What areas are not modeled in flight simulators ?

[Uriah]

I will add a sense of depth perception.  A sim can, to some degree, do that.  A sim that has a more realistic looking world helps achieve that.  I think that Bo* does the best out there that I have experienced.    This of course feeds into the sense of speed mentioned by others.  

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Thermal Updrafts / Ridge Lift ad Waves. 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

This is true for movements making pure G and Negative G. this is why a movement platform never will simulate sitting in a plane, you lack the G forces and will just hang in your belts. But there is movements where pilot says it rips the face of your head or head of the shoulders. I guess it is when they provoke a spin of some sort

Incase it was not clear, I was talking about the real thing, flying aerobatics in an real aircraft. Now it wasn't crazy wild but let's say up to 5G my statement holds up.

[ZachariasX]

Incase it was not clear, I was talking about the real thing, flying aerobatics in an real aircraft. Now it wasn't crazy wild but let's say up to 5G my statement holds up.

Oh, 5G is a lot. Especially for armchair pilots. Take one of those up in an aircraft (aerobatic one) and put the stick in one of the forward corners, rudder full in the other direction, and that poor victim will never board a plane again.

[LukeFF]

 

 

oh, and that ground handling thing too...

 

Modified in a recent patch, and I've seen nary a complaint since that time.  

[Hoots]

Modified in a recent patch, and I've seen nary a complaint since that time.

 

Cracking use of the word "nary” there Luke

[Guest deleted@50488]

This is the **only** drawback still present in IL.2 FDM for me now, and keeping me away from giving up on my other Combat sim and keep using IL.2 only because it certainly does it closer to the real thing, I believe...

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/27239-developer-diary-part-144-discussion/page-2?do=findComment&comment=432694

Edited January 15, 2017 by jcomm

[Wulf]

Cold.

[Guest deleted@50488]

Cold.

 

I always open the room windows before flying, specially in cold winter days :-)

[=WH=PangolinWranglin]

Cold.

I wouldn't just say cold, I would say temperature differences overall. While reading about pilots in the pacific, I read one of them that said that the warmth of flying low made the tired. Others said that sweat could get in their eyes. That would be hard to model. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

Modified in a recent patch, and I've seen nary a complaint since that time.  

 

The Mig 3 still seems to be having some issues, if the number of folks who post about issues with it on take off are any indicator.  Overall it is better than it has been, but still overly finicky really.

[Lymark]

 To OP,

 

Perhaps I'm not really answering your question directly, but I'm doing the exactly same thing as you in my country. Although, my students are adults who's getting ready to join the airlines. I'd highly recommend you not to use IL2 1946 or any other combat flight sims. These sims are really good for what they offer. But when it comes down to a thorough education in aviation and aerodynamics as well as scenario variety and setting, then I'd say go for FSX instead. I wanted to say P3D(Prepar3D- 'Upgraded version of FSX') but since you're limited by budget and ain't aiming for super fancy graphic(which can be altered with mods), FSX would be your best bet. The game was like $5 on steam sale, and there're plenty of cheap code you can get online.

 

 I can already teach a lot of good stuff with nothing but the default C172 alone, let alone some mentioned good add-ons like A2A C172. If you get the famous Active Sky add-on(realistic weather&wind modelling,not like 100% realistic, but probably as realistic as you can get in sims) and setup your flight in some interesting real life places with real-time weather, I assure you no one would want to miss your lecture! I remember setting up a flight while having a strong typhoon in the local, my cessna could literally hover in the sky! lol

 

(Also, some add-ons ain't cheap, but most if not all can be 'ARGH-ed'  , If you desperately wanted it but low on budget, not that I'd advice you doing so)

[Uriah]

Sully

[ZachariasX]

Sully

I thought that's the guy landing all those Peshkas after I pumped all my ammo in them...

[I./JG2_Sekij]

Indeed. Having only one life to lose is perhaps the number one thing that will always be missing from combat flight sims.

 

 

Oh yeah.... I rarely see people jumping out of planes (especial people who can really good controll damaged planes), but i somehow to much into roleplaying and also a Statswhore (Wings of Liberty site) so i often bail out...especial because germans like to get really close and having op planes allow it them and than just oneshot the pilots :<

[BlitzPig_Bill_Kelso]

Going off que,

 

One thing that Combat flight sims models very well is that both real pilots and sim pilots act like prima donna's at times  

[Pilot_Rabbit]

 Because our scientific knowledge about turbulence is incomplete. The effects of turbulence will always be an approximation.

That's what I learnt from my tertiary lecturer in fluid dynamics class. 

[=EXPEND=CG_Justin]

I think the biggest thing that cannot really be modeled in a combat sims (or any simulation) is: FEAR.

 

In real life, there is no restart or respawn button. One's life pivots on one's own skill and decision making. If a critical mistake is made, dead is dead.

[Finkeren]

Yeah, we are a bunch of dirty cheaters.

 

When battling AI in this sim (or any other game) I'm always reminded of this little bit from Danny Elfman:

 

It's much more fun, I must confess

When lives are on the line

Not mine, of course, but yours, oldboy

Now that'd be just fine.

[HR_Zunzun]

I think the biggest thing that cannot really be modeled in a combat sims (or any simulation) is: FEAR.

 

In real life, there is no restart or respawn button. One's life pivots on one's own skill and decision making. If a critical mistake is made, dead is dead.

Very much true. Fear was one of the main influence in pilot behavior (any combatant actually) in war.

Still there is room for improvement in the hand of server and mission designers: Punishing the pilot for dying makes you fear dying (virtually I mean). The trick is finding the balance between fear and frustration. For the casual player/mission there is not really point but for the more hardcore missions/online wars I think would need to be a must. Surviving should be more valuable than scoring kills. Once the focus of success is on the killing surviving goes out of the window. 

In the old il2 with coop missions (virtual wars based on them for example) when you died you were dead for good in that mission. Then you had to wait for your friend to finish it before you could fly again. In the ADW onlinewar (similar to TAW) you would be banned several minutes for dying. Actually once you die you were kicked out of the server (I really "feared" that feeling of being kicked out   ).

There could be other ways of punishing the pilot: Banning the use of best planes if dying? Forcing them to fly X resupply missions? Force them to use farther from front airfields? Incremental banning time from the server (the more you die the longer the ban)? Those are just ideas they would may work or just create a lot of frustration on the player and abandoning the server. I hope it can convey my ideas.

Anything that could change the focus/reward of success from getting a kill to fulfil the mission and brings the plane/pilot back would increment the simulation of this important factor (fear to die). Not saying that getting a kill is not important (was the main task for a fighter) but shouldn't be the only measure of success. At least not over other tasks.

[Wulf]

I think the biggest thing that cannot really be modeled in a combat sims (or any simulation) is: FEAR.

 

In real life, there is no restart or respawn button. One's life pivots on one's own skill and decision making. If a critical mistake is made, dead is dead.

 

 

Actually, in combat it's much more likely that "one's life" will, in all probability, pivot on the decisions of others.  You'll have bugger all to do with it.  Most people are required to follow orders - even in air combat you are expected to do as you're told.  If someone makes a mistake and you're put in a bad situation, you'll probably be killed.

[Finkeren]

Actually, in combat it's much more likely that "one's life" will, in all probability, pivot on the decisions of others.  You'll have bugger all to do with it.  Most people are required to follow orders - even in air combat you are expected to do as you're told.  If someone makes a mistake and you're put in a bad situation, you'll probably be killed.

 

There's a lot of truth to this. We still have this glorified image of air combat as very individualistic, where you get to make your own choices and set up your own tactic. The reality is, that most combat pilots are simply expected to obey orders and follow whatever tactical decisions their commanding officer puts forth.  

[-TBC-AeroAce]

Turbulence can be modelled very well in general and the real problem with it is on small scales with in the boundary layer not the bigger scale turbulence in flight sims.  The problems with the modelling of turbulence comes from the solution of the Navier Stokes equations: basically you arrive at a point where you have to many unknowns and not enough equations to solve for them. But this problem with turbulence is really for much higher brow stuff like CFD and is not a problem at all for flight sims that would use a simple approximation anyway instead of trying to solve the flow field directly.

[Gambit21]

Actually, in combat it's much more likely that "one's life" will, in all probability, pivot on the decisions of others. You'll have bugger all to do with it. Most people are required to follow orders - even in air combat you are expected to do as you're told. If someone makes a mistake and you're put in a bad situation, you'll probably be killed.

Sometimes

 

It's often the smaller pilot decisions that get them killed. Orders are "defend those bombers" or "attack those fighters"

 

Not "turn with him until you're out of energy" or "fixate on the enemy and forget he has buddies around" or "attack head-on and disregard his angle or armament" or "follow that fighter straight up and stall, hanging there like a kite for a few seconds"

 

Etc etc.

Sure a Betty or B-17 crew etc is pretty much stuck. Or a pilot ordered to attack a convoy that's armed to the teeth with AA. Or maybe a flight leader does fly him and his hapless wingman head-on into death. Often, especially with fighters there was room to make one's own luck, good or bad to some extent and choose his own tactics.

[Finkeren]

Sometimes

 

It's often the smaller pilot decisions that get them killed. Orders are "defend those bombers" or "attack those fighters"

 

Not "turn with him until you're out of energy" or "fixate on the enemy and forget he has buddies around" or "attack head-on and disregard his angle or armament" or "follow that fighter straight up and stall, hanging there like a kite for a few seconds"

 

Etc etc.

Sure a Betty or B-17 crew etc is pretty much stuck. Or a pilot ordered to attack a convoy that's armed to the teeth with AA. Or maybe a flight leader does fly him and his hapless wingman head-on into death. Often, especially with fighters there was room to make one's own luck, good or bad to some extent and choose his own tactics.

 

You seem to think, that air combat was pretty much up to the individual fighter pilot, as if they didn't operate in units that worked together and adhered to a certain tactical doctrine. Even if the order given was as simple as "attack those fighters" it would not be up to the individual pilot how he wanted to conduct the fight, he'd be part of a unit and he'd have a certain role to fulfill depending on his position in the formation.

[Gambit21]

Just depends Fink - thus my "sometimes"

Not only that but I touched on it again later in my post. My point is that nothing holds true all the time. I've interviewed quite a few WWII pilots, and have stacks of notes and audio interviews that are not in any book.

 

There was often quite a bit of freedom sometimes as to the exact way in which to attack a problem on a micro if not a macro level.

Not always.

 

Not every pilot in JG 52 for instance engaged enemy fighters the same way. Hartmann wasn't a dog fighter, Liepfert was.

 

Bud Anderson's "straight up" fight wasn't part of any tactical doctrine. Quite the opposite - it was a stupid individual decision that could easily have gotten him killed.

 

I could go on, but I'm typing on my phone - and I hate that

Edited January 23, 2017 by Gambit21

[Finkeren]

I agree that there are of course exceptions, and they will quite often be found among the most succesful pilots (succesful in the sense of "shot down a lot of enemies") but aces are just that: Exceptions.

 

The far majority of soldiers in combat never actually kill anyone - some studies find that its a minority who even get to fire their guns directly at an enemy. It's no different among fighter pilots, some are exceptional and do things their own way, but most are just regular joes who might never get a kill, who adhere to the doctrine and follow orders. They aren't poor fighter pilots because of that. They might fufill their assigned role and help their unit be succesful regardless.

[Gambit21]

Yep

[=EXPEND=CG_Justin]

Actually, in combat it's much more likely that "one's life" will, in all probability, pivot on the decisions of others.  You'll have bugger all to do with it.  Most people are required to follow orders - even in air combat you are expected to do as you're told.  If someone makes a mistake and you're put in a bad situation, you'll probably be killed.

 

Very true as well! Just look at Goering and Hitler's grandiose ideas of how people and machines should be employed. The idiocy of the clueless is something Galland battled for almost the entire war and risked being court marshaled or worse to try and remedy. I cant imagine how many young lives were cut short in the prime of life because of following the orders of people who were unable to see the err of their own ways. I'm sure they [the pilots] fought like lions, but in the end it's very sad really. 

[BraveSirRobin]

.... I'm sure they [the pilots] fought like lions, but in the end it's very sad really.

 

Um... No, actually. It was a really good thing that they ultimately failed.

[=EXPEND=CG_Justin]

Um... No, actually. It was a really good thing that they ultimately failed.

 

Win or lose...it doesn't matter. It's like the charge of the light brigade. Whether it be miscommunication or megalomania ordering people forward, a loss of life in an effort of futility is a tragedy on any level. Young people are ordered to fight and die. To me, that is very sad. They're not just men. They are fathers, sons, husbands, or friends regardless of flag or creed. War is a nightmare for all combatants, period.

[Monostripezebra]

weather complexity = generally very poorly modeled. One of the killing factors in GA, never puts much trouble to anyone in flightsims...

 

Ground obstacle complexity = you can land 90% of everywhere in a sim just fine, without worrying for obstacles, a proper aproach and surface dangers. Outlanding in real life is somewhat more dounting then any sim...

 

emotional excitement = sit in a plane and see some things go wrong in a row.. or get fine flying weather, beautiful clouds, sun and light.. no sim ever comes close to experiences in real flying.

 

costs and time= spend hours renewing fabric on the wings or repairing some structural parts, polishing, lubing. No sims comes close ...

 

spouses complaining about too much time spent with hobby... oh, wait, that one is actually modeled very well!

[BraveSirRobin]

Win or lose...it doesn't matter.

That is ridiculous. A "win" would have been a catastrophe.

[69th_chuter]

That is ridiculous. A "win" would have been a catastrophe.

 

 

I'm currently watching season 2 of Amazon's Man in the High Castle set in 1962 occupied America.

[Guest deleted@50488]

weather complexity = generally very poorly modeled. One of the killing factors in GA, never puts much trouble to anyone in flightsims...

 

Ground obstacle complexity = you can land 90% of everywhere in a sim just fine, without worrying for obstacles, a proper aproach and surface dangers. Outlanding in real life is somewhat more dounting then any sim...

 

emotional excitement = sit in a plane and see some things go wrong in a row.. or get fine flying weather, beautiful clouds, sun and light.. no sim ever comes close to experiences in real flying.

 

costs and time= spend hours renewing fabric on the wings or repairing some structural parts, polishing, lubing. No sims comes close ...

 

spouses complaining about too much time spent with hobby... oh, wait, that one is actually modeled very well!

 

Weather modelling is one of my main areas of appreciation in a flight simulator.

 

For my IFR training I used ELITE ( still do ) and although very basic it can model icing effects, and even turbulence in a way that is good enough for IMC.

 

But I do find IL.2's modelling of shear and turbulence very well done.

 

Also, among the various flight simulators I have used, only DCS, IL.2 and Aerowinx PSX actually model for example geopotential height variation with the cold / hot weather, for some base QNH !  You don't find this modelled in any variant of MSFS, X-Plane, etc.... Even ELITE allows only for setting tropopause height, from the instructor's station, but that is primarily meant to be used with the generic MD-80 model.

[=EXPEND=CG_Justin]

That is ridiculous. A "win" would have been a catastrophe.

 

You're missing my point, but that's ok too.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

You're missing my point, but that's ok too.

He does that intentionally a lot of the time.

[BraveSirRobin]

You're missing my point, but that's ok too.

 

No, I'm really not.  You're the one missing the point.  Yeah, it's sad that the war started.  But once it starts it's really good that lots of the people fighting for the guys who built death camps are killed as a result of the stupidity of their leaders.  Because the other option, that you don't see as sad, is that they win the war and even more people end up in death camps.  Sorry, but them being killed was not sad at all.  It was really Fing great, and humanity owes a lot to the guys who killed them.

He does that intentionally a lot of the time.

 

Not so much, actually.

[unreasonable]

To get OT, Fight Sims obviously cannot resolve moral issues, any more than an aeroplane can. 

 

A relevant to CFS example is the question of when is a war just, and the sacrifices made by the just side therefore not a tragedy at all, even if they represent personal tragedy for families. They are a necessary means to a desirable end. 

 

Waste on the other hand is more a question of utility or futility: ie a sacrifice is a waste if it does not achieve it's goals. Waste is morally neutral, merely a measure of efficiency.

 

So the Nazi leadership wasted the lives of it's pilots. But was this tragic? Wrong question: you have to ask tragic for who? For them and their families yes: for everyone else in the world absolutely not.

 

Personally I find the idea that all war is tragic waste absurd, and the idea that it is a nightmare for all combatants to be simply false. A significant minority love it.

[=EXPEND=CG_Justin]

No, I'm really not.  You're the one missing the point.  Yeah, it's sad that the war started.  But once it starts it's really good that lots of the people fighting for the guys who built death camps are killed as a result of the stupidity of their leaders.  Because the other option, that you don't see as sad, is that they win the war and even more people end up in death camps.  Sorry, but them being killed was not sad at all.  It was really Fing great, and humanity owes a lot to the guys who killed them.

 

 

LMAO! You win the internet for today for "most narrow minded post"! And please, show me where I stated that death camps weren't sad? Or that the allies losing the war would have been good? In fact, show me where death camps or the Allies losing were mentioned at all!? 

 

Whatever...I guess that's what I get for engaging in conversation with a person who gives themselves the title of "Brave". Good day "sir"....I don't care to argue politics, or semantics for that matter. My feelings are my own and we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

It's been fun.