Pretty much, I'd say. There is nothing on consoles these days that attempts a proper simulation.
For one, the typical console player just isn't interested in simulators, and two, the controls are terribly limited. Imagine flying Clod or DCS A-10 on a gamepad only. (!!)

I like consoles (I own an Xbox 360) but if you're looking for a sim, look elsewhere.

For me


Arcade = less detail + not dealing with certain factors. For flying this would be ammo, engine management, dealing with wind / air characteristics / storms, fuel consumption, map reading, navigation. Convergence, aerial gunnery. Use of tactics / strategy will make a difference but is not critical to game play, not have to really put effort into non action things such as take off / landing etc

Arcade you don't have to worry about where the enemies are, situational awareness in't paramount . . .

Arcade is you are the hero of the day. mistakes aren't compounding . .

Arcade is non stop action and everything is right up there. You can repair your plane by flying over your hanger, each kill you fly over the enemy's wreckage and you get reloaded . . . you get super powers like cyclone spinner or tidal waves etc . . .

this is a game that simulates a flight sim







Sim: more detail, more things modelled. You have to deal with everything. CEM, gunnery, fuel, ammo consumption etc. And all details are critical

If your tactics and strategy aren't used, this makes a clear difference of success or failure and is key to game play. SA is living.

If your plane is damaged, you have to do what they used to do, fly it back and land (if possible)

In a sim, you aren't the hero, you just do what you've been trained and work in as part of a team. if everything comes together you make it back.



this is a game that models realistically as much as a pilot went through.

I know of one true simulation on xbox 360. Its a Snipping sim and its very accurate. Makes you realise how hard snipping is and how simplified it is in popular fps games. Its definatly worth the 80 ms points.
http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Pr...5-d802585505fb

As icarus and others have pointed out..

By definition..

There all simulations..

With that out of the way..

That leads to the next question..

How 'realistic' is the simulation?

Problem with 'realistic' is it means different things to different people.. That is to say ask ten people what it means and you are likely to get ten similar but different answers.

For me the first question about realism has to do with how 'accurate' are the planes performance simulated

One would think that would be an easy question to answer, what with all the WWII performance tests to compare too, but you would be suspired how even that can be debated

If you think that is hard..

Try and debate how realistic the immersion is! Good luck! Because that is a very subjective area that can mean different things to different people. Or better yet, try and debate how realistic the 'handling' of the aircraft is.. Those are the ones that tend to give me the biggest smiles!

In summary.. there is an easy rule of thumb test you can do to tell if it is a simulation or not.. Basically check to see if 'it' is running on a PC.. If it is, you can bet it is a simulation! ;) From that point on, the only questions left is how 'realistic' is that simulation.

Just my 2 cents on the subject

Dont spend it all in one place ;)

One other thing to remember..

No simulation every 'was', 'is' or 'will be' truly realistic

Hence the name simulation :grin:

But then again - nothing is "realistic" by that definition as even human experiences are completely unique. For example if you go outside and run are you as good at it as others? Experience the same emotions? Thoughts?

It's hard to compare thus we have that many rules in competitions.

I believe that simulations have their "limits" but also have an additional level of freedom. For example the sandbox effect: you can't harm, be harmed or die.

This is a MAJOR difference. For example take the flight sim genre. WWII.
We now know the flaws and weaknesses of the planes. The pilots back in the days paid with their lives to discover them. We can also train and perfection our playstyle - could the pilots at the time?

Hence it's getting more and more difficult for a sim to be fair AND a simulation. That is why so much balancing is necessary. And that's also why I believe it would be great to have dogfight servers that aren't faction based and have co-op and other servers that could be faction based. Let people fight in the plane they want - that'd be the only way to be fair and a simulation.

Traditionally, in flight games, the border between "Sim" and "game" has always been whether or not the title considers angle of attack.

It's why Red Baron 1 is a Sim, and Tie Fighter isn't.

But I was not providing a 'definition' of simulation or reality..

I was just pointing out that no simulation is, was, or ever will be reality to emphasize the point that they are and allways will be two different things

I agree i think apache air assault did a good job on xbox not a sim but very good take on the ah64.

Wha...? Interesting, thanks.