Let's face it-many among our ranks are snobs! Guys that fly air combat sims generally tend to snub their noses at GA (General Aviation) sims. Similar examples of sim snobbery materialize in WWI sims vs. WWII sims, props vs. jets, guns vs. missiles, fly-by-wire vs. cable, realistic vs. arcade, Glide vs. D3D, PC vs. Mac, etc., etc., etc.. Maybe it's just that those that gravitate towards combat sims are more likely to have more aggressive/ confrontational dispositions.. but let's refrain from going off on a tangent.

Then there are the real life experience vs. sim player factions. There are those (mostly new sim'ers) that stick their noses in the air when someone without real world flight or combat experience even writes about a sim. Although it isn't new to have real life pilots on the development end, some people tend to put extraordinary value (sometimes it seems like mostly marketing people though, doesn't it?) on real life pilot participation as well.

There's no argument that real flight and/or combat experience can help enhance realism and accuracy in a sim during development. And on the media side, real world experience can definitely add perspective to criticism and tips articles-but it isn't the end-all that at first glance that many believe to be. To paraphrase Lt. Col. George Wargo, USAF (ret.) (ex-F15 driver and consultant on Jane's recent F-15 title), he once said that if real flight experience was all that were required, the ultimate flight simulation would have been created years ago.

To add a little more perspective to the Colonel's profound insight, he made that statement way back when he was a consultant on the F-15 Strike Eagle series put out by Microprose. (Some of you veteran sim'ers may remember how long ago that was!).

Regardless of how realistic sims become, sims are not real life. No matter how realistic a sim may seem, the fact is sims and real life are different and that's unlikely to change for quite some time. A real combat pilot's physical attributes (20/20 or better eyesight, good physical condition to resist G forces) can net an advantage over the enemy, but in simulations these advantages are wasted. In fact when it comes down to sims, real pilots tend to find themselves at a disadvantage-hardware/software limitations, simulation viewing systems, controller differences (travel, force, layout), lack of motion, and familiarity with controller command assignments all have to be re-learned and/or compensated for.

Then due to the design focus of air combat sims, enthusiasts generally have more combat time (actually dodging bullets and missiles-albeit simulated) than most real fighter pilots. This isn't to say that sim pilots know more about combat, but just from the ability to live through hours of sheer trial and error you're able to develop tactics that work out to advantages in sims that real pilots would never encounter (or even try!) in the real world. But the issues involved here really go beyond these trivial observations.

So how much does a real life pilot help add to realism or accuracy?

As Albert "Musterfung" Wolfold's review of NovaLogic's latest release F-16 Multirole Fighter makes evident-it varies. One can't help but wonder how Lockheed Martin's Chief Test Pilot for the F-16 Flight Test Program could miss the rudder turns at greater than 450KIAS, or the manual flaps operation (the F-16 does have an ALT FLAPS switch, but it operates differently). Was this just a licensing deal where NovaLogic passed a check to Lockheed/Martin for their logo? Did the test pilot actually fly the thing and gave it a cursory approval which the marketing people took to extremes? Or are any lapses in realism due to limitations in the game engine?

Having sat in on brainstorming sessions between a sim developer and military contractor test pilots in the past, it's most likely somewhere in between. But the biggest (read most correctable) problem seems to be the result of a lack of a serious game player's input. It's understandable that a real test pilot may miss something obscure as rudder effectiveness at 450KIAS+. That's not something you'd normally try in the real thing, yet sim players do that and hundreds of other "no-no" things all of the time. But therein lies the answer.

Believe it or not Jane's Combat Simulation's honcho, Andy Hollis is not a pilot-yet he consistently puts out the industry's most realistic flight sims. Why? Andy is a game player. Unlike many of his peers in other companies, he's played just about every flight sim out there since the early days, but the difference is he knows them well. He's actually played them. The old saw about "game players make the best games" rears its head once again-something that many developers seem to be missing. Instead those with a masters degree in Business or real flight experience are given the jobs of designing sims.

If you're still not convinced that real life flight experience isn't everything here's another example. After talking with a number of real fighter pilots over the years, you may find it surprising that real WWII pilot's actually knew less about their opponents and the performance abilities of their own aircraft than today's run-of-the-mill hardcore air combat sim affectionados. Of course in modern sims, real fighter pilots hold a bit of an edge here because many things are "classified," so they couldn't be written about or modeled in a sim properly anyway, so that advantage really becomes moot.

There are no doubt advantages to having experience in the "real deals," but whether it designing sims or writing about them, regardless of real experience, it's rather obvious that those that fly simulations regularly do tend to know more about sims and about what matters to sim'ers than their real life counterparts. That's the bottom line. Then again, perhaps we're preaching to the choir here-you wouldn't be here on Combatsim.com if you thought otherwise! -Ben Chiu

Ben Chiu, a multi-engine and instrument rated pilot, is a popular simulations columnist and author of seven books on air combat and civilian flight simulations.