Ace Combat...more realistic???

[JACN]

This was posted at Simhq:

 

-An Interview with A-10 Pilot Major Dan "Beef" Manning

"

20mm: Talking about simulators, do you have any experience with computer or console sims, and if so, which ones and what's your opinion of them?

Beef: With computer simulations, I was aware when LOMAC was released, but didn't buy it. Some time afterwards, I happened to see it on sale in a Best Buy. When I saw the container cover art, I had to buy it. I mean, the aircraft on the cover was the plane that had my name on it, how could I resist?

What I found was that the graphics were very good, but it was far too difficult to fly. In most sims, they want to make the game have as many options as the actual airplane though a myriad of keyboard shortcuts. When you are in the real deal, things are much simpler, more intuitive.

I like the PS2 game, Ace Combat, because to me the flying maneuvering is more realistic... although a 450 KIAS A-10 certainly isn't."

 

me...:icon_toil ....

 

Full interview link: http://www.simhq.com/_air6/air_212a.html

Quote is from page 3.

 

What do you think, guys?...A real Hog driver saying that a console arcade is having a better/ more accurate FM than LO...("flying maneuvering is more realistic")

 

Don´t miss either this pearl: "In most sims, they want to make the game have as many options as the actual airplane though a myriad of keyboard shortcuts. When you are in the real deal, things are much simpler, more intuitive"

 

So, WHY do we want an even more complex and accurate LOMAC when a pilot tell us that flying a fighter is just as easy as playing PS2 :rolleyes:?!

[Shepski]

I would imagine the A-10 is very easy to fly and most likely, this guy finds the arcade version way easier to fly then Lock On especially when it comes to the departure model... too bad he didn't go into more detail.

[Rastus]

Yeah, agree with Shepski. I wonder how much time he spent in Lockon setting up his joystick & buttons for "intuitive" settup. I am sure he does find flying the A10 is simple, much like I find playing complex guitar pieces as simple after over 20 years of practice and training.

 

I am sure if we (sim pilots) jumped into a real A10 we would find it very hard and somewhat harder than any PS2 game.

 

Cheers

[Shaman]

Most pilots don't know how their planes work, and don't do any maintentance. Some don't even understand why their planes fly.

They are just trained to use them.

 

You need to know how LockOn works, and you need to set everything correctly for yourself. I kinda understand that guy..

 

I had a fighter pilot sittin at my desk and tryin to figure out how to fly in LockOn, and he also didn't like it (to fly actually), so he just watched how I do it. This is the harsh diffrence between real cockpit and toy hotas+keyboard.

 

It seems that A-1o pilot didn't want to waste his time to learn LockOn controls and set everything up, so he fired up his PS2 and played flight sim on gamepad, lol :)

 

A-10 has really bad flight model in LockOn; but less realistic then Ace Combat lol! I think that guy didn't know what he's talking about, really.

[GoGamer.com - Jason]

A true test would be to have a complete Hog cockpit mockup built and run Lock On on a huge projected screen like in a real simulator. That would be a fair comparison.

 

Jason

[EvilBivol-1]

I got dibs on that test! The damn pilots can wait!

[hitman]

What is it that they say?

 

Takes a Ph.D to design it

Takes a Bachelors degree to build it

Takes 4 years of college to fly it

Takes a High School diploma to fix it...

[mikoriad]

What is it that they say?

 

Takes a Ph.D to design it

Takes a Bachelors degree to build it

Takes 4 years of college to fly it

Takes a High School diploma to fix it...

 

 

Soooo true my, friend soo true...

 

I used to be an avionics tech on MC-130's and also f-16C's in the USAF. I swear some of those pilots have not a clue what a 3rd of the buttons and switches in the cockpits do. They know procedure and that's it... switch this, press them, flick that, and this happens. Now the pilots that went through enlisted life as mechanics, then officer training school to become pilots are another story, these are the really sharp ones. Of course this is not a blanket statement; some of them are very knowledgeable.

Hey hitman_214th, I used to live at Perterson AFB in the Springs, and work at Cheyenne Mountain AFB... anyways cool to see someone from there.

[Weta43]

Basically all he's saying though is that in the hog (that he has hundeds of hours in) he knows where everything is, in LOMAC (that he has half an hour in) he couldn't remember the shortcut key combinations & in Ace Combat he didn't have to remember the shortcut keys 'cause the game does everything for you..

By that logic GTR with all the driving aids on is a more realistic sim than with them off.

[Rhen]

Most pilots don't know how their planes work, and don't do any maintentance. Some don't even understand why their planes fly.

They are just trained to use them.

 

Ok, on what planet do you think there exists a nation that gives its multimillion dollar aircraft to bozos that have no clue how they work or the aerodynamics of flight? :confused: :rolleyes:

 

In real life pilots attend academics, which expose them to the operating systems on the aircraft from hydraulics, fuel, electrics, fire control, radar, pneumatics, the normal and emergency operations of each system. Then, pilots go to the hangar and look over each of the systems and are allowed to crawl over their aircraft to see what each of the systems look like with the access/inspection panels and engines out of their bays.

 

This doesn't even go into the hours spent on aerodynamics which started in UPT and continued throughout each aircraft type flown.

 

While this particular A-10 pilot liked a console game better than LOMAC, you've got to ask yourself a question. Who you going to believe, a real A-10 pilot or some joe hamfist who's been flying sims for his entire life. Next you've got to ask the Hog driver what he was trying to get out of the experience. Did he want to have some fun "blowin' up stuff" and not be bothered by switchology, or was he looking for some time flying with a group of people using tactics he was used to flying (and all the bureaucracy inherent in that mess)? If it's the former, then the console is going to win every time.

 

BTW, why do you think there's some military pilots who enjoy LOMAC over F4? We don't all enjoy flipping every switch in the cockpit to get airborne and wreak some havoc. I enjoy flying with likeminded individuals who are more into the tactics and flight dynamics over the checklists and switchology. My plane of choice is the Eagle, and while it still doesn't model the real one in true fidelity, it still gives me some of the feelings I had flying in the real one.

 

So, don't be all bent out of shape because a Hog driver (most need their head examined anyway :p ) dissed your sim. Get enjoyment where you can and if you're one of those people who need reassurance, then find another Hog driver who likes LOMAC. With all it's idiosyncracies and inaccuracies, I still like LOMAC over F4 because of the feeling of flight, it's ability to allow me to fly fingertip realistically, and its ability to allow me to SOMETIMES use appropriate real world tactics, on occasion, (some restrictions may apply, consult your lawyer for details) ;)

[capttrob]

I fly professionally, and although i havent flown an A-10 or F-15, i tend to agree with "Beef" Manning.

 

Yet, i also agree with some of you simmers. If the A-10 in Lock On was used in an A-10 Level D sim, he would find it more realistic. But the same could be said for PS2 Ace Combat. Any software used with correct functionality in a Level D will be more realistic than how we use the game presently. That is why most simmers dump thousands on building their home simulators.

 

 

Some things that remind me Lock On is a game, and far from being a sim.

 

NAV functionality definitely needs work. Cant even turn the OBS on the HSI.

 

Fire protection is non-existent. You need to eject with an engine fire. No bottles.

 

F-15C WAY underpowered. Most jets i have flown will accelerate with 100% thrust at gross weight (MTOW non-AB) on climb-out. The F-15C is lucky to get a few degrees pitch up at MTOW (max take off weight) and maintain airspeed above stall (definitely doesnt accelerate). At lower weights, it performs more like a civilian jet (will accelerate in climb).

 

To give you an example, one jet i flew had 34,500 as MTOW and 6000lbs of thrust per side. We could roll that thing back to 15-20 deg pitch up and accelerate. Basically a 1:3 power to weight ratio. At 30,000 lbs, we could roll that thing back to "the cheverons" and climb direct to 10,000 feet off the deck at V2 without breaking a sweat.

 

The F-15C has 23,450lbs per side with MTOW 68,000lbs. Thats almost a 1:1 power to weight ratio. It cant get out of its own way with 20 deg pitch up. Rolling in the AB helps a bit... but sure seems underpowered. I can only imagine what a V1 cut would be like at MTOW... better have enough runway........ lol

 

Still an awesome game, and im addicted....:icon_supe

 

But definitely not a simulator....

 

edited for typos

[S77th-GOYA]

It seems to me the guy is simply talking about the flight model.

[capttrob]

Ok, on what planet do you think there exists a nation that gives its multimillion dollar aircraft to bozos that have no clue how they work or the aerodynamics of flight? :confused: :rolleyes:

 

In real life pilots attend academics, which expose them to the operating systems on the aircraft from hydraulics, fuel, electrics, fire control, radar, pneumatics, the normal and emergency operations of each system. Then, pilots go to the hangar and look over each of the systems and are allowed to crawl over their aircraft to see what each of the systems look like with the access/inspection panels and engines out of their bays.

 

This doesn't even go into the hours spent on aerodynamics which started in UPT and continued throughout each aircraft type flown.

 

While this particular A-10 pilot liked a console game better than LOMAC, you've got to ask yourself a question. Who you going to believe, a real A-10 pilot or some joe hamfist who's been flying sims for his entire life. Next you've got to ask the Hog driver what he was trying to get out of the experience. Did he want to have some fun "blowin' up stuff" and not be bothered by switchology, or was he looking for some time flying with a group of people using tactics he was used to flying (and all the bureaucracy inherent in that mess)? If it's the former, then the console is going to win every time.

 

BTW, why do you think there's some military pilots who enjoy LOMAC over F4? We don't all enjoy flipping every switch in the cockpit to get airborne and wreak some havoc. I enjoy flying with likeminded individuals who are more into the tactics and flight dynamics over the checklists and switchology. My plane of choice is the Eagle, and while it still doesn't model the real one in true fidelity, it still gives me some of the feelings I had flying in the real one.

 

So, don't be all bent out of shape because a Hog driver (most need their head examined anyway :p ) dissed your sim. Get enjoyment where you can and if you're one of those people who need reassurance, then find another Hog driver who likes LOMAC. With all it's idiosyncracies and inaccuracies, I still like LOMAC over F4 because of the feeling of flight, it's ability to allow me to fly fingertip realistically, and its ability to allow me to SOMETIMES use appropriate real world tactics, on occasion, (some restrictions may apply, consult your lawyer for details) ;)

 

 

I'll never forget the student i had when i was a full time CFI telling me how the 182 he flew should fly more like the one in FS98...lol

[S77th-RYKE]

one jet i flew had 34,500 as MTOW and 6000lbs of thrust per side. We could roll that thing back to 15-20 deg pitch up and accelerate. Basically a 1:3 power to weight ratio. At 30,000 lbs, we could roll that thing back to "the cheverons" and climb direct to 10,000 feet off the deck at V2 without breaking a sweat.

 

hey nice of you to chime in with some real life experience ....

 

that's what I like about real life pilots... the precision in details... details like "one jet " and "that thing" really do it for me :icon_mrgr

 

don't I know he's going to come back with a "it's classified"

[Gunja]

that pilot most likely ment that it is easyer for him to get around in his plane then behind keyboard full of shortcuts. this small keyboard might represent entire cockpit and it's functions, but it's not as articulate for him as his cockpit is.

[capttrob]

hey nice of you to chime in with some real life experience ....

 

that's what I like about real life pilots... the precision in details... details like "one jet " and "that thing" really do it for me :icon_mrgr

 

don't I know he's going to come back with a "it's classified"

 

Not that i need to prove anything... but...

 

 

 

Dornier 328Jet. Real numbers are 34,524 MTOW and 6050lbs of thrust per side on Pratt and Whitney 306B Turbofans (i believe it was 306B.. i may be off on that one, its been a while, and my numbers were rounded in my first post for simplicity). Civilian jet used by Delta Connection holding 32 passengers utilizing Honeywell Primus 2000. Still currently flown by Skyway Airlines.... edit: The 328Jet on one engine outclimbs the prop version on two.... it also outclimbs the LOMAC F-15C...lol

 

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0288797&WxsIERv=Snvepuvyq%20Qbeavre%20328WRG-300&Wm=0&WdsYXMg=Qrygn%20Pbaarpgvba%20%28Ngynagvp%20Pbnfg%20Nveyvarf%29&QtODMg=Cuvynqrycuvn%20-%20Vagreangvbany%20%28CUY%20%2F%20XCUY%29&ERDLTkt=HFN%20-%20Craaflyinavn&ktODMp=Frcgrzore%2021%2C%202002&BP=0&WNEb25u=Wbfrcu%20W.%20Jntare&xsIERvdWdsY=A420SW&MgTUQtODMgKE=Qrygn%20Pbaarpgvba%20%28NPN%29%20S-Qb%20328WRG-300%20ba%20fubeg%20svany%20sbe%2027E.%20Cubgb%20gnxra%20jvgu%20na%20Bylzchf%20P-700%20qvtvgny%20pnzren%20sebz%20Ubt%20Vfynaq%20Ebnq.&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=402&NEb25uZWxs=2002-10-26%2000%3A00%3A00&ODJ9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=&static=yes&width=1024&height=780&sok=JURER%20%20%28ZNGPU%20%28nvepensg%2Cnveyvar%2Ccynpr%2Ccubgb_qngr%2Cpbhagel%2Cerznex%2Ccubgbtencure%2Crznvy%2Clrne%2Cert%2Cnvepensg_trarevp%2Cpa%2Cpbqr%29%20NTNVAFG%20%28%27%2B%22NPN%22%20%2B%22328wrg%22%27%20VA%20OBBYRNA%20ZBQR%29%29%20%20beqre%20ol%20cubgb_vq%20QRFP&photo_nr=6&prev_id=0373159&next_id=0073085

 

 

Never fails to amaze me how some simmers cannot grasp the fact real pilots may fly combat sims on occasion as a hobby.... lol... But hey, get your ratings and you too can compare the difference ... :cheers:

 

I have about 2000 hours in it, But im sure you'll think i just googled it...lol

[S77th-RYKE]

Not that i need to prove anything... but...

 

 

 

Dornier 328Jet. Real numbers are 34,524 MTOW and 6050lbs of thrust per side on Pratt and Whitney 306B Turbofans (i believe it was 306B.. i may be off on that one, its been a while, and my numbers were rounded in my first post for simplicity). Civilian jet used by Delta Connection holding 32 passengers utilizing Honeywell Primus 2000. Still currently flown by Skyway Airlines.... edit: The 328Jet on one engine outclimbs the prop version on two....

 

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0288797&WxsIERv=Snvepuvyq%20Qbeavre%20328WRG-300&Wm=0&WdsYXMg=Qrygn%20Pbaarpgvba%20%28Ngynagvp%20Pbnfg%20Nveyvarf%29&QtODMg=Cuvynqrycuvn%20-%20Vagreangvbany%20%28CUY%20%2F%20XCUY%29&ERDLTkt=HFN%20-%20Craaflyinavn&ktODMp=Frcgrzore%2021%2C%202002&BP=0&WNEb25u=Wbfrcu%20W.%20Jntare&xsIERvdWdsY=A420SW&MgTUQtODMgKE=Qrygn%20Pbaarpgvba%20%28NPN%29%20S-Qb%20328WRG-300%20ba%20fubeg%20svany%20sbe%2027E.%20Cubgb%20gnxra%20jvgu%20na%20Bylzchf%20P-700%20qvtvgny%20pnzren%20sebz%20Ubt%20Vfynaq%20Ebnq.&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=402&NEb25uZWxs=2002-10-26%2000%3A00%3A00&ODJ9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=&static=yes&width=1024&height=780&sok=JURER%20%20%28ZNGPU%20%28nvepensg%2Cnveyvar%2Ccynpr%2Ccubgb_qngr%2Cpbhagel%2Cerznex%2Ccubgbtencure%2Crznvy%2Clrne%2Cert%2Cnvepensg_trarevp%2Cpa%2Cpbqr%29%20NTNVAFG%20%28%27%2B%22NPN%22%20%2B%22328wrg%22%27%20VA%20OBBYRNA%20ZBQR%29%29%20%20beqre%20ol%20cubgb_vq%20QRFP&photo_nr=6&prev_id=0373159&next_id=0073085

 

 

Never fails to amaze me how some simmers cannot grasp the fact real pilots may fly combat sims on occasion as a hobby.... lol... But hey, get your ratings and you too can compare the difference ... :cheers:

 

I have about 2000 hours in it, But im sure you'll think i just googled it...lol

 

was just pulling your leg , hence the "smiley"

 

so lighten up

[peterj]

I like the PS2 game, Ace Combat, because to me the flying maneuvering is more realistic... although a 450 KIAS A-10 certainly isn't.

 

Does he say that maneuvering in Ace Combat is more realistic than LockOn or just that 'flying maneuvering' in general (not worrying about a bunch of keys) is more realistic?

 

Seems like it could be the latter one to me since he also mention that the 450 KIAS A-10 in Ace Combat isn't realistic. Anyway I don't think the A-10 FM feels terribly realistic ither, I'm sure it would be different with AFM.

 

Generally pilots with no real desktop sim experience have problems comparing them to the real thing. If you have sim experience you know there are certain things you can simulate and you look at those, i.e an airline pilot who i heard about couldn't say if MSFS flightmodel was realistic (or what was wrong with it/what could be improved) since he couldn't feel the aircraft, something you depend allot on in the real thing obviously.

[capttrob]

I like the PS2 game, Ace Combat, because to me the flying maneuvering is more realistic... although a 450 KIAS A-10 certainly isn't.

 

Does he say that maneuvering in Ace Combat is more realistic than LockOn or just that 'flying maneuvering' in general (not worrying about a bunch of keys) is more realistic?

 

Seems like it could be the latter one to me since he also mention that the 450 KIAS A-10 in Ace Combat isn't realistic. Anyway I don't think the A-10 FM feels terribly realistic ither, I'm sure it would be different with AFM.

 

Generally pilots with no real desktop sim experience have problems comparing them to the real thing. If you have sim experience you know there are certain things you can simulate and you look at those, i.e an airline pilot who i heard about couldn't say if MSFS flightmodel was realistic (or what was wrong with it/what could be improved) since he couldn't feel the aircraft, something you depend allot on in the real thing obviously.

 

 

I agree with your first sentence. I think he may have been flying by the keyboard... perhaps?

 

I have a full CH system, TrackIR 4 with a homebuilt pit (including my pc), and even though it helps with immersion, im afraid to say its still a game and not a sim. Remember, many professional pilots fly sims every 6 months (military pilots flying sims more often), and many pilots fly desktop sims to stay sharp. Im one of them. The lack of functionality (with some respect in LOMAC), and the inaccurate performace of fighters would classify this software as a game to me instead of a sim. However, i still prefer to jump in LOMAC than F4AF for the basic fact of graphics and multiple flyable aircraft. LOMAC blows away F4AF IMO. I prefer LOMAC to FEAR, BF2, my Xbox360, etc... but i will definitely be getting Blazing Angels and the next Ace Combat. Just for perspective...... :icon_jook

 

 

Edit: As far as not being able to compare because real pilots cant "feel the aircraft" in a sim. "Feel the aircraft" will get you into more trouble than not. Essentially, pilots ignore what they feel when they fly, rather cross check instruments to make sure the plane is behaving the way its supposed to.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Soooo true my, friend soo true...

 

I used to be an avionics tech on MC-130's and also f-16C's in the USAF. I swear some of those pilots have not a clue what a 3rd of the buttons and switches in the cockpits do. They know procedure and that's it... switch this, press them, flick that, and this happens. Now the pilots that went through enlisted life as mechanics, then officer training school to become pilots are another story, these are the really sharp ones. Of course this is not a blanket statement; some of them are very knowledgeable.

 

Hey hitman_214th, I used to live at Perterson AFB in the Springs, and work at Cheyenne Mountain AFB... anyways cool to see someone from there.

 

Hey Mikoriad,

 

I'm an avionics tech too, recently got my FAA certificate as an instrument and ATC transponder inspector. I'm up at Centennial airport near Denver. One of my contracts is avionics maintenance and certifications on the C1 Katana's at the AFA. Its great to see another Colorado person here besides me and Hitman. Hell...the three of us should get together some time and go put a few rounds downrange out at Dragon Man's. :icon_jook

 

I've noticed the same thing in the civilian world. There are many that are really sharp, but there are some that I just have to say "How have you managed to live this long?" Of course...the same thing can be said for us avionics guys, some techs have no business working on airplanes.

[Hawg11]

Most pilots don't know how their planes work, and don't do any maintentance. Some don't even understand why their planes fly.

They are just trained to use them.

 

Nope.

[ARM505]

It's true that the maintenance/engineering personnel will have a more intimate knowledge of what actually happens under the hood. For example, I am aware of what happens in the airconditioning packs on a B737, and the theory behind it, as well as the general layout (from schematics) and the appearance of the equipment installed in the aircraft - but obviously the people who actually work on it will be aware of the nitty-gritty details. There's absolutely no way a line pilot will be able to top an experienced techy for detailed systems knowledge, but then again there's no way he'd need to either - you do what the QRH says, and thats pretty much it. Obviously depth of knowledge and experience helps, but there's only so much you can do or need to know when working from the cockpit - thats just the way it is. I remember reading an article by a B744 line Captain. He said when the time came for checkrides, the got the maintenance engineers to quiz them out about systems for part of the test - he said to not even bother to try and show how clever you were to these guys since they could have built a B744 from parts - just show them you were competent and knew what you needed to know!

 

Likewise, pilots will have the needed grasp of aerodynamic principles, including transonic theory for high speed flight etc, but they won't (in general) give a proffesional aerodynamicist or aeronautical engineer a run for his/her money either! It's just a question of knowing what is necessary for your particular role. Operating any modern aircraft is a very complex and highly team orientated operation in my opinion, with highly specialised individuals working together.

[mikoriad]

Hey Mikoriad,

 

I'm an avionics tech too, recently got my FAA certificate as an instrument and ATC transponder inspector. I'm up at Centennial airport near Denver. One of my contracts is avionics maintenance and certifications on the C1 Katana's at the AFA. Its great to see another Colorado person here besides me and Hitman. Hell...the three of us should get together some time and go put a few rounds downrange out at Dragon Man's. :icon_jook

 

I've noticed the same thing in the civilian world. There are many that are really sharp, but there are some that I just have to say "How have you managed to live this long?" Of course...the same thing can be said for us avionics guys, some techs have no business working on airplanes.

 

Well I actually live in Atlanta right now, doing some work over here at Lockheed, so I guess making some time is out of the question :). There were surely some guy who's aircraft I wouldn't want to fly in, and have no bussiness working on anything.

[SUBS17]

The pilots that I have flown online with mostly use Falcon 4 Allied Forces but I think that lockon FC is a good sim and Acecombat is a game. Consoles just don't cut it yet with the realistic FM/Avionics that are achieveable on the PC. Maybe x-box 360 might be an exception but its upto whoever is programming the software if its going to be that detailed. The comment about lockons A10 is probably because the guy didn't give it enough time.

[tflash]

Look at it this way: since Beef flies the real plane, he prefers to play a real game.