What CM does.... Game vs Sim

jrcar · May 23, 2004

Technically CM is a "constructive simulation"

Flight sims are "virtual simulations".

and live training is "live simulation".

John sounds like he has some cool ones to play with (only a sim grog could appreciate ).

BC2010 is an example of a commercial simulation that anyone can buy (but its expensive) that is used as is by various militaries.

Harpoon has been used unchanged by several militaries as well.

Cheers

Rob

SoDak · May 23, 2004

Originally posted by jrcar:
Technically CM is a "constructive simulation"

Flight sims are "virtual simulations".

and live training is "live simulation".

John sounds like he has some cool ones to play with (only a sim grog could appreciate ).

BC2010 is an example of a commercial simulation that anyone can buy (but its expensive) that is used as is by various militaries.

Harpoon has been used unchanged by several militaries as well.

Cheers

Rob

Ah, a defining of a word that Slick Willy would be jealous of

Lawyer · May 23, 2004

Originally posted by John D Salt:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Lawyer:
[snips]
Yes, it is true. And factual too.

No, wrong.

You may perhaps not be aware of the existence of such flight simulators, but they have been around for a while longer than PCs.

http://www.aeroflot.ru/eng/company.asp?ob_no=800&tr_no=2071

...has a picture of one. Why do you think it's mounted the way it is? Right, to jiggle the flight deck crew about.

All the best,

John.

John D Salt · May 23, 2004

Originally posted by Lawyer:
No, actually I'm right.

Clearly not, but I understand the lawyerly instinct never to admit errors in your argument or evidence that defeats them.

Originally posted by Lawyer:

[snips]The original premise of this thread is based upon the fact that people on this forum play CM, flight sims, and other games on home computers.

No, wrong again. No such premise is implied or stated anywhere, and indeed if you read the initial post in the thread you will find that JohnCalvin's usage of "game" and "sim" is diametrically opposed to yours.

That may be the particular context you had in mind; as I said, "You seem to limit your usage of the term solely to flight simulation software run on general PC hardware."

Originally posted by Lawyer:

You took it upon yourself to expand use of the word "simulation" to a much different context of million dollar professional flight simulators.

No, wrong again. That usage was current decades before I was born, in the days of the Link Trainer.

Originally posted by Lawyer:

You unilaterally moved the thread topic another topic, presented technical information on your different topic, and then annointed yourself an expert who can declare that I am "wrong" for not responding to the original post in a way that literally meets your different topic dealing with professional flight simulators.

This is the most lamentable drivel. I didn't "anoint myself" an expert on simulation; I became one in the usual way (though not in flight simulation). You are the one who raised the topic of "flight simulators". I made allowance for the fact that you probably meant "PC flight simulators", and pointed out that if you didn't, then some of your assertions were wrong. Rather than either accept the correction or revise the scope of your claim, you chose to insist, on absolutely no grounds other than your personal say-so, that you were right. You have repeated the claim in an apparent attempt at proof by repeated assertion.

You might be able to bully some people into believing that you are right by such piss-poor methods of argumentation, but they don't work on me. Nor will infantile sneering, pompous finger-wagging, and self-important pontificating about how "English is a marvellous language" as if this entitles you to Humpty-Dumpty's own priveleges as to the meaning of the words you use.

I'm happy for people to disagree with the MOD/DoD and other generally accepted definitions of what "simulation" means, but it needs to be on some better ground than an unsupported personal whim.

All the best,

John.

xerxes · May 23, 2004

Sim trainers are really quite interesting. I don't have the research at hand, but PC flight simulators actually do a very good job of teaching people how to fly. It doesn't take long for an experience PC combat simulator player to transition quite successfully to flying real aircraft. The results were rather shocking to the training community that believed only very high fidely simulators would allow significant transfer of training to occur.

The CM series is absolutely a simulation of WWII tactical combat. As with any simulation it's not the same as the actual role a commander has to play. The global "micromanging" that can be done at the squad level is certainly unrealistic. If you wanted to use it as a more accurate simulation, you wouldn't allow the "commander" to directly control anything out of their immediate area. All other "commands" would need to be relayed to subordinates who actually plotted them.

The next generation CM game, that will hopefully include multiplayer would be a much BETTER simulation of WWII combat. Assuming things like FOW were specific to each player and you would start to see more realistic command structures and the miscommunications and command channel limitations arising. In a multiplayer game, the overall commander certainly needs to be a leader and not just have good tactical/strategic skills. They have to be able to motivate and control a diverse set of subordinates. But, in reality a good commander needs to possess both strategic/tactical knowledge and have good "leader" qualities.

It will be quite interesting to see how things develop if the next generation of CM is multiplayer.

SoDak · May 23, 2004

Originally posted by xerxes:

As with any simulation it's not the same as the actual role a commander has to play. The global "micromanging" that can be done at the squad level is certainly unrealistic. If you wanted to use it as a more accurate simulation, you wouldn't allow the "commander" to directly control anything out of their immediate area. All other "commands" would need to be relayed to subordinates who actually plotted them.

(after snipping various other comments)

Yep. This has always bugged the hell out of me, because its so unrealistic.

Something along Highway to the Reich's command structure would be ideal; it handles this topic the best of any game made, ever, imo.

Sirocco · May 23, 2004

Originally posted by SoDak:
Simulation ? Thats what the Army, etc. does with the opfor training in the mojave, pilots do at Top Gun, Navy does on training manuavers etc.
Not what we do with a video game.