOC effects (which, yes, I have felt in real life; it's one reason I usually don't complain about having it happen to me in a sim or a game...!
) C'mon, Dale, you can do better than that... that's a true GAMER dodge argument.
On viewing and simulating viewing: we see things completely differently in this regard. While I don't claim to have as much flight time as you, when I did fly a WWII-era trainer, one of the first things I noticed was, strapped in with a parachute pack, your viewing is highly restricted. And that's in a cockpit with a big, long, Dauntless-style canopy. You don't have a lot of range of movement in a cramped fighter canopy, and the majority of pilots
did strap in. That "dog with his head outside the car window" capability, that I first saw in the first iterations of AH, is laughable. WWII planes were infamous for their lack of ability to see behind the wingline; that's why they developed bubble canopies and why today's jets have the pilot in a perspex bubble on top of the fuselage for the most part. And it was also the main reason why you tended to fly with a wingman: part of his job was to watch your 4-8:00 arc, because you yourself couldn't very well. Dealing with that reality is part of the challenge of flying... and as such, part of the challenge of a sim.
I'll have to take your word for your accuracy vs. charts. But then, Oleg Maddox says the same thing about IL-2, and you don't even need a chart to see how full of crap his evaluation is. Then there's the little matter of how he is adamant about how the position of the gunsight is in his Focke Wulf... accurate according to the blueprints, he says. Unfortunately, he won't listen when you tell him that because his sim doesn't model the
visual effects of refraction through very thick armored glass, the effect in-game is that a good portion of that gunsight is obscured from the player's view, especially if he's pulling any kind of G. Now, I'm not saying he should model refraction... but I am saying he shouldn't saddle the FW pilots in his sim with an obscured view through the gunsight. The most equitable solution, of course, is to "artificially" raise the sight a smidge on his model to give the player the
actual view the pilots of the 190 saw... but no, Oleg just goes to his, "Is correct, be sure" argument-ender, ignoring inconvenient facts in both reality AND in game design.
So, as you can see, there are lies, damned lies and then there's statistics. In Oleg's case, he's right from a physical standpoint, and totally wrong from a game design (as in, the effect on the players) viewpoint.
We both probably agree that there's a mix of gameplay decisions and practical performance decisions and some desire to get the facts right, and all three are at play, whether your goal is a game or a sim. But, from all the policies you're defending here, and the rea$on$ behind mo$t of them, I can't possibly agree that
anything can be accurate in Aces High.
