Did you understand what I wrote? I didn't compare A6M3 with Spit Vc, because both planes felt much to close. But I can compare A6M2 and A6M3, at least in a rough way. The later feels more potent. That's it.
Corsair vs Zero
- Thread starter Cougar
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
No your not the pilot. You are sitting on a swivel chair in front of a computer screen, with a cold glass of coke next to you all while sitting on the ground and not at 15,000 ft.
The point people are making is that since you will always walk away, there are no life or death situations and decisions to be made. You can not replicate that, and therefore your decision making will never be the same.
Now cam Sim talk be moved to the gaming threads?
No you can't, you are comparing one part of a programme with another part of the programme. You are comparing what the people who made the programme want you to compare. You rubbished my idea of actually doing something to compare real life to a sim. You can compare a game programme called "A6M2" to another called "A6M3" it means absolutely nothing in terms of the history of the Corsair and Zero, discuss one or the other.
parsifal
Colonel
Bakters, suggest you state your position, not in game terms, but what your hypothesis actually is. What is it you believe. Main points. be clear, be simple.
Then we can ask you the basis or support that you have for your position.
Thats what people are getting annoyed about. Its very difficult to follow your line of argument, and the raison detre for the positions you are taking look flimsy. People here are passionate about their a/c, and when someone comes jaunting in acting like they know everything and in fact they are in the opposite, it tends to get peoples back up.
You should try to understand that you are taliking with people some of whom have flown some of these birds, for real, others who have Dads or Grandads who flew, others who have read books that are written by real life experts. All these experiences and information sources are far more reliable than a sim. Some respect for people who have been in harms way in service for their countries wouldnt hurt either.
And i can say that because Im a champion player at sims, and once upon a time made a living out of simulating combat theories, in the military . Computer based tactical sims in the open market are generally Horse shite Im afraid.
Then we can ask you the basis or support that you have for your position.
Thats what people are getting annoyed about. Its very difficult to follow your line of argument, and the raison detre for the positions you are taking look flimsy. People here are passionate about their a/c, and when someone comes jaunting in acting like they know everything and in fact they are in the opposite, it tends to get peoples back up.
You should try to understand that you are taliking with people some of whom have flown some of these birds, for real, others who have Dads or Grandads who flew, others who have read books that are written by real life experts. All these experiences and information sources are far more reliable than a sim. Some respect for people who have been in harms way in service for their countries wouldnt hurt either.
And i can say that because Im a champion player at sims, and once upon a time made a living out of simulating combat theories, in the military . Computer based tactical sims in the open market are generally Horse shite Im afraid.
Last edited:
seconded
Last edited:
It's much easier to do in real life than in any sim I ever tried.
Agreed. Actually, I don't like sims. On a computer, I'd rather play proper computer games which do not pretend to be reality.
It's not like I'm being treated with velvet gloves here, is it?
I know it's not reality, and I know it's perfectly safe. But what does it change?
You see, it's like I read a long thread on some car forum, where guys agreed that Dodge Challenger and Ford Mustangs would easily beat Mazda Miata in an autocross. So I fired up Forza or whatever, and there Miata is 5s faster in each lap. So I ask where to find those missing 5 seconds?
And I'm being told that:
1. I pretend to be a real race driver.
2. I mistake Forza for a racetrack.
3. I should cheat to win, because that's how it is in reality.
4. I flip-flop (whatever it means)
5. And finally and the most often I'm being told that since I don't die when crashing, it all makes no sense whatsoever.
How it makes no sense whatsoever? I don't die when I "drive" a Miata or a Challenger. It cancels out.
So what percentage of accuracy is needed to draw the right conclusions? 99.9%? 59.9%? To claim that a flight sim accurately represents real-life combat is drawing a very long bow. Why?
1) There is no guarantee that the program accurately depicts all of the flight and performance characteristics, under all conditions encountered in the real environment, of the aircraft being depicted: all the flight simmer has is the developer's claims and the player's perceptions. Read any flight simmer forum and see all the lengthy and often contentious arguments about how the sim is performing and ask yourself who has the final say in how your favourite aircraft will perform.
2) Your aircraft is not subjected to the wear and tear of operational service - every time you take off you are in a brand new, well maintained aircraft that has no problems. How often did this happen in the Pacific, particularly for the Japanese?
3) The computer does all the flying for you: you do not have to heave the aircraft around with your arm and leg muscles; you do not get fatigued and sore through constant high-g manoeuvres; you are not subjected to grey-outs or black-outs, with the attendant physiological effects; you have the option of pausing the game to take time-out for a cup of coffee; you are not going to get killed; you are not going to get burned or mutilated if things go wrong (unless your computer explodes).
4) A flight sim does not change history - like it or not, the Corsair shot down a far larger number of Zeros, using the right tactics of boom and zoom, than Zeros that shot down Corsairs in low-medium speed dogfights. That's all that needs to be said.
As for dismissing that film about the F6F as so much propaganda? No offense, but I'll believe the experiences of real life pilots flying real life operations rather than your vast experience as a sim pilot.
Last edited:
Sorry friend, I prefer people who live in the real world. I could write pages but you are wise as a drunk thinks he is sober, there are people posting on this thread who have actually flown some of the aircraft in the discussion and others who have been front line pilots. You argue with them on the basis of what you experience sitting drinking a cola in front of a computer.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Air Warrior
Jane's WW2 Fighters
CFS2
CFS3 (shockwave add-on enhanced)
CFS3: BoB
CFS3: MTO
CFS3: PTO
IL-2
IL-2: FB
IL-2: PF
IL-2: 1946
Also did some post-release object and airframe design in Jane's WW2F
Also did add-on airframe design in CFS3 (Turbo Squid and GMAX software via MS SDK)
So, yes. I am a little familiar with SIMs.
If you took the time to look through the gaming section of this forum, you would have known that and saved us the trouble of this reply, right?
Zeke was much tougher nut to crack than people give her credit. How much tougher? I don't know. We never started to actually discuss it here yet.
How I'm being disrespectful? Just because I do not simply agree with everything I'm being told? I'll agree when I'll read a reasonable argument. Sorry, but "we know better" is not one of those.
I had a nasty fight online once about Harley Davidson bikes. There disagreeing was enough to offend. Is here the same?
So, are you saying that inaccuracies in my sim make the result invalid? Because if so, I can respond. If not, I don't know if I should.
Allow me to explain the gaming world, if the "sim" was realistic and you were up against an ace you would die or if you were wise you may possibly escape, but the sim makers want to hook you to play it talk about it and get others to play it. That is how "real" your sim is. A newly qualified pilot has almost zero chance of taking down an ace in a one on one combat in any era, if the player always loses then he uses a "better" sim, one where the player has more "success"
Last edited:
The more accurate the model, the more precise conclusions you can draw. With a rough, inaccurate, qualitative model you can only draw rough, inaccurate, qualitative conclusions.
My conclusion, which I repeated over and over, and still people seem not to get it.
It was not easy to beat the Zero in a dogfight.
I claim no such thing.
Interestingly, your arguments work even better against spec-sheet wars, don't they?
Regarding historical accounts - veterans seem to agree with me here, when they say that altitude and teamwork were of incredible importance. They agree when they write "never dogfight with a Zero". I read a report in a wartime newspaper once, where the pilot wrote that a Zero is a good plane, strongly built, which behaves in the air according to expectations. She stiffened up at speed, but all planes do it, nothing special here. But don't worry, readers. We can beat her, because Japanese lack good pilots [really!]. They are a bit cowardly [REALLY!] and have bad eyesight...
Regarding historical results - Japanese were beaten into a pulp. All host of reasons could result in high losses in the air. Was inadequacy of their carrier-borne fighter one of those? I think not.
I play against the bot, then switch planes and compare results.
Essentially, I play against myself. I cancel out any hand-holding. It helps me equally in both planes.
I've been in danger. I think I know what it changes, and I addressed this aspect already.
How do we compare which parameter on a spec-sheet is of great importance, and which is of minor importance? Without testing?
I read here that 5mph top-speed difference is decisive. That's totally off. Not a small inaccuracy caused by lazy programming or feedback limitations, but a gross error.
Seriously, are you simple? You never enter or fly a "plane" you play on a game, I was much better than my wife at Spiro the dragon, I believe that spiro could have overcome the American superiority had he been introduced in 1941.
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
We do need to be fair in this. Sims can help to understand broad principals. The military use simulations to work out strategies and tactics all the time. Theres nothing wrong with that, AS A STARTING POINT. You develop a theory, and do some low grade testing using the known variables. If your strategy shows promise you take it to the known specialists (in this case the pilots) and ask for their advice. modify the theory accordingly. Then on to the tac warfare school, which in oz is a building housing a 9 floor building filled with a super computer to handle all the algorithms, and ours is a toy compared to what some nations have. If the theory still holds promise we then would test it on the range, with flight observers to see if the idea would work or not. US has an entire flight school, backed up by the best boffins they can find. If the theory holds up, it will be adopted. But always under review.
Thats proper testing. It can work, so Im not going to say there is no benefit. Even the commercial entertainment sims have some merit. But they are not flying, they cant replace flying, and to make debateable claims based solely on the experiences of a product designed primarily for entertainment is foolish and unsound.
I can agree with the basic premise , that the Zeke was a highly competitive type in 1942. Its fair to claim it was the best carrier based fighter up to 1943. but it had serious flaws. basically they are well known, and relate to poor dive capability, poor high speed maneouvre and flimsy and flammable construction. Once the allies worked out its weaknesses and applied the correct tactics it became a liability.
Thats proper testing. It can work, so Im not going to say there is no benefit. Even the commercial entertainment sims have some merit. But they are not flying, they cant replace flying, and to make debateable claims based solely on the experiences of a product designed primarily for entertainment is foolish and unsound.
I can agree with the basic premise , that the Zeke was a highly competitive type in 1942. Its fair to claim it was the best carrier based fighter up to 1943. but it had serious flaws. basically they are well known, and relate to poor dive capability, poor high speed maneouvre and flimsy and flammable construction. Once the allies worked out its weaknesses and applied the correct tactics it became a liability.
All I can see is that bakters has hijacked this thread for 10 pages and has airily dismissed everyone who is trying to explain the differences between flight sims and real life with often flippant remarks or condescending non-replys, all to prove what, exactly? That the Zero was an exceptional low-medium speed dog fighter? Most of us know that. That the Zero stood a chance against the Corsair if the latter was drawn into a turning dogfight? I think we already had a fair idea that that could happen. Otherwise what else is bakters trying to prove, apart from the fact that he draws all his experience from a flight sim?
This "debate" is going nowhere and is proving nothing.
This "debate" is going nowhere and is proving nothing.
Again move the game talk to the game threads.
parsifal
Colonel
.
Yep.
Ill come back to this debate if and when it matures a bit.
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I will say this much: there is a tremendous amount of information (that fell of deaf ears) posted regarding the A6M and how it stacked up against the USN types, so all was not totally lost! 
