by Griphos » Sun Mar 04, 2018 1:40 pm
That's right, Buzz. Simulators can be good at representing systems and procedures, particularly things like charts. But that's simulation of things that actually exist in digital format (on tablets through Foreflight, for instance). There are varying degrees of faithfulness in simulations of GPS systems for aircraft, or glass cockpits. If you like flying tubes, which I don't, sims can represent programming a FMC, for instance, very nicely. But that's not flying. That's the procedures and systems around flying.
I was talking about flying. That's what sims can't do realistically. The movement of air on aerodynamic surfaces, the kinesthetics of flight, the real feedback forces on controls. I might trust you to read a chart for an ILS approach and manipulate the autopilot if all you've ever done is flight sims, but I sure as heck will not give you the controls to land the plane!!
I imagine they can't do that realistically with train sims either, judging from the numerous complaints on this and other forums about the lamented lack of realism of various physics involved.
That doesn't mean folks like mrennie aren't amazing for doing all they can to model all the internal dynamics of incredibly complex systems. A2A and some of the DCS makers also do incredible work trying to model the physics of prop effects or internal combustion engines. It's amazing, truly!
The end result is thoroughly enjoyable, and to varying degrees believable, but, again, not much like the real thing, at least when it comes to flying. And all of it still is translated through and into computer commands to move 2-D pixels around on screens. That's the bottleneck to "realism."
I'm just wanting to raise the question of the supposed superiority of "realism" in these debates about whose favored input device or platform is more "pure." It's a standard we throw around that exists way out there in the asymptotic distance, I think.