🚀 go-pugleaf

"lane" <race...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a5edbk$6eg4h$1@ID-131135.news.dfncis.de...

> the pressure of a real rudder control is something that
> > has to be managed by a real pilot, but isn't modeled accurately in
flight
> > sims.

> Sure it is, to a degree.

Yeah, but "to a degree" means not fully represented. I'm not talking about
missing rudder control, I'm talking about compromises that leave out some
representation of reality because it would not be fun to include in a game.
There are better examples (the economy in MMORPGs comes to mind), this was
one that occurred to me offhand. I should have said "sometimes isn't modeled
correctly", I was really thinking of just one example that I recall from the
past.

> Use a stick with a twist handle or rudder pedals
> and you have rudder control, all it does is move the tail rudder left or
> right.

You're talking about rudder left and rudder right in general and on modern
jet aircraft where rudder control is less significant. The example I was
thinking of concerns specific instances where side effects were not
accurately modeled in a sim because of the tedium it would cause. Take an
early vintage helicopter, for example. Because of the reality that the back
rotor is facing in one direction, there is constant compensating force that
needs to be applied in the opposite direction in order to remain stable. As
I said earlier, I'm not a pilot or an expert on flight sims, but I do recall
reading on usenet and CompuServe that many of the popular flight sims did
not accurately model this characteristic just because it would be a bitch to
have to keep up the pressure. I think it's a good compromise, and it
illustrates the point that sometimes it best to leave some technical realism
out in the name of fun.