k5083 wrote:
First, the concept of "warbirds in video games" is vague. Warbirds appear in different kinds of video games in different ways. Sometimes they are just set dressing with an occasional active role, as in the Fallout titles. They may be an environmental threat, as in a Call of Duty type ground-based war shooter game. Sometimes they function as pieces in turn-based strategy games. And, what I think you may be mainly referring to, is they play a role in flight simulators, ranging from the gamey stuff like War Thunder to the relatively sophisticated like MS Flight Simulator. All of these genres teach the player something about the aircraft and the history associated with them, but of course like any education, what they teach isn't necessarily true, even (as Pratchett might say) for any given value of true. All of them can spark interest in the subject matter. But they are not all the same, and if by "video games" you mean "flight simulators," many readers will question your knowledge of the subject, as flight simmers don't like their programs to be called video games, even if they are. I know you know better, because of the Ace Combat link you posted. There could be a good discussion of what a game teaches you about an aircraft and whether that is "true" or "false," but it would have to be a game-by-game thing, not even genre-by-genre, I would think. "Is the effectiveness of the P-47 accurately depicted in Order of Battle WWII?" or "Are the flight characteristics of the FlyingIron Spitfire in MS Flight Sim realistic?" are sensible questions. As you get broader, it becomes harder to make coherent general statements.
Very good point. I need to be more specific. For what it's worth, your interpretation was correct. I was referring to flight simulators rather than any other genre of game.
Ironically, I tend to lean toward the arcade rather than the simulation side of flying games. (Ironic because I imagine the logical assumption is that given my interest in the history I would prefer a more realistic depiction of aerial combat.) Aside from the Ace Combat series, my other most played game title is the even more fantastical Project Wingman. I haven't played War Thunder in a while, but when I do I play in arcade mode. Prefacing with the full admission that I've never been one myself, I've always said it's because when you really read into stories of soldiers and pilots you realize that the majority of the time war is actually
really boring. (By the way, if you haven't seen it, there's a
video from The Onion that couldn't be more perfect for this conversation.) In my humble opinion, there's a sweet spot between an
SBD gunning down multiple zeros on its way to attack the Japanese carriers at Midway and spending 8 hours flying straight and level from England to Germany for 5 minutes of dogfighting.
One of the notes I have for further expansion is that the subject of dealing with the accuracy of depictions of military aircraft in video games is really two separate issues: the accuracy of the flight characteristics and the historical accuracy. While most of what I wrote in the draft above had to do with the latter, the anecdote about the person who had not let on that his flight experience was only on the computer is really more to do with the former. It was related to me in the context of "no, you can't learn anything about flying from a game". To me, again with the disclaimer that I am not, nor have I ever been, a pilot, I found that the time spent in games was very useful for helping me understand
broad concepts, although not necessarily the
particular characteristics of any given airplane. For example, at the risk of sounding just like one of those naïve "kids", it was only after I set up a night mission over open ocean in IL-2 Sturmovik: 1946 and came spiraling out of a dogfight to the realization that I couldn't tell the difference between sea and sky that I really gained an appreciation for how spatial disorientation due to instrument flight conditions is possible. Before that, it was hard for me to understand how anyone could lose track of their location so badly as to end up crashing.
By the same token, I would never expect to be able to fly any real warbird because of any time I spent in a video game. I remember back when our museum had two side by side simulators running Il-2, I ended up in a situation where I was in one side and an actual pilot was in the other. Both of us were in P-51s, but the difference in how we handled the takeoff was revealing to me. Whereas I, having spent a lot of time in arcade-style flight sims, simply pushed the throttle all the way forward into war emergency power from a dead stop, he slowly increased the power to counter the expected P-factor. I would not have even noticed had he not brought it up afterwards.
I do find it funny, however, that the "novice" control scheme in Ace Combat - where a single control input operates multiple control surfaces and an airplane steers in two dimensions like a car - is essentially the same principle that the Ercoupe was designed around almost 90 years ago.
k5083 wrote:
I find your third-hand reports that people turn down a flight because they have flown the airplane on a computer to be highly suspect. It would surprise me if anyone said that, but even if they did, it was not likely the true reason. If I think of some of the reasons I have turned down rides - it's too expensive, I feel like I should chip in for the gas but I don't have the cash on me, I don't know the pilot (or I know him a little too well!) and don't trust him, I'm not crazy about the condition of the plane, I don't like the weather, or I'm just not interested right now - some of these might be a little embarrassing or offensive to say, and the video game thing may just be an excuse (although I would hope I could come up with a better one). I think it's far-fetched to think that someone would invest the hours in learning a plane in a flight sim or game and then view that as a superior substitute for the actual experience. That's like saying, "Naw, I don't care to have dinner with Elizabeth Hurley, I've seen all of her movies." You'd feel like that person should be locked up. So I'd exercise a little more skepticism with respect to such statements.
I think you're right to be skeptical. I admit that I am a bit skeptical myself. I agree that there is a pretty good chance that there were other factors at play.
In a way, however, I don't think it really matters whether the stories are true or not. The point of those anecdotes is more about the perceptions of the person that was telling the story had about video games then whether it actually happened. True, in both cases, I was the one who broached the subject, but they were the ones who made the point of making their retellings denigrating to video game players. Ultimately, they viewed it through the lens that they wanted to.
While maybe not as extreme as the two examples I picked – they just happen to be the ones I remember – I have run into many other instances of this attitude. If this was not the case, this counterargument would not exist.
I really appreciate your insightful and constructive criticism, by the way. A number of my responses above were aspects I had really considered until you brought them up. Thanks!
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
