Warbirds and Video Games

[Noha307]

Back in June, I finally got around to writing down some thoughts on warbirds and video games that I had long been meaning to formalize. I have been sitting on it since then, but after reading some of the comments (1, 2) in the recent thread about the Greatest Generation, I was motivated to post it:

Warbirds and Video Games
By Noah Stegman Rechtin
17 July 2021

I’ve heard multiple stories from veterans of the warbird community about how “one of them turned down a flight because they had already flown the airplane on their computer” or “they claimed to have known what it was like to fly the airplane, only to later reveal it was only in a video game”.

Many will claim that these kids don’t know what they’re talking about. To be fair, this is often true. However, when they show an interest – when the “old guys” are given the opportunity to correct these misperceptions – they are insulted and slapped down. Not necessarily to their face, but in conversations behind the scenes. These same people will then turn around and complain that “no one cares about the history anymore”.

How many of them became involved with warbirds because they grew up watching a show where a Japanese pilot and an American pilot were good friends who joked with each other over the radio? How many World War II veterans have admitted their interest in aviation came from reading exaggerated pulp magazines? As John Fleischman wrote about the youth of two World War II aviators in his book Black and White Airmen:

Printed on cheap wood pulp paper with lurid color covers, the "pulps" were filled with exciting, violent, and unrealistic stories about gallant airmen dueling over the Western Front during the Great War. Teachers, librarians, and guardians of morality hated pulp magazines. [Future Tuskegee Airman] John [Leahr] and [future 35 mission B-17 pilot] Herb [Heilbrun] loved them.

No less than the legendary World War II naval historian James Hornfischer realized this when he said:

“When game creators have the right intentions in mind, they can create something that is both engaging and educational for kids,” said James Hornfischer, naval historian and author. “Even if it doesn’t give them a full history lesson, getting them engaged in the action can open up their curiosity and get them to ask questions, which is important for a successful education.”

No one is saying that they have to be treated as if their knowledge is equal to a long term scholar. Simply that if they are given some understanding and mentorship they might just be the next generation of pilots, mechanics, and historians. One of the Aircraft Restoration Company’s pilots had this to say:

You could say that my journey started then, or maybe a few years later – about the age of ten – when I taught myself to fly on Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator after school. I flew the Battle of Britain Campaign over and over again; beam attacks, Immelman turns and deflection shooting all seemed so easy at that age.

The author proudly grew up flying planes in a fictional world on a video game console and attributes much of his involvement in warbirds to this initial interest.

It's far from a final draft and needs more fleshing out, but I was hoping to get some feedback on it. So, please, let me know what you think.

[k5083]

I haven't read the Greatest Gen thread and won't be reading it, but I can react to your draft on its own.

First, the concept of "warbirds in video games" is vague. Warbirds appear in different kinds of video games in different ways. Sometimes they are just set dressing with an occasional active role, as in the Fallout titles. They may be an environmental threat, as in a Call of Duty type ground-based war shooter game. Sometimes they function as pieces in turn-based strategy games. And, what I think you may be mainly referring to, is they play a role in flight simulators, ranging from the gamey stuff like War Thunder to the relatively sophisticated like MS Flight Simulator. All of these genres teach the player something about the aircraft and the history associated with them, but of course like any education, what they teach isn't necessarily true, even (as Pratchett might say) for any given value of true. All of them can spark interest in the subject matter. But they are not all the same, and if by "video games" you mean "flight simulators," many readers will question your knowledge of the subject, as flight simmers don't like their programs to be called video games, even if they are. I know you know better, because of the Ace Combat link you posted. There could be a good discussion of what a game teaches you about an aircraft and whether that is "true" or "false," but it would have to be a game-by-game thing, not even genre-by-genre, I would think. "Is the effectiveness of the P-47 accurately depicted in Order of Battle WWII?" or "Are the flight characteristics of the FlyingIron Spitfire in MS Flight Sim realistic?" are sensible questions. As you get broader, it becomes harder to make coherent general statements.

I agree with your basic thesis that interest in historical aviation has often been sparked, for generations, by media experiences. Whether it was pulps, or movies/TV, or the many paperback biographies by WW2 pilots that were published in (mostly) the 60s and 70s, these were simply what people of that time had instead of video games now. If direct personal experience was the only way you could get hooked on warbirds, the community would be a lot smaller. There is definitely a certain amount of anti-game boomer bias present when people differentiate books, movies and TV from games.

I find your third-hand reports that people turn down a flight because they have flown the airplane on a computer to be highly suspect. It would surprise me if anyone said that, but even if they did, it was not likely the true reason. If I think of some of the reasons I have turned down rides - it's too expensive, I feel like I should chip in for the gas but I don't have the cash on me, I don't know the pilot (or I know him a little too well!) and don't trust him, I'm not crazy about the condition of the plane, I don't like the weather, or I'm just not interested right now - some of these might be a little embarrassing or offensive to say, and the video game thing may just be an excuse (although I would hope I could come up with a better one). I think it's far-fetched to think that someone would invest the hours in learning a plane in a flight sim or game and then view that as a superior substitute for the actual experience. That's like saying, "Naw, I don't care to have dinner with Elizabeth Hurley, I've seen all of her movies." You'd feel like that person should be locked up. So I'd exercise a little more skepticism with respect to such statements. I have to believe the net balance of being interested in participating directly with warbirds as a result of experiencing them in games is very much on the positive side.

August

[Matt Gunsch]

I can't answer to the video game, but I got started in Warbirds by building a model of a B-17 (late 70s), then a short time later I was working on a real B-17. The people I met and the skills they taught me, I use every day.

[Noha307]

First, the concept of "warbirds in video games" is vague. Warbirds appear in different kinds of video games in different ways. Sometimes they are just set dressing with an occasional active role, as in the Fallout titles. They may be an environmental threat, as in a Call of Duty type ground-based war shooter game. Sometimes they function as pieces in turn-based strategy games. And, what I think you may be mainly referring to, is they play a role in flight simulators, ranging from the gamey stuff like War Thunder to the relatively sophisticated like MS Flight Simulator. All of these genres teach the player something about the aircraft and the history associated with them, but of course like any education, what they teach isn't necessarily true, even (as Pratchett might say) for any given value of true. All of them can spark interest in the subject matter. But they are not all the same, and if by "video games" you mean "flight simulators," many readers will question your knowledge of the subject, as flight simmers don't like their programs to be called video games, even if they are. I know you know better, because of the Ace Combat link you posted. There could be a good discussion of what a game teaches you about an aircraft and whether that is "true" or "false," but it would have to be a game-by-game thing, not even genre-by-genre, I would think. "Is the effectiveness of the P-47 accurately depicted in Order of Battle WWII?" or "Are the flight characteristics of the FlyingIron Spitfire in MS Flight Sim realistic?" are sensible questions. As you get broader, it becomes harder to make coherent general statements.

Very good point. I need to be more specific. For what it's worth, your interpretation was correct. I was referring to flight simulators rather than any other genre of game.

Ironically, I tend to lean toward the arcade rather than the simulation side of flying games. (Ironic because I imagine the logical assumption is that given my interest in the history I would prefer a more realistic depiction of aerial combat.) Aside from the Ace Combat series, my other most played game title is the even more fantastical Project Wingman. I haven't played War Thunder in a while, but when I do I play in arcade mode. Prefacing with the full admission that I've never been one myself, I've always said it's because when you really read into stories of soldiers and pilots you realize that the majority of the time war is actually really boring. (By the way, if you haven't seen it, there's a video from The Onion that couldn't be more perfect for this conversation.) In my humble opinion, there's a sweet spot between an SBD gunning down multiple zeros on its way to attack the Japanese carriers at Midway and spending 8 hours flying straight and level from England to Germany for 5 minutes of dogfighting.

One of the notes I have for further expansion is that the subject of dealing with the accuracy of depictions of military aircraft in video games is really two separate issues: the accuracy of the flight characteristics and the historical accuracy. While most of what I wrote in the draft above had to do with the latter, the anecdote about the person who had not let on that his flight experience was only on the computer is really more to do with the former. It was related to me in the context of "no, you can't learn anything about flying from a game". To me, again with the disclaimer that I am not, nor have I ever been, a pilot, I found that the time spent in games was very useful for helping me understand broad concepts, although not necessarily the particular characteristics of any given airplane. For example, at the risk of sounding just like one of those naïve "kids", it was only after I set up a night mission over open ocean in IL-2 Sturmovik: 1946 and came spiraling out of a dogfight to the realization that I couldn't tell the difference between sea and sky that I really gained an appreciation for how spatial disorientation due to instrument flight conditions is possible. Before that, it was hard for me to understand how anyone could lose track of their location so badly as to end up crashing.

By the same token, I would never expect to be able to fly any real warbird because of any time I spent in a video game. I remember back when our museum had two side by side simulators running Il-2, I ended up in a situation where I was in one side and an actual pilot was in the other. Both of us were in P-51s, but the difference in how we handled the takeoff was revealing to me. Whereas I, having spent a lot of time in arcade-style flight sims, simply pushed the throttle all the way forward into war emergency power from a dead stop, he slowly increased the power to counter the expected P-factor. I would not have even noticed had he not brought it up afterwards.

I do find it funny, however, that the "novice" control scheme in Ace Combat - where a single control input operates multiple control surfaces and an airplane steers in two dimensions like a car - is essentially the same principle that the Ercoupe was designed around almost 90 years ago.

I find your third-hand reports that people turn down a flight because they have flown the airplane on a computer to be highly suspect. It would surprise me if anyone said that, but even if they did, it was not likely the true reason. If I think of some of the reasons I have turned down rides - it's too expensive, I feel like I should chip in for the gas but I don't have the cash on me, I don't know the pilot (or I know him a little too well!) and don't trust him, I'm not crazy about the condition of the plane, I don't like the weather, or I'm just not interested right now - some of these might be a little embarrassing or offensive to say, and the video game thing may just be an excuse (although I would hope I could come up with a better one). I think it's far-fetched to think that someone would invest the hours in learning a plane in a flight sim or game and then view that as a superior substitute for the actual experience. That's like saying, "Naw, I don't care to have dinner with Elizabeth Hurley, I've seen all of her movies." You'd feel like that person should be locked up. So I'd exercise a little more skepticism with respect to such statements.

I think you're right to be skeptical. I admit that I am a bit skeptical myself. I agree that there is a pretty good chance that there were other factors at play.

In a way, however, I don't think it really matters whether the stories are true or not. The point of those anecdotes is more about the perceptions of the person that was telling the story had about video games then whether it actually happened. True, in both cases, I was the one who broached the subject, but they were the ones who made the point of making their retellings denigrating to video game players. Ultimately, they viewed it through the lens that they wanted to.

While maybe not as extreme as the two examples I picked – they just happen to be the ones I remember – I have run into many other instances of this attitude. If this was not the case, this counterargument would not exist.

I really appreciate your insightful and constructive criticism, by the way. A number of my responses above were aspects I had really considered until you brought them up. Thanks!

[k5083]

That's a very thoughtful response. I'm pleased to see someone taking this subject seriously. It's overdue for a sophisticated treatment, and I look forward to your final article.

I interact with a number of WIXers also on the flight simulator forums, so I know there is some overlap between virtual and real-world warbird enthusiasm, though it's hard to say how much. Many well-known warbird pilots have served as consultants to flight sim game publishers, and some of them appear to enjoy playing the games on their own time, as well. But I know you are right that there is a distinct contempt for "video games" of any kind in a lot of the vintage aviation community, especially among the old (and getting older) guard.

Professional flight simulators, we all know, have a lot of applicability in training real pilots. Consumer flight sim "games" are now at the point where the computational algorithms that make up the flight model are largely shared between the more advanced sim games and the pro simulators, with the main differences being in I/O peripherals, like the replicated controls and panels, full-motion rigs, etc. Consumer flight sims are edging slowly but steadily closer to gaining formal acceptance as a part of flight training, and are already used in a limited, informal way. The first simulator products actually being used in warbird training, for which no true professional simulators exist, are currently being implemented by some of the same companies that make home simulator products.

A consumer grade flight sim with a generic control setup and questionable flight model might be pretty poor at teaching the stick-and-rudder part of flying, but depending on the quality of the sim and how you use it, it can definitely give you a leg up on basic navigation, instrument procedures, how to operate these gee-whiz glass cockpits, and so on.

And maybe home flight sims aren't useless for stick-and-rudder stuff either. It appears that the guy who stole a Dash 8 in Seattle and flew it around for a while before killing himself a couple of years ago learned how to do it mainly by flying flight sim games. He may have learned start-up procedures from watching aircrew, but the sims seem to have taught him enough to take off properly, do coordinated turns, execute basic aerobatic maneuvers, and crash only when he wanted to. Here's one of several articles about it: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/12/us/r ... lator.html. Here's another: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-ne ... crobatics/. That guy made no attempt to land. I wonder if he could have. I'm not aware of any other, non-suicidal, attempts to fly a plane with nothing but consumer flight sim game experience as training. I'm sure there are a lot of differing opinions in the CFI community on whether home flight simulators are any help to a student pilot, with some even probably thinking they are harmful, teaching bad habits and indifference to mistakes.

The Simventure 2021 event run by PilotEdge last year was a great example of the interaction between home flight sims and real-world aviating. This event occurred the week before Oshkosh and was used to train the actual controllers who would do the ATC at Oshkosh. Home flight simmers were invited to download a virtual KOSH, learn the NOTAMs, and fly the approaches into the field using a close copy of the actual procedures. We got to communicate with the controllers by voice in real time and jostle with the other traffic on approach. I flew both the Fisk and warbird approaches multiple times and had an absolute blast. If I were flying into Oshkosh the following week, as many of the participants were, I would absolutely do this to practice, and I'd be interested to hear if the controllers who participated found it worthwhile. The controllers seemed pleased when I called in a warbird arrival over Fond du Lac, because not many people were doing it and they knew they were going to have to deal with it the following week.

As far as warbirds, the cockpits in most of the better sims are laid out correctly and when I watch a video like Dave Hadfield's latest with the Spitfire, I don't need subtitles or narration to know pretty much everything he's doing in the cockpit and why. I pay attention to a pilot's settings and actions in in-cockpit videos like that, and try some of them out in my games. Sometimes it helps me fly them better; other times it doesn't, exposing either my own incompetence or some inaccuracy in the sim's flight model. But there is definitely some information being transferred there. Enough so that anyone saying home computer flight sims teach you nothing about real warbirds would not be credible in my eyes. Certainly as compared to the "traditional" vicarious enjoyment of warbirds through models, movies, TV, books, etc., I would have to say that sims equal, if not surpass, any of them as sources of enthusiasm and at least some types of information.

August

[Spitty]

For me its the immersion.Ive played on everything from Il2,BoB,EAW,CFS series and for me being a part of the action and flying inside the plane is key..Flight sim pits are where the funs at..If you have the money.
https://heritageflightsim.com/

[p51]

This topic reminds me of when I'd go to living history display events with my WW2 group and it never failed that there'd be a game playing kid who'd walk up like he knew all our equipment.
The problem was, he would declare that a GI would be carrying one of everything possible. Imagine a GI carrying a M1919A4 machine, gun, Tommy Gun, bazooka, mortar, rockets, and all. In other words, each GI a one-man heavy weapons section.
Not only do I own a lot of the WW2 real gear, I'm an Army (90s and 2000s) veteran. I'd explain it isn't possible for any man to carry all the stuff, and it also never failed he'd tell you the videogames were right and we were wrong.
One wouldn't let it go that a Tommy gun either had a 20 or 30 round magazine. Nope, he said, the videogame says 50 and BY GOD that's that. One time I handed the kid a 30-round magazine, a box of dummy .45 ACP rounds and said, "If you can fit 50 of these into that, I'll give you the gun and all my gear."
He just stood there, only then realizing there must be a reason why I had said that.
Right about then, a real-life modern tabbed Ranger in uniform came up and said, "Son, those games are pretty good. We love playing them, too, but they're not real life, for any era."
I'm quite sure the same applies for airplanes. I have stick time in some WW2 types, a couple that most fans never even get to sit in and in real life the controls have to be different than any video game. In my case, I've never played any of those games. The closest I've ever gotten was a real USAF B-52 simulator once, and the space shuttle sims at Space Camp a few times. Even in those cases, I know what I did was nothing like the real thing.

[Noha307]

But I know you are right that there is a distinct contempt for "video games" of any kind in a lot of the vintage aviation community, especially among the old (and getting older) guard.

One other thing I have to remind myself is that many of the old guard may not have interacted with a video game for 30 or 40 years. It's entirely reasonable to claim that they are unrealistic when you realize that the first generation of flight simulators looked like they came straight out of Space Invaders. As demonstrated by the evolution of Ace Combat graphics, things have come a long way in even the last 10 years. (Incidentally, the YouTuber who made that video also has videos about the Akutan Zero, an A-20 night raid, and a scenario almost certainly inspired by the P-40 found in Egypt.)

This topic reminds me of when I'd go to living history display events with my WW2 group and it never failed that there'd be a game playing kid who'd walk up like he knew all our equipment.
The problem was, he would declare that a GI would be carrying one of everything possible. Imagine a GI carrying a M1919A4 machine, gun, Tommy Gun, bazooka, mortar, rockets, and all. In other words, each GI a one-man heavy weapons section.
Not only do I own a lot of the WW2 real gear, I'm an Army (90s and 2000s) veteran. I'd explain it isn't possible for any man to carry all the stuff, and it also never failed he'd tell you the videogames were right and we were wrong.
One wouldn't let it go that a Tommy gun either had a 20 or 30 round magazine. Nope, he said, the videogame says 50 and BY GOD that's that. One time I handed the kid a 30-round magazine, a box of dummy .45 ACP rounds and said, "If you can fit 50 of these into that, I'll give you the gun and all my gear."
He just stood there, only then realizing there must be a reason why I had said that.

I have overheard many kids at our museum stating things that are just flat out wrong. Just the other day, I overheard one suggest that one of our single engine airplanes could carry an atomic bomb. So don't get me wrong, I won't pretend that it doesn't exist.

However, here's the key point: You had the right reaction. Instead of thinking, "this stupid kid doesn't know what he's talking about", you realized it was a teachable moment.

The Simventure 2021 event run by PilotEdge last year was a great example of the interaction between home flight sims and real-world aviating. This event occurred the week before Oshkosh and was used to train the actual controllers who would do the ATC at Oshkosh. Home flight simmers were invited to download a virtual KOSH, learn the NOTAMs, and fly the approaches into the field using a close copy of the actual procedures. We got to communicate with the controllers by voice in real time and jostle with the other traffic on approach. I flew both the Fisk and warbird approaches multiple times and had an absolute blast. If I were flying into Oshkosh the following week, as many of the participants were, I would absolutely do this to practice, and I'd be interested to hear if the controllers who participated found it worthwhile. The controllers seemed pleased when I called in a warbird arrival over Fond du Lac, because not many people were doing it and they knew they were going to have to deal with it the following week.

These are the approaches we need. You reminded me that the New England Air Museum used to hold a FlightSimCon as well. It seems to be defunct, but while looking for information on it I did come across a Flight Sim Expo that may serve as a replacement.

The evolution of Roger Ebert's thinking about whether video games are "art" is actually a great example of someone coming to a more nuanced view on the subject. His initial view was that video games are categorically not art. However, after literally thousands of comments, he posted a response in which he revised his opinion to, video games could one day be art, but there are no current examples that reach that condition. (Ebert had really high standards for whether something was art, regardless of the medium.) In a couple of relevant points, he admits: 1) he was wrong to judge something that he had not personally experienced, and 2) the vast majority of the comments he received on the article were not derogatory, but "intelligent, well-written", and generous. The gamers who responded were even willing to provide him with the console and video games to allow him to try them out for himself. While he freely admits he did not have the time or the interest in playing the games, the reaction of the gamers it is exactly the response I wish I would see from the older generation of warbird enthusiasts.

Right about then, a real-life modern tabbed Ranger in uniform came up and said, "Son, those games are pretty good. We love playing them, too, but they're not real life, for any era."

Even if all the technical details could be accurately reproduced, the simple fact is that a video game will never reach the level of realism needed to be an accurate depiction of aerial combat. The lack of consequences for death is of course the biggest difference. It's a lot easier to go charging headlong into a dogfight knowing that, no matter what, the worst thing that will happen to you is that you will have to respawn. This goes beyond simple decision making. The level of emotional involvement that comes with life-and-death experiences will never be there. As mentioned in the previous post, other practical factors, such as the extended periods of downtime, also contribute to this.

It appears that the guy who stole a Dash 8 in Seattle and flew it around for a while before killing himself a couple of years ago learned how to do it mainly by flying flight sim games.

As an aside, I'm calling it right now. Based on the online reaction that guy is going to be an aviation folk hero. Most of the comments I've seen are sympathetic to him, noting that a) he didn't kill anyone, b) his radio communications were cordial, and c) he really seemed like he needed mental health help more than anything.

[Hooligan2]

There are two types of people on this planet. Those who know everything and those who wish to be educated.

I have a friend who is a genuine polymath, having an interest in and retaining detailed facts about all sorts of everything. Very rarely I'll be more conversant with a subject than him and instead of arguing with me if I correct him, he'll be keen to understand what I know because he has an enquiring mind.

[Spitty]

[k5083]

Wow, Roger Ebert. I haven't thought about him for about 40 years.

Right about then, a real-life modern tabbed Ranger in uniform came up and said, "Son, those games are pretty good. We love playing them, too, but they're not real life, for any era."

Even if all the technical details could be accurately reproduced, the simple fact is that a video game will never reach the level of realism needed to be an accurate depiction of aerial combat. The lack of consequences for death is of course the biggest difference. It's a lot easier to go charging headlong into a dogfight knowing that, no matter what, the worst thing that will happen to you is that you will have to respawn. This goes beyond simple decision making. The level of emotional involvement that comes with life-and-death experiences will never be there. As mentioned in the previous post, other practical factors, such as the extended periods of downtime, also contribute to this.

So this is all true of course, but one point should be made about the difference between simulations as they apply to flying versus infantry combat. Flying - even the most intense combat flying - is like using a computer in that you do it sitting on your butt. You manipulate controls using relatively fine movements that can be duplicated on a simulator rig and at least reasonably aped even on a home unit. Infantry combat is more like football. No matter how many hours of Madden games you've played, it won't help you survive even one real NFL football down. Same with ground combat, fighting zombies, and most other things that computers can "simulate." The intense physical aspect, and even the physical requirements for being any good at them, make it a much more different experience. The sitting-down nature of flying is the thing that makes pro level flight simulators useful for training in a way that they can't be for those other things. Certainly, the consequence-free nature of it still matters a lot in terms of distancing it from reality. I think that in the professional simulator context, they work hard to make crashing seem like a big deal by shaming you hard when you mess up, to try to restore a little of that sense of consequence.

It appears that the guy who stole a Dash 8 in Seattle and flew it around for a while before killing himself a couple of years ago learned how to do it mainly by flying flight sim games.

As an aside, I'm calling it right now. Based on the online reaction that guy is going to be an aviation folk hero. Most of the comments I've seen are sympathetic to him, noting that a) he didn't kill anyone, b) his radio communications were cordial, and c) he really seemed like he needed mental health help more than anything.

I think that guy has pretty much faded from memory, but yes, the reaction to him was not that negative, and plenty of pilots were impressed that he could do what he did. I think that if he had landed the bird and walked away, he might truly have achieved folk-hero status. If you listen to the ATC tape, they were trying to talk him down in this way. I would have said a few things differently to try to talk him down, but it's easy to think of that in hindsight.

Off-topic, but you have to at least respect the Seattle guy more than that youtuber dirtbag who ("allegedly") wrecked a 1940 Taylorcraft last month just so he could film himself bailing out of it for a few views. That guy ("allegedly") should not only have the rule book thrown at him, but forced up any of several bodily orifices, sideways. Actually not that off-topic, because if you watch the commentary videos that have been made about the dirtbag, some guys are using flight simulators to duplicate his flight and establish that he had plenty of landing options after supposedly losing power, including room to glide to a real airport. Other guys are duplicating his flight in their real-life planes, and the conclusions are very similar. So that's another useful use of "video game" aviating - but it must be admitted that the guys who have duplicated the event in their real planes are more credible.

August

[RyanShort1]

Wow, Roger Ebert. I haven't thought about him for about 40 years.

Right about then, a real-life modern tabbed Ranger in uniform came up and said, "Son, those games are pretty good. We love playing them, too, but they're not real life, for any era."

Even if all the technical details could be accurately reproduced, the simple fact is that a video game will never reach the level of realism needed to be an accurate depiction of aerial combat. The lack of consequences for death is of course the biggest difference. It's a lot easier to go charging headlong into a dogfight knowing that, no matter what, the worst thing that will happen to you is that you will have to respawn. This goes beyond simple decision making. The level of emotional involvement that comes with life-and-death experiences will never be there. As mentioned in the previous post, other practical factors, such as the extended periods of downtime, also contribute to this.

So this is all true of course, but one point should be made about the difference between simulations as they apply to flying versus infantry combat. Flying - even the most intense combat flying - is like using a computer in that you do it sitting on your butt. You manipulate controls using relatively fine movements that can be duplicated on a simulator rig and at least reasonably aped even on a home unit. Infantry combat is more like football. No matter how many hours of Madden games you've played, it won't help you survive even one real NFL football down. Same with ground combat, fighting zombies, and most other things that computers can "simulate." The intense physical aspect, and even the physical requirements for being any good at them, make it a much more different experience. The sitting-down nature of flying is the thing that makes pro level flight simulators useful for training in a way that they can't be for those other things. Certainly, the consequence-free nature of it still matters a lot in terms of distancing it from reality. I think that in the professional simulator context, they work hard to make crashing seem like a big deal by shaming you hard when you mess up, to try to restore a little of that sense of consequence.

It appears that the guy who stole a Dash 8 in Seattle and flew it around for a while before killing himself a couple of years ago learned how to do it mainly by flying flight sim games.

As an aside, I'm calling it right now. Based on the online reaction that guy is going to be an aviation folk hero. Most of the comments I've seen are sympathetic to him, noting that a) he didn't kill anyone, b) his radio communications were cordial, and c) he really seemed like he needed mental health help more than anything.

I think that guy has pretty much faded from memory, but yes, the reaction to him was not that negative, and plenty of pilots were impressed that he could do what he did. I think that if he had landed the bird and walked away, he might truly have achieved folk-hero status. If you listen to the ATC tape, they were trying to talk him down in this way. I would have said a few things differently to try to talk him down, but it's easy to think of that in hindsight.

Off-topic, but you have to at least respect the Seattle guy more than that youtuber dirtbag who ("allegedly") wrecked a 1940 Taylorcraft last month just so he could film himself bailing out of it for a few views. That guy ("allegedly") should not only have the rule book thrown at him, but forced up any of several bodily orifices, sideways. Actually not that off-topic, because if you watch the commentary videos that have been made about the dirtbag, some guys are using flight simulators to duplicate his flight and establish that he had plenty of landing options after supposedly losing power, including room to glide to a real airport. Other guys are duplicating his flight in their real-life planes, and the conclusions are very similar. So that's another useful use of "video game" aviating - but it must be admitted that the guys who have duplicated the event in their real planes are more credible.

August

Yeah, I think the guy in the FedEx should've been teased into trying to land. And you're totally right about the Taylorcraft guy. As a former T-cart owner, it's angering to see that.

Sims are great for jets and stable nosewheel planes, but so far I've yet to see a sim that does a great job with a light taildragger, bigger warbird, or anything that uses more of your raw sense of motion and yaw, especially like many tailwheel aircraft demand. Even a Cessna 150 can be badly flown by a sim junkie, but it generally surprises them how the actual feel of the controls and body sensations work. That's my experience from numerous teaching situations.

[Rauhbatz]

Bob "Punchy" Powell, 352nd FG ace shared he went to a video gaming convention a number of years back.

In addition to giving a presentation on WW2 combat to gamers which was very well received, they also had Bob check out the control throws and harmonies on the P-51 B/C/D on a a video game from a company attending the conference. The company made adjustments to the aircraft controls to match Bob's feedback.

I dont know which game it was...but im sure how they perform is the real deal with Bob's input.....

[avenger2504]

Last weekend, near Christchurch in New Zealand I and a few other aircraft enthusiasts visited a chap building a full scale replica of a Fb6 Mosquito cockpit. This is to be a full motion simulator. Basically it will be complete from the nose to about the mid point of the wing and the wings to about the centerline of each engine. He has used some real mosquito cockpits parts and also 3D printing for parts hard to find. He is also working with the lads restoring an ex-RNZAF Fb6 Mosquito at the Ferrymead Aeronautical Society(a couple of them were along too. It will be complete with everything a Fb6 had at least the visual look. What I saw he had all hooked up in the hal fusleage he is fitting out (yes even building it like the factory did, in two halves!
Once finished it will be used for Sim missions. I've already put my hand up for a fly or at least be the Navigator!

[Spitty]

Oohh cant wait to see that when its done..DCS has a Mosquito module coming out.