I, for one, was talking about the actual cockpit and flight model. Who cares about wind? None of the early sims had wind.



If you're referring to me then you come across as a bit of a twonk. Of course the Comanche series and Gunship! are 'sims', even though I never said that GS! was one. It's easy, with hindsight, to say this IS a sim or that ISN'T a sim. With the complexity of sims nowadays one could say that Jane's Longbow 2 isn't even a sim - and it was THE best and most complex combat helicopter sim for well over 10 years. Now if you want to get into an argument over what are 'sims' and what are 'true sims', well that's another matter. In another 10 years time DCS: BS will look like an arcade game, and from what I've heard about it, some might say it is even today. As I stated much to the discontent of DCS: BS lovers when it first came out - that might seem more like a 'sim' to you because it is hard. It is hard, not because it is a complex sim, but because it models a more simplistic helicopter which in turn is harder to operate. If DCS accurately modelled the Comanche, for example, you'd be complaining that it's too easy, therefore it must be arcadey. You 'hardcore' guys kind of slit your own throats with your weak arguments. And don't get me wrong, I used to be up there with all you hardcore simmers - it's just that this is an endless argument and at the end of the day they're all just games for us to waste away our lives with.

What I'm right about is regarding the flight model of ArmA that while being far from being the "most realistic" for helicopter sims it's better and more realistic than the flight model of Comanche3 and you seem to disagree with this. So I posted reasons why I think that what I say is true, namely when you can't do with a flight model a certainly number of manouvers that the real helicopter do in real life this really proves that (Comanche3) flight model is in fact LIMITED.
Just one last thing, because afer this I won't "beat the dead horse" again regarding this issue:
- I'm 100% sure that if someone wanted to model a realistic Comanche flight model (with all flight functions and abilities), that same person would be much more sucessfull with the ArmA flight model than with Comanche3 one. Again with ArmA flight model you can make all possible manouvers and flight profiles that you have in Comanche3 but the opposite just cannot be done (I think this proves my point).

And I laugh at that comment of yours! I guess that for the first time in this thread I completly agree with Flyboy! I was going to put up an elaborate response to this comment of yours but Flyboy summed up pretty much what I wanted to say.

But I would really like to read your reasons why you say that Comanche3 and/or Gunship! are arcade games? Really, that one really made me laugh really loud

- well said -

ricnunes - you've added some good contributions to the Combat-Helo thread where I also sometimes check-in. We hit it off pretty well in there I think so please don't take this argument in this forum personally. I just wanted to try and explain to you (and anyone else with your thoughts but too cowardly or too ill-informed to post) that perhaps NovaLogic made the C3/G flight model 'limited' for a reason. The reason being perhaps they wanted to model the low-level flight characteristics of the Comanche and not the rarely-used high-level aerobatic one. If they didn't intend to model it that way, then it doesn't matter as it is still a valid move on their part as it still matches at least one of the real Comanche's flight profiles and dynamics.

Now just a general observation of how the mindset of 'fans' of the genre has evolved for the worse...
The word 'sim' has kind of become a bit of a dirty word over the recent years. If an infantry/flight/tank game is easy, then it's not a sim. If it's hard, then it must be a sim. As I said above, with hindsight it's easy to come over all high and proper and say 'my sim is better than your sim'. Remember, a lot of the time the sims people are comparing are 10 or more years apart with regards to release date. Newer sims should be more realistic, if they weren't, what a sorry state of affairs! Simulations are simply a genre, like first-person shooters and racing games. A genre of a game says more about the type of game it is and the perspective you play it from. If you play a crap FPS is it still not an FPS? If you play a rubbish racer is it not still a racing game? The fact that you play a game from the view of an aircraft's cockpit, for example, automatically makes it a sim - no matter how 'realistic' it is. The fact that a game even tries to implement certain flight controls and avionics makes it a sim, no matter how in-depth they are. Simple as that. From Tomahawk released in 1985, through Apache: Air Assault (2010 version) to the as-yet-to-be-released Combat-Helo - they are all sims whether you like it or not.

In all fairness the Comanche 3 flight modelling is pretty similar in being limited to Gunship 2000, LHX and pretty much every helicopter sim prior to Longbow. Tomahawk of course was an exception but IIRC it was the only heli sim to feature full aerobatic FM for at least 10 years.

So I guess that means Gunship, Gunship 2000, Thunderhawk, LHX, Apache Air Assault, Apache Longbow Assault, etc etc etc are just arcade games?

LOL

Mr "Bad Flower", I not sure if that question is regarding my posts but I believe it is, so here's my answer:

- No, it's doesn't mean that those games are arcade! Nothing like that and I NEVER SAID THAT, it just means precisely that those sims (at least most of them) have a limited flight model (compared to reality), period.

All those games that you posted (perhaps with the exception of Apache Air Assault and Apache Longbow Assault) are clearly sims and I guess that even Apache Air Assault and Apache Longbow Assault could somehow be considered simulations (I never played Apache Longbow Assault so I can't comment on this game).

For me a combat flight simulation (fixed wing or helicopter) is a game where the player must play with realistic tactics in order to win and the aircraft and it's weapon system try to model in a realitic level their real counterparts.
For me an arcade flight game (fixed wing or helicopter) is a game where the player must kill ALL the HORDES or enemies (air, land and sea) present in the mission and in order to achive this the player usually have much more ammo and weapons than it would have in real life would have and usually the player's aircraft is like a flying SUPER-tank that can take up several hits even from missile and still fly as almost nothing as happened (usually there's a "health bar" present).

This is what is to me (trying to use as less words as possible) the diference between simulation and arcade...

Actually it was directed at Johncage, who apparently believes a game is arcade if it doesn't require a degree in switchology like DCS.

Roger that.
Anyway, my latest reply serves to oppose what Johncage said.

It is a dedicated helo game! If it wasn't for Combat Helo the genre would be dead.

I'm happy to have a second darling - even if it is on the 'lite' side.