(WaltBJ) wrote:

Biggest problem about computer games I have discovered so far is
Earth's G effect is ignored (the egg) along with no unloaded (zero-G)
accleration increase. The gun ranges far exceed actual effective
ranges in real life, as well as the lead requirements are way too
small. For example, co-speed 400KIAS, 1500 foot range, 5 G, the pipper
sags down below the nose in an F104A - your target's wings stick out
each side of the radome. Also, fuel consumption is also way too low,
at a guesstimate about 1/4 what it really is in combat.

I used to play around with FA18 Fighter and if you were in a fast chase you ran
it dry real quick. Also couldn't reach a running Russian with a Sidewinder
unless you were real close.

These days I sometimes play with Microsoft's WWII Combat Flight Sim. A friend
who flew P47's found it pretty amazing and I have compared it to the gun camera
films I have and the range and leads seem about right (except the tracers go
the same place as the other rounds, which I understand is not quite right). In
fact, I taped the computer video in black and white and edited it in among
camera film and it looks pretty darn good.

The physics models are good with the P47 feeling heavy and slugish compared to
the P51. The German planes are much different and rather twitchy. Of course,
they were supposed to be fast climbing interceptors versus the Allies need for
long range escorts.

BTW, the Spitfires are nice till you get P51s but the Hurricanes have a turning
radius and roll rate that seems to be an advantage in some engagements. I
wonder if this reflects real conditions?

-- Charlie Springer