Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Steve
The ultimate example of this is probably Falcon, in which the player becomes the pilot of an F-16, and nothing else. It's only one step below an actual training simulator.
|
It works with Falcon and DCS because they simulate single-seat aircraft. I've always interpreted the hardcore subsimmers as pretty much wanting something that simulates an entire submarine to Falcon or DCS fidelity, which seems massively impractical. Compare it to the super hi-fi passenger jets like PMDG for FSX which simulate every single subsystem in the real aircraft, but then most people run other programs like virtual co-pilots that automate checklists etc which kind of makes all that detail redundant.
The fun thing about SH1 and AOD is that they are really quite 'gamy' if the level of simulation is judged solely on procedural fidelity. Both automate a lot of processes like TMA and sailing model, and AOD even had an automated deck gun. Whereas the hardcore sim crowd would complain if these stations weren't modelled to the point of manually compensating for windage. I don't think procedural fidelity is something that magically improves the simulated experience.
As an example, the one WW1 game that gave me the best experience of "being there" was without a doubt Wings, even though it was hardly a realistic simulation compared to even Red Baron or Knights of the Sky. Its qualities lay in the narrative.
Oh yeah, SH1 is one of the few dos sims that hasn't really aged at all if you play it in DosBox today. Even the graphics still look good if you can look past the flat sea. Then experience what has to be THE defining anti-sub AI if there ever was one.