PDA

View Full Version : Define 'SIM' in your own terms?



Salty Dog
09-01-2016, 12:16
Being the littlest tadpole in a very big racing pond im a bit confused where the lines are drawn by the 'experts' and punters as to what qualifies a game as a SIM?

I see talk of fans fighting between each other all over the net claiming their favourite game is a 'real sim' while the other persons isnt..

To my untrained eye PC's looks like a SIM to me, im just a hacker and lack the expert perspective of years of racing but the game looks totally amazing, the tune up options are huge, the cars feel great to me, the AI is good, sound is great, all the different views look great, what more does a game need to qualify for SIM status for those claiming its not? or not a very good one?

I had a look at Forza v PC split screen comparison on youtube, i thought PC looked better and sounded better but both looked great, id play Forza if i could get it on my PS4 as well as Project cars and just enjoy the best of both worlds, play them all i say.

What are these 'fans' fighting about and what exactly qualifies a game to be a SIM? Does the term have a different meaning for different people?

Where exactly does PC fall in the world of sim racing?

And define SIM racing for you personally?

Cheers



And bring on the new V8SC:D

Sankyo
09-01-2016, 12:38
It's been discussed so many times already, but whatever you like :)

As was remarked casually but very rightly in the "Why the hate?" thread, many games are sims to more or lesser extent doing some things well and some things not so well or not at all, which basically makes them all incomplete sims in one way or another.

So pick the one that offers what you like, share the love, and stop that urge to defame other games because they are not True Sims.

TheReaper GT
09-01-2016, 12:48
A cartoonish person with a strange voice and a green losang hovering over it's head.

Salty Dog
09-01-2016, 13:12
It's been discussed so many times already, but whatever you like :)

As was remarked casually but very rightly in the "Why the hate?" thread, many games are sims to more or lesser extent doing some things well and some things not so well or not at all, which basically makes them all incomplete sims in one way or another.

So pick the one that offers what you like, share the love, and stop that urge to defame other games because they are not True Sims.

Cheers mate thanks for that, maybe we could just wrap this thread up, how do i delete it?

cheers

Haiden
09-01-2016, 15:58
Because some people simply don't understand that there are different levels to sim. There is no de facto standard. If there were, then how could any PC or console game be called a real sim when there are million dollar simulators sitting in the shops of many race teams? If you want to talk about real sims, then those would be the closest thing to true. Sitting at your PC or console, debating which $60 game you're playing with your controller or consumer wheel is a real sim is almost laughable when you consider the types of simulators that are out there.

A more logical debate would be which title offers the better simulation experience. Sure, in most cases that's still going to be a silly debate over subjective preferences. But at least that makes more sense than trying to decide which consumer-level game is the real simulator.

Konan
09-01-2016, 17:25
The moment i found out it was a sim was when i tried to play it with a couple of gin 'n tonics in my system... Crashfest almighty :p
Never had that with any other racing game on console...
This game is unforgiving for any mistakes...as it should be and as it is in real life...
So to my standards it's a sim...and no...i'm not drunk...lol

blot
09-01-2016, 17:33
Because some people simply don't understand that there are different levels to sim. There is no de facto standard. If there were, then how could any PC or console game be called a real sim when there are million dollar simulators sitting in the shops of many race teams? If you want to talk about real sims, then those would be the closest thing to true. Sitting at your PC or console, debating which $60 game you're playing with your controller or consumer wheel is a real sim is almost laughable when you consider the types of simulators that are out there.

A more logical debate would be which title offers the better simulation experience. Sure, in most cases that's still going to be a silly debate over subjective preferences. But at least that makes more sense than trying to decide which consumer-level is the I]real [/I]simulator.

^^^^^^^^^^^ This sums it up perfectly.

Jason PLAdoh
09-01-2016, 17:42
How about "Consequences for your actions"

would be a step forward.

Lubs

Jace

Konan
09-01-2016, 17:42
^^^^^^^^^^^ This sums it up perfectly.

Yes...except that we're talking about sim GAMES not real life simulators...i'm sure half of the community couldn't handle a simulator...including me
Apples and pears imo...

Jussi Viljami Karjalainen
09-01-2016, 17:58
Yes...except that we're talking about sim GAMES not real life simulators...i'm sure half of the community couldn't handle a simulator...including me
Apples and pears imo..."Couldn't handle" in what sense? For the longest time the major problem with consumer sim racing games was that they were too difficult, much more so than real cars.

maxpainpayne
09-01-2016, 18:02
imo

Sim= anything that simulates reality.

Semi-sim= bugs alterations or shortcomings to hinders it from being true sim.

True-sim= simulates reality with perfection, no major bugs.

True racing sim= simulates real race experience with manner of perfection, no major bugs.

Konan
09-01-2016, 18:02
"Couldn't handle" in what sense? For the longest time the major problem with consumer sim racing games was that they were too difficult, much more so than real cars.

I don't think you can compare driving a Formula A car in PCars to driving a F1 car on a real simulator for example (except when you're a race driver off course)...in that sense...

Edit:even if I was a multi-millionaire and could afford such a real life simulator,i still wouldn't buy it cause it would be useless to me since i couldn't handle it...
Sim games are for fun (and some take them way to serious)...simulators are for practice/testing for professionals imho...
Hence: apples and pears

Shinzah
09-01-2016, 18:21
True-sim= simulates reality with perfection, no major bugs.


With current technology, this objectively can't exist.

RobMUFC1987
09-01-2016, 18:22
I'm a "Console Peasant" so up till now a race sim was if the fastest way to win was keeping the car straight and you needed to brake, that was sim. To me personally, thats still the case. If you're drifting and doing 150mph, thats arcade. So to me, NFS, DriveClub etc are Arcade and Forza, Gran Turismo are Sims. I think Sim is personal preference in my opinion. Some people will say depends on difficulty and others will say realism. But like I said, to me a sim is if you need to drive how you would expect to in real life

Roger Prynne
09-01-2016, 18:28
This is an interesting read...... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sim_racing

maxpainpayne
09-01-2016, 18:40
This is an interesting read...... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sim_racing are you serious?

Anyone with educational background knows "wiki" is not credible because you and I can change and create articles without any proof for what is written.

hey, try gathering a source with credibility.

Sankyo
09-01-2016, 18:47
I don't think you can compare driving a Formula A car in PCars to driving a F1 car on a real simulator for example (except when you're a race driver off course)...in that sense...

Edit:even if I was a multi-millionaire and could afford such a real life simulator,i still wouldn't buy it cause it would be useless to me since i couldn't handle it...
Sim games are for fun (and some take them way to serious)...simulators are for practice/testing for professionals imho...
Hence: apples and pears

But aren't you implying that driving cars specifically made to drive fast and handle well are somehow very difficult to drive? All the real-life race drivers say the opposite, the difficulty is only in driving on the edge consistently.

Sankyo
09-01-2016, 18:51
are you serious?

Anyone with educational background knows "wiki" is not credible because you and I can change and create articles without any proof for what is written.

hey, try gathering a source with credibility.

Did you read the article, or are you just wiki-bashing out of principle? :)

RobMUFC1987
09-01-2016, 18:52
are you serious?

Anyone with educational background knows "wiki" is not credible because you and I can change and create articles without any proof for what is written.

hey, try gathering a source with credibility.

He said it was interesting to read, not that it was factual. Plus, actually read it, it just discusses game releases starting in 1983

Shinzah
09-01-2016, 18:52
are you serious?

Anyone with educational background knows "wiki" is not credible because you and I can change and create articles without any proof for what is written.

hey, try gathering a source with credibility.

The presentation of the link wasn't in response to you, but in response to the general topic. As it was, it's up to you to discredit the link and thin insults aren't the way to carry that burden.

All Roger said was that it is an interesting read. And it is.

Roger Prynne
09-01-2016, 19:07
are you serious?

Anyone with educational background knows "wiki" is not credible because you and I can change and create articles without any proof for what is written.

hey, try gathering a source with credibility.



Did you read the article, or are you just wiki -bashing out of principle? :)

No he's just bashing anyone he can for whatever reason :mad:

Konan
09-01-2016, 19:25
But aren't you implying that driving cars specifically made to drive fast and handle well are somehow very difficult to drive? All the real-life race drivers say the opposite, the difficulty is only in driving on the edge consistently.

Yes because the real life divers are trained to do so...
Are you implying you can pick a guy off the Street, put him in a race car and he will do well?

maxpainpayne
09-01-2016, 19:38
The presentation of the link wasn't in response to you, but in response to the general topic. As it was, it's up to you to discredit the link and thin insults aren't the way to carry that burden.

All Roger said was that it is an interesting read. And it is.

so what you are telling me is to stay out of other peoples conversation. while you interrupt my conversation with some type of arrogant remark. "link wasn't in response to you"

and by insulting me by calling my questioning "thin insults"?

It is fine to direct people to talk about 1990s race sims. but this topic is about defining race "sims" and I will inform anyone that wiki information is subjective and unreliable.


shinzah what is so hurtful about this information I gave that you have to call it insulting? Seems to me you are ultra protective over his wiki page and this is really being inconsiderate.

Sum Dixon-Ear
09-01-2016, 19:38
Yes because the real life divers are trained to do so...
Are you implying you can pick a guy off the Street, put him in a race car and he will do well?

I think that Remco is implying the exact opposite; yes you can pick most untrained drivers 'off the street' and get them to drive a purpose built, well prepped race car relatively quickly. Where extensive experience and skill come into play is exacting the last few ounces of performance from the car with unyielding consistency.

This applies to real life as well as sim racing, most racers can get 'pretty quick' after practicing for days, weeks or months... but attaining the ultimate lap times and competing at the very top level is not something everyone can or will achieve. Most can do well, only the most skilled will make it to the top in both disciplines.

maxpainpayne
09-01-2016, 19:46
No he's just bashing anyone he can for whatever reason :mad:


I would like to inform you that I have no reason to bash anyone. I just thought to remind that "Wiki" pages can be created by anyone.

it would not provide accurate information for defining "what is a racing sim" Yes I have read the article and concluded that it was evaluated from a single perspective (or opinion based) as to what makes a "true sim"

carry on, no pun intended

Konan
09-01-2016, 19:46
I think that Remco is implying the exact opposite; yes you can pick most untrained drivers 'off the street' and get them to drive a purpose built, well prepped race car relatively quickly. Where extensive experience and skill come into play is exacting the last few ounces of performance from the car with unyielding consistency.

This applies to real life as well as sim racing, most racers can get 'pretty quick' after practicing for days, weeks or months... but attaining the ultimate lap times and competing at the very top level is not something everyone can or will achieve. Most can do well, only the most skilled will make it to the top in both disciplines.

I find that hard to believe...
Let's just agree to disagree then...

kevin kirk
09-01-2016, 19:48
I think the new consoles have changed the way the discussion about sim or arcade is discussed. Used to be we couldn't have anything of a sim nature because of the consoles themselfs. For console players we now can dip our toes into the sim side of racing games. At this moment the sim side is me having to focus 100 percent on every turn,every braking, and every time I apply the throttle or I will screw up and spin. Just like if I was driving a real race car. There is no watered down aspect of the game that going to let me grab a drink or scratch my ass real quick or think about what is in the fridge. It needs to be intense focus to control the car. Now not in a hard to drive way, but sliding the car in every turn on the edge of loosing grip and gaining grip but knowing when you have slid it to much and the tires cant gain the grip back. To pitch it into a corner constantly catching the yaw of the car with a degree of yaw I cant go over or I have screwed up. That kind of focus needed to play. Every other game I have played before wanted you to be able to catch it and helped you catch that slide. A sim doesnt give a shit wether you catch that slide or not and lets it do as its suppose to do which ends with you in the gravel trap.

Sankyo
09-01-2016, 20:08
I find that hard to believe...
Let's just agree to disagree then...
Actually I think it's a very interesting topic :) Why do you think a real race car is hard to drive? Or, to put it differently, why would they design and build a car that is intended to go fast and win races in such a way that it is difficult to drive? If I were a race car designer, I would make it fast, stable, grippy, manoeuverable and easy to handle, so that the driver can focus on racing and not on keeping the car on the asphalt and pointed in the right direction.

Sum Dixon-Ear
09-01-2016, 20:18
Actually I think it's a very interesting topic :) Why do you think a real race car is hard to drive? Or, to put it differently, why would they design and build a car that is intended to go fast and win races in such a way that it is difficult to drive? If I were a race car designer, I would make it fast, stable, grippy, manoeuverable and easy to handle, so that the driver can focus on racing and not on keeping the car on the asphalt and pointed in the right direction.

225132

Sum Dixon-Ear
09-01-2016, 20:57
A few years old now... nonetheless, a rather fascinating insight into the physics involved in making a 'realistic' racing simulator -

https://channel9.msdn.com/Blogs/Charles/Brian-Beckman-The-Physics-in-Games-Real-Time-Simulation-Explained

Tomcul
09-01-2016, 21:05
Are you implying you can pick a guy off the Street, put him in a race car and he will do well?
You can't just pick a guy off the street and put him in a sim rig driving formula a against ai at 100 and expect him to do well either.. Bet the majority don't finish a full length race.

Roger Prynne
09-01-2016, 21:05
A few years old now... nonetheless, a rather fascinating insight into the physics involved in making a 'realistic' racing simulator -

https://channel9.msdn.com/Blogs/Charles/Brian-Beckman-The-Physics-in-Games-Real-Time-Simulation-Explained

Yeah I watched that some time ago, and it's a good video.

Konan
09-01-2016, 21:08
Actually I think it's a very interesting topic :) Why do you think a real race car is hard to drive? Or, to put it differently, why would they design and build a car that is intended to go fast and win races in such a way that it is difficult to drive? If I were a race car designer, I would make it fast, stable, grippy, manoeuverable and easy to handle, so that the driver can focus on racing and not on keeping the car on the asphalt and pointed in the right direction.

I agree on that but they make it easy to drive for a racedriver...someone who has the skills and experience to drive it...
Why would they spend so much time and money to follow up kids who come from carts and gradually (with a lot of practice) make it to F1?
They could just skip that part then and save millions by just putting an add in the paper...lol

Shinzah
09-01-2016, 21:19
I find that hard to believe...
Let's just agree to disagree then...

If you find that hard to believe, RBR put Tom Cruise into an F1 car at Willow Springs, and after a day of work he was nearly good enough at driving it to be an F1 development driver.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH61B0HJqcQ

Tom Cruise does not have much racing experience. So you can absolutely take a guy off the street and plonk him in a racing car.

In fact - this happens nearly daily from march to november at racing experiences and schools.

Racing cars are not difficult to drive. They are difficult to drive well. What separates a good driver is his ability to drive to the very limit of the car and the track to extract the extra few tenths or thousandths. Pretty much anyone can drive a race car and many actually do.

In fact, if you've enough money, you can enter most high profile sports car racing events in the world after literally a day course to get a competition license.

It's down to the individual driver and the engineers to extract the pace out of the car to make it 'fast'. But they are not, by any stretch, difficult to drive.

The hardest cars to drive are usually Sprint Cars, F1(Oval) cars and Super Stocks (Or their derivatives). Which this forum complains about nearly incessantly every five minutes.

Edit: Or perhaps Top Fuel/Funny drag cars and Pull Tractors but that's a whole other can of worms.

Jussi Viljami Karjalainen
09-01-2016, 21:20
I agree on that but they make it easy to drive for a racedriver...someone who has the skills and experience to drive it...
Why would they spend so much time and money to follow up kids who come from carts and gradually (with a lot of practice) make it to F1?
They could just skip that part then and save millions by just putting an add in the paper...lolThat's a bit different. What we're talking about is how hard these cars are to drive overall (and F1 admittedly is quite hard because you need to drive it quickly so that the tyres heat up and start working). The work the F1 teams put into coaching future generations of drivers isn't about coaching drivers who CAN drive and F1 car, it's about coaching drivers that can potentially WIN races.

Konan
09-01-2016, 21:27
I shall yield humble to your comments [Shinza,Remco and Jussi] consider me converted...maybe there's a career in racing for me after all...lol

Jussi Viljami Karjalainen
09-01-2016, 21:29
The hardest cars to drive are usually Sprint Cars, F1(Oval) cars and Super Stocks (Or their derivatives). Which this forum complains about nearly incessantly every five minutes.Yeah, basically any car where there's either an aspect on the car that makes it more difficult (like absolutely having to keep tyres warm or they give out completely in some open-wheel series, whereas GT cars tend to have much more forgiving tyres), or there's something in the ruleset that makes the car unbalanced (cars with more power than grip in series that allow for beastly engines but little to no aero for example), or where the cars are just so fast it's hard to keep up and avoid mistakes (Group B rallying for example). Most racing cars these days strike a fantastic balanced between grip and power, very often leaning on the grip side even (GTE cars aren't that powerful, nor are DTM cars, and so on), and have become in many ways quite easy to drive. In the past before aero and tyres were still rudimentary people could still build beastly engines, and those cars definitely could be tricky to drive fast, though not necessarily hard to drive as such if you didn't try to push them too far.

In many ways a lot of old racing cars were like modern supercars: Way more power and straightline speed than the rest of the car can comfortably handle. Many expect the Zonda R for example to be difficult to drive because it's so much like a racing car, but even the orangutan thought it was by far the easiest Zonda to drive simply due to the massive grip. Of course it allows you to go faster before it lets go, so when it does let go the consequences are worse... =)

Jussi Viljami Karjalainen
09-01-2016, 21:36
I shall yield humble to your comments [Shinza,Remco and Jussi] consider me converted...maybe there's a career in racing for me after all...lolThere's also one thing that should perhaps be addressed: How difficult a car is to drive, and how forgiving it is if you do something wrong. While after even a bit of training most would probably find that they can drive a GT3 car around a track and fairly easily achieve lap times that are faster than they could in almost any "normal" car, if they actually did mess up they'd probably end up making a bigger mess of it than they would if they were driving a lets say Focus RS. A light racing car on racing tyres and with good DF can give you multiples of the grip you could ever find in a road car, and be very easy to drive a helluva lot faster, but once it does let go the low weight and sudden loss of aero grip can mean it'll give up very suddenly, whereas a heavy normal car on normal tyres gives up early and smoothly. =)

Also another thing that simply can't be overlooked is a thing that we sim drivers never have to worry about, but real drivers do: G forces. It's one thing having the technique to drive a car really fast in a sim, it's quite another to then go into a racing car where you're being thrown around two, three times as hard during normal cornering as you would in a road car during an emergency braking scenario. Whether you theoretically can handle the controls on a racing car to push it quickly around a track and whether you can physically do it (and dare to do it with the real life consequences should you mess up) are different things. =)

Roger Prynne
09-01-2016, 21:39
As has been said it's easy to drive a race car but not so easy to drive it on the limit lap after lap.
I also think/know that it's not so easy to drive when other cars are close to you or in a pack.
Plus the stress and fatigue that comes with it.

Konan
09-01-2016, 21:45
Yeez...now that i've been converted you bring up the experience thing...that was what i was talking about all along....confused now....
Imo you have to have experience to deal with those things (something a guy of the street doesn't have) right?

Mad Al
09-01-2016, 21:48
Yeez...now that i've been converted you bring up the experience thing...that was what i was talking about all along....confused now....
Imo you have to have experience to deal with those things (something a guy of the street doesn't have) right?

There is a difference between driving fast and having race craft..

Jussi Viljami Karjalainen
09-01-2016, 22:01
Yeez...now that i've been converted you bring up the experience thing...that was what i was talking about all along....confused now....
Imo you have to have experience to deal with those things (something a guy of the street doesn't have) right?Again different things, no-one said it's easy to become a good racer just by hopping into a racing car, just that just driving a racing car isn't supposed to be unduly difficult. =)

You can probably see why we think this is such an intriguing and deep subject to think about. =)

Konan
09-01-2016, 22:03
Again different things, no-one said it's easy to become a good racer just by hopping into a racing car, just that just driving a racing car isn't supposed to be unduly difficult. =)

You can probably see why we think this is such an intriguing and deep subject to think about. =)

Yep...got it...finally...lol

bradleyland
09-01-2016, 23:12
Being the littlest tadpole in a very big racing pond im a bit confused where the lines are drawn by the 'experts' and punters as to what qualifies a game as a SIM?

I see talk of fans fighting between each other all over the net claiming their favourite game is a 'real sim' while the other persons isnt..

To my untrained eye PC's looks like a SIM to me, im just a hacker and lack the expert perspective of years of racing but the game looks totally amazing, the tune up options are huge, the cars feel great to me, the AI is good, sound is great, all the different views look great, what more does a game need to qualify for SIM status for those claiming its not? or not a very good one?

I had a look at Forza v PC split screen comparison on youtube, i thought PC looked better and sounded better but both looked great, id play Forza if i could get it on my PS4 as well as Project cars and just enjoy the best of both worlds, play them all i say.

What are these 'fans' fighting about and what exactly qualifies a game to be a SIM? Does the term have a different meaning for different people?

Where exactly does PC fall in the world of sim racing?

And define SIM racing for you personally?

Cheers



And bring on the new V8SC:D

The argument over what is a "real sim" is a proxy argument for which sim is better. The individual who has decided that their sim is better asserts that PC is not a "real sim because a real sim would never do XYZ". Any time you hear someone making this argument, you should immediately dismiss them out of hand and reply with whatever condescending remark comes to the front of your mind.

I kid, I kid! :D

Seriously though, the "real sim" argument is a variant of the "no true scotsman" fallacy. If you're not sure what that is, you should definitely Google it. Once you do, you'll realize that many arguments you hear day-to-day are being propped up by this fallacy, and you'll be able to see right through them.

Shinzah
10-01-2016, 00:51
Seriously though, the "real sim" argument is a variant of the "no true scotsman" fallacy. If you're not sure what that is, you should definitely Google it. Once you do, you'll realize that many arguments you hear day-to-day are being propped up by this fallacy, and you'll be able to see right through them.

Hypostatization and logical fallacies are the bane of internet forums and social media since inception. Objectified debate is nearly impossible since we tend to quantify personal experience as fact. This leads to various logical fallacies, which in turn leads to attacks, flame wars, communication breakdown and ultimately thread lockings, bannings and sour feelings.

Lindybiege has a video that I think describes things well and would lead to less misunderstanding in this (and almost every) debate:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JJjYNHZte4

Maybe a little OTT but I felt like it could apply, given the post quoted.

Just ice
10-01-2016, 01:48
SERIOUSLY INTENSE MINDGAME

Salty Dog
10-01-2016, 10:23
Thanks lads its much clearer now to me after reading through your thoughts in here.

Simulation seems to be evolving so much that it seems the boundries are also changing a bit too.

What many gamers called simulation 5-10 years ago is different to what they are calling it now, the goal posts are shifting as technology moves forward, will what we are playing now not really be called sim as the goal posts move further ahead?

The definition of sim might not change much over time but gamers definitions of it and expectations of it seem to change a lot.

Salty Dog
10-01-2016, 10:42
What im coming to realise that out there in computer land most average gamers and punters has little idea what sim really is, the word is thrown around every second post, every man and his dog has an opinion on what it is but much of it is very light on the facts, reality and perspective.

Part of the reason ive come here to learn off the experts :)

Konan
10-01-2016, 10:48
It's actually as simple as the name says:simulator....it's just personal opinion what has to be simulated...that differs from person to person...

BigFred
10-01-2016, 11:16
Being the littlest tadpole in a very big racing pond im a bit confused where the lines are drawn by the 'experts' and punters as to what qualifies a game as a SIM?

I see talk of fans fighting between each other all over the net claiming their favourite game is a 'real sim' while the other persons isnt..

To my untrained eye PC's looks like a SIM to me, im just a hacker and lack the expert perspective of years of racing but the game looks totally amazing, the tune up options are huge, the cars feel great to me, the AI is good, sound is great, all the different views look great, what more does a game need to qualify for SIM status for those claiming its not? or not a very good one?

I had a look at Forza v PC split screen comparison on youtube, i thought PC looked better and sounded better but both looked great, id play Forza if i could get it on my PS4 as well as Project cars and just enjoy the best of both worlds, play them all i say.

What are these 'fans' fighting about and what exactly qualifies a game to be a SIM? Does the term have a different meaning for different people?

Where exactly does PC fall in the world of sim racing?

And define SIM racing for you personally?

Cheers



And bring on the new V8SC:D

Whether something is sim or not is not something IMO for an end user to determine. It's a development ethos. That's why IMO it's pretty silly to argue over whether something is a sim. If a developer says its a sim, its a sim.

It's for the end user to determine whether or not its a good sim or not. Ie whether it simulates the real world accurately within the constraints of the hardware.

People who say games like PCars aren't sims to me are frankly idiots. Of course it's a sim. It attempts to simulate real world effects to a level that is far beyond what would be required in order to ensure good gameplay. Tyre temperatures and pressures, that sort of stuff.

Is it a good sim or not ? That's where the (hopefully qualified) debate can occur.

Shinzah
10-01-2016, 11:36
Whether something is sim or not is not something IMO for an end user to determine. It's a development ethos. That's why IMO it's pretty silly to argue over whether something is a sim. If a developer says its a sim, its a sim.

Please excuse my post if it causes any offense, but...

Whether a simulation can be classified as a simulation is entirely up to the end users opinion. If the developer says it's a potato and I see an onion, is it a potato? Are you going to convince me its a potato, when I clearly see an onion? Probably not.



It's for the end user to determine whether or not its a good sim or not. Ie whether it simulates the real world accurately within the constraints of the hardware.

Is it a good sim or not ? That's where the (hopefully qualified) debate can occur.

As soon as you bring in subjective concepts debate effectively ceases and argument begins. Whether something is subjectively 'good' or 'bad' has no bearing on its being as 'is'. This is why these debates tend to get nowhere.

"This sim does this well (to me)" vs "THIS *sim* does *this* well (to ME)" doesn't really accomplish a whole lot. Now we could discuss the objective details of the codebase (tiremodel details to tiremodel details, FFB implementation ect) but how a game/sim feels to an individual is as personal as a car setup. It's a "This game is better vs this game" thing. Well, who decides? Only us to ourselves. Not a very productive sharing of ideals, especially if people share completely conflicting ones.

I found my experience with AC to be awful, but if I say "AC is awful", someone is bound to say "No it's not, you're just bad/wrong, ect" and this leads to a round and round discussion that while interesting from a psychology perspective, solves absolutely nothing about what makes a game/sim "good" or "bad".

maxpainpayne
10-01-2016, 11:46
Driveclub is a "sim" the developer said.

Jussi Viljami Karjalainen
10-01-2016, 11:49
Whether something is sim or not is not something IMO for an end user to determine. It's a development ethos. That's why IMO it's pretty silly to argue over whether something is a sim. If a developer says its a sim, its a sim.Unless they lie (or exaggerate massively), which many have done in the past. =)

BigFred
10-01-2016, 12:13
Please excuse my post if it causes any offense, but...

Whether a simulation can be classified as a simulation is entirely up to the end users opinion. If the developer says it's a potato and I see an onion, is it a potato? Are you going to convince me its a potato, when I clearly see an onion? Probably not.



As soon as you bring in subjective concepts debate effectively ceases and argument begins. Whether something is subjectively 'good' or 'bad' has no bearing on its being as 'is'. This is why these debates tend to get nowhere.

"This sim does this well (to me)" vs "THIS *sim* does *this* well (to ME)" doesn't really accomplish a whole lot. Now we could discuss the objective details of the codebase (tiremodel details to tiremodel details, FFB implementation ect) but how a game/sim feels to an individual is as personal as a car setup. It's a "This game is better vs this game" thing. Well, who decides? Only us to ourselves. Not a very productive sharing of ideals, especially if people share completely conflicting ones.

I found my experience with AC to be awful, but if I say "AC is awful", someone is bound to say "No it's not, you're just bad/wrong, ect" and this leads to a round and round discussion that while interesting from a psychology perspective, solves absolutely nothing about what makes a game/sim "good" or "bad".

No, all games are simulations of something.

Super Mario Kart is a simulation of racing. So why don't people spend hours slagging off the physics models or the fact that it doesn't take into account correct tyre pressures ? The answer is obvious. Because the developers never claim that its supposed to be an authentic representation of real world events. it's just focussed on good gameplay, and reality can take a hike if it gets in the way of gameplay or fun. The developers don't claim its a simulation.

It's for developers to define whether they want their game to be considered as a simulation of a particular subset of real world events and they put in features/offer information for people to be able to judge a game on that basis. The judgement of whether it meets those objectives is up to the end user, and it can either meet those objectives well or not.

Try writing to a games manufacturer and letting them know that you like their game but you're disappointed that its inedible and the disc broke your teeth. See what they've got to say about that. I might go back to Sainsburys and complain that the pack of cornflakes I bought aren't an elephant. Do you reckon I'll get a very positive response ?

venquessa
10-01-2016, 12:15
For me it a bit like the difference between Science Fiction and Science Fantasy movies. eg. Star Trek versus Star wars.

If something happens in real life and you make an attempt to honor it or simulate it then you are taking the sim path.
If you ignore it, pretend it doesn't exist and refuse to make an attempt to simulate it or instead program a gameplay feature just for fun, then you are on the arcade path.

If you look back at the history of video driving games there is always a range between just making a fun game that uses cars and trying to simulate or at least emulate reality. It's interesting because when you look back there are many things that just were not practical to simulate and today there still are things that are impractical to simulate. So lack of a simualted feature shouldn't really exclude a game from the sim category.

Using the Star Trek / Star Wars analogy:
How do you account for the massive accelerations resulting from the ship manoeuvres in the movie which would squash people flat?

Star Wars: Meh, don't care just enjoy the movie, there is lots of pew, pew, cool stuff and cute furry creatures for your GF to coo at.
Star Trek: Well they have developed the inertial damping technology and... <insert monologue of extended theoretical, hypothetical science which while not reality today can't exactly be denied as plausible even by top physicists>

maxpainpayne
10-01-2016, 12:34
Please excuse my post if it causes any offense, but...

Whether a simulation can be classified as a simulation is entirely up to the end users opinion. If the developer says it's a potato and I see an onion, is it a potato? Are you going to convince me its a potato, when I clearly see an onion? Probably not.





As soon as you bring in subjective concepts debate effectively ceases and argument begins. Whether something is subjectively 'good' or 'bad' has no bearing on its being as 'is'. This is why these debates tend to get nowhere.

"This sim does this well (to me)" vs "THIS *sim* does *this* well (to ME)" doesn't really accomplish a whole lot. Now we could discuss the objective details of the codebase (tiremodel details to tiremodel details, FFB implementation ect) but how a game/sim feels to an individual is as personal as a car setup. It's a "This game is better vs this game" thing. Well, who decides? Only us to ourselves. Not a very productive sharing of ideals, especially if people share completely conflicting ones.

I found my experience with AC to be awful, but if I say "AC is awful", someone is bound to say "No it's not, you're just bad/wrong, ect" and this leads to a round and round discussion that while interesting from a psychology perspective, solves absolutely nothing about what makes a game/sim "good" or "bad".

shinzah, reading all your "art thou for thou should follow thou art in the golden path" (confucious says) stuff is driving me tiresome; however, you are excused.

I think people who are considered fanboys will get ultra sensitive when you forget to put "imo" at the end of the sentence. most reasonable people would not be offended by a statement "forza/project cars/gt/iracing is the best sim ever made". it is the fanboy that would typically force you to write "in your opinion".

one thing to consider is that it is not fanboy to say "I love Forza" but it is fanboyism to get offended by that comment. wait, but isn't he a fan of forza? yes but he is not trying to oppress or cause others to follow his beliefs. it is the person that is ultra sensitive, annoyed by the statement and who is trying to alter ones beliefs; which equates to, yes you guessed it= Fanboy

yes we are talking about subjective matters, but it is always the ultra sensitive fanboy that turns it into problems.


"I love forza!!!" who's annoyed? well that's actually fanboyism because is was intended to oppress due to the fact it was posted on a pcars forum; this should have been posted in forza forum. "I love pcars" is okay posted here all day long.

Sankyo
10-01-2016, 12:35
Driveclub is a "sim" the developer said.
And in the broadest sense, it is. It simulates racing cars. How well it simulates it, is a different question. For example, does it simulate the tyres as flexible rubber balloons that heat up, cool down and wear out? Or are the tyres simple objects that produce grip according to a pre-determined slip curve, and nothing else? Or even simpler? And what's more, was it the developer's goal to reproduce real-life behaviour of tyres, or did he only want to simulate racing cars on exotic locations?

To me, simulation in general is trying to reproduce real-world results with a (simplified) model. You have good simulations and bad simulations. The confusing thing is that many people in the race sim scene use "sim" in the sense of "good simulation", but without clarifying what the "good" part includes (for them).

Some people might now argue that you can call any driving game a sim, and indeed you can. Not because every racing game tries to accurately simulate car racing, but because the single term "sim" is useless to discuss the qualities of a race game. Which is clearly shown by every person having his own criteria what makes a race game a "sim", and by the fact that this thread was started :)

Jussi Viljami Karjalainen
10-01-2016, 12:44
No, all games are simulations of something.There's a difference between simulating physics etc., and just utilizing kinematics (this is something Beckman talks about as well). It's the difference between the vehicle (or whatever) on-screen turning because the wheel modeled on it contacts with the ground in an angle that makes it turn vs. turning because the vehicle is being fed a command "turn now". Or another example, it's the difference between a theoretical game where your commands to a player character tell it to move its center of gravity forwards and then moving its legs to prevent it from falling to walk around and your commands triggering an animation to walk around. Mario Kart doesn't model physics, it works on pure kinematics, so it's a massive stretch to call it a sim. Many flying games, especially action ones, don't actually model physics of a flying plane with proper lift, drag, angle of attack etc. calculations, they have simple maximum speeds, maximum acceleration, turning rates, etc. that are applied when you feed the game the necessary commands. Same applies to oh so many arcade style racing games. Done well and especially when coupled with good animations it can give you a good impression of the vehicle being a physical object, but it's very different from actually simulating such an object.

At most I guess you could say it's a simulation of a world without traditional physics but with it's own set of locomotion based on external commands.

BigFred
10-01-2016, 12:48
And in the broadest sense, it is. It simulates racing cars. How well it simulates it, is a different question. For example, does it simulate the tyres as flexible rubber balloons that heat up, cool down and wear out? Or are the tyres simple objects that produce grip according to a pre-determined slip curve, and nothing else? Or even simpler? And what's more, was it the developer's goal to reproduce real-life behaviour of tyres, or did he only want to simulate racing cars on exotic locations?

To me, simulation in general is trying to reporduce real-world results with a (simplified) model. You have good simulations and bad simulations. The confusing thing is that many people in the race sim scene use "sim" in the sense of "good simulation", but without clarifying what the "good" part includes (for them).

Some people might now argue that you can call any driving game a sim, and indeed you can. Not because every racing game tries to accurately simulate car racing, but because the single term "sim" is useless to discuss the qualities of a race game. Which is clearly shown by every person having his own criteria what makes a race game a "sim", and by the fact that this thread was started :)

This ^.

I think there is also a subtext in the respect that if you can claim it is not a sim (should equal good sim) then it must be something else :)

venquessa
10-01-2016, 12:52
Many flying games, especially action ones, don't actually model physics of a flying plane with proper lift, drag, angle of attack etc. calculations, they have simple maximum speeds, maximum acceleration, turning rates, etc. that are applied when you feed the game the necessary commands.

That's a good comparison. However, none of the major flight sims simulate proper AoA, lift, drag etc. None. They all use look up tables and the difference between one plane and the next is just the multipliers and offsets on those lookup tables.

There is only one "flight" sim that I know of which simulates proper aerodynamics and that is "Real Flight", the radio controlled flying sim. It actually uses low level fluid dynamics to model air-flow, lift, drag, etc. Although I believe it is fairly low resolution as realtime fluid dynamics is massively CPU intensive, beyond your average desktop.

If you are into your flight sims, here is a test. Maintain level flight. Slow down, keep slowing down, keep angling the nose higher and higher to maintain level flight until you hear the stall warning and wings start to 'waggle'. Now kick the rudder hard one way or the other and pin the stick full back. The plane should snap over into a spin which in anything but a high wing trainer should be pretty difficult to get back out of and require positive and careful correction.

MS Flight Sim, nor P3D will do this, except in a few plane where it is programmed in via a physics hack. Real flight will. EDIT: Another test which real flight handles really well is the prop wash over control surfaces. If you put a plane into a hammer head position and cut the throttle, while it is still more or less stationary the control surfaces do nothing, but flick the throttle open and while the plane is still stationary you have full controls due to the prop wash alone providing force on the control surfaces. This is fluid dynamics at work. MS Flight sim just doesn't do this kind of detail.

Actually Condor gliding sim does a pretty good spin and even "floating leaf", but again it's a "next gen" sim where are MS flight sim and P3D are previous generation.

It's actually quite sad, but the whole flight sim market has failed. There is too small a user base who want "As real as it gets" physics and so Microsoft tried with FSX to add in 'games' and 'progression paths' to entertain the casual flight simmer. That failed also, so they sold it to Lockhead Martin, which just rebadged it and re-released it. They also sold the game to another casual gaming company who are selling as a kind of "mission based" game. The licenses are that Lockhead can't sell the sim for personal use and the gaming company can't sell it for commercial use.

Shinzah
10-01-2016, 12:58
shinzah, reading all your "art thou for thou should follow thou art in the golden path" (confucious says) stuff is driving me tiresome; however, you are excused.

Shin say, no fucks to give you, many sorry.



I think people who are considered fanboys will get ultra sensitive when you forget to put "imo" at the end of the sentence. most reasonable people would not be offended by a statement "forza/project cars/gt/iracing is the best sim ever made". it is the fanboy that would typically force you to write "in your opinion".




yes we are talking about subjective matters, but it is always the ultra sensitive fanboy that turns it into problems.


I would think that it's the average person whose position is challenged.

After all, I don't know you, I don't care about you, and you started your post with a random ad-hom against me while I was addressing another user.

Perhaps you're a fanboy of being a bit of a pratt.

maxpainpayne
10-01-2016, 13:06
Shin say, no fucks to give you, many sorry.





I would think that it's the average person whose position is challenged.

After all, I don't know you, I don't care about you, and you started your post with a random ad-hom against me while I was addressing another user.

Perhaps you're a fanboy of being a bit of a pratt.

I think you should drop the attitude, your comments seem ultra sensitive and you are taking this way overboard.


And you are trying so hard to call me rude names. Stop it now.

Shinzah
10-01-2016, 13:08
Okay mum

venquessa
10-01-2016, 13:09
Get a room you two.

Shinzah
10-01-2016, 13:10
Get a room you two.

https://45.media.tumblr.com/f30d8ff5738b0e6d3b6fde23ed9b7480/tumblr_mkskdscmi51s0dj6vo1_500.gif

Jussi Viljami Karjalainen
10-01-2016, 13:15
That's a good comparison. However, none of the major flight sims simulate proper AoA, lift, drag etc. None. They all use look up tables and the difference between one plane and the next is just the multipliers and offsets on those lookup tables.

There is only one "flight" sim that I know of which simulates proper aerodynamics and that is "Real Flight", the radio controlled flying sim. It actually uses low level fluid dynamics to model air-flow, lift, drag, etc. Although I believe it is fairly low resolution as realtime fluid dynamics is massively CPU intensive, beyond your average desktop.

If you are into your flight sims, here is a test. Maintain level flight. Slow down, keep slowing down, keep angling the nose higher and higher to maintain level flight until you hear the stall warning and wings start to 'waggle'. Now kick the rudder hard one way or the other and pin the stick full back. The plane should snap over into a spin which in anything but a high wing trainer should be pretty difficult to get back out of and require positive and careful correction.

MS Flight Sim, nor P3D will do this, except in a few plane where it is programmed in via a physics hack. Real flight will. EDIT: Another test which real flight handles really well is the prop wash over control surfaces. If you put a plane into a hammer head position and cut the throttle, while it is still more or less stationary the control surfaces do nothing, but flick the throttle open and while the plane is still stationary you have full controls due to the prop wash alone providing force on the control surfaces. This is fluid dynamics at work. MS Flight sim just doesn't do this kind of detail.

Actually Condor gliding sim does a pretty good spin and even "floating leaf", but again it's a "next gen" sim where are MS flight sim and P3D are previous generation.

It's actually quite sad, but the whole flight sim market has failed. There is too small a user base who want "As real as it gets" physics and so Microsoft tried with FSX to add in 'games' and 'progression paths' to entertain the casual flight simmer. That failed also, so they sold it to Lockhead Martin, which just rebadged it and re-released it. They also sold the game to another casual gaming company who are selling as a kind of "mission based" game. The licenses are that Lockhead can't sell the sim for personal use and the gaming company can't sell it for commercial use.True, though those lookup tables are often based on measurements and more extensive simulations of real wings. I think there's one exception though in X-Plane, which AFAIK doesn't utilize lookup tables at all for the aerodynamics, instead running a dynamic aerodynamics simulation, based on blade element theory. Now whether they actually use that model well is another thing. =)

Salty Dog
10-01-2016, 13:17
This thread shows how far some people are apart in their ideas of what a sim is, and thats why i asked the question, im really enjoying everybodies thoughts.

Roel de Meulder
10-01-2016, 13:17
We need an additional thread I'm afraid...

- Define "fanboy"in your own terms

venquessa
10-01-2016, 13:23
X-Plane, which AFAIK doesn't utilize lookup tables at all for the aerodynamics, instead running a dynamic aerodynamics simulation, based on blade element theory. Now whether they actually use that model well is another thing. =)

I haven't played X-Plane, though I have heard good things about it.

I got very deep into MS Flight Sim to where I had stuff like Easy Jet AI flying real schedules in the UK and Europe, I had my airway, nav and airport data updated every month. When I went to plan a flight I started with real flight plans posted on forums, real departure times, real fuel and passenger loads. I had real terrain data, with real photo and photo-like textures for most of the UK and the US. Weather and environment tweaks and replacements etc. etc. etc.

That or doing a Concorde flight London-New York which took me an hour before I was pushing back off the gate and another 3:30 before I landed at JFK. Nailing the Canarsie 31L departure imposed on Concorde was very rewarding.

As it turned out, I upgraded my windows to Windows 7, most of my add-ons where incompatible and MS Flight Sim 2004 has a memory bug when you have 4Gb or more RAM it over allocates it's 32bit limit and CTDs after a few hours. Upgrading to FSX was going to cost me about 600 in add ons. I've never really gone back. Yet.

EDIT: FWIW I am a licensed pilot in the real world. Only for Paragliding though.

Mulder71
10-01-2016, 13:32
Don't we all agree that a sim is a game that is trying to reproduce reality? To some extend even need for speed is a sim, it's simulating driving a car.


If you want to Judge Project Cars against other games..To me Project cars is a sim but it does not, by far, have the level that the GP series had. To me the GP series is still the best simulator of F1, that i've tried at least, but that does not mean that it is the most enjoyable. The codemasters F1 games are more enjoyable en so is project cars.
I do not think the handling on the formula cars is realistic enough, the physics is off and the ai is ridiculous.. Than again i understand that project cars was not build for simulating a formula car, i have not tried but perhaps it does a better job at simulating some other classes. and i do enjoy project cars, not because it is a good F1 sim but it is an allround fun driving sim.

Jussi Viljami Karjalainen
10-01-2016, 13:35
Don't we all agree that a sim is a game that is trying to reproduce reality? To some extend even need for speed is a sim, it's simulating driving a car.This excludes simulations of imaginary systems and technology though, I think those can be totally valid as well. For example I think it'd be very interesting to simulate the astronomy and other aspects of Terry Pratchett's Discworld as described in the books, how the seasons work out, how the very slow light speed in the heavy magical fields would look like when traveling at high speeds, etc. =)

Some NFS games have had actual simulation of real physics in them, while others have been pure kinematics. It's a mixed bag with the series.

A few years old now... nonetheless, a rather fascinating insight into the physics involved in making a 'realistic' racing simulator -

https://channel9.msdn.com/Blogs/Charles/Brian-Beckman-The-Physics-in-Games-Real-Time-Simulation-ExplainedThat's a fantastic video, I think over the years I've watched it like 20 times.

My main annoyance though is his description of 1967 racing cars: "Imagine a car that weighed a 1000 pounds, had 450 horsepower, and tyres that weren't as good as five year old tyres on a Ford Taurus."

Of course this depends a lot on your definition of "good", but the top of the line racing rubber back then was capable of similar levels of pure grip as modern Pirelli P Zero Corsa tyres, though obviously being bias plies they gave out their grip at much higher slip angles so you drove them differently. But the tyres back then were much better than their reputation would tell you, and GPL's biggest downfall was that the tyres were just too slippery for what they were portraying (among other inaccuracies).

BigFred
10-01-2016, 13:39
This thread shows how far some people are apart in their ideas of what a sim is, and thats why i asked the question, im really enjoying everybodies thoughts.

To be fair a lot of the differences are just semantics/definitions. Once you get those cleared up there's less room for debate IMO. The debate of whether something is a good or bad sim of course can go on forever.

The mod poster/second post was right, in the respect that this has been done to death in a number of threads and forums, it's an interesting discussion for me though.

Haiden
10-01-2016, 14:07
I don't think you can compare driving a Formula A car in PCars to driving a F1 car on a real simulator for example (except when you're a race driver off course)...in that sense...

Edit:even if I was a multi-millionaire and could afford such a real life simulator,i still wouldn't buy it cause it would be useless to me since i couldn't handle it...
Sim games are for fun (and some take them way to serious)...simulators are for practice/testing for professionals imho...
Hence: apples and pears

And yet, there are quite a few videos showing people who play PC or console sims, getting a shot at a real F1 simulator and doing just fine. They may not be pro-level drivers, but they're handling it just fine. And, given a few more hours, they would have been pretty darn good. But even at first run, they were keeping it on the track. Just because you can't, doesn't mean others can't. But honestly, I think you underestimate yourself, or overestimate the difficulty of the professional simulators. As others have already said, the real challenge of professional racing is maintaining consistency while driving at the edge of control.

Heehaw4x4
10-01-2016, 14:14
i came from forza to project cars, and they (gaming friends) said forza was not a real "sim" I proved them wrong when I started beating them on the race track with the hand controller. lol haha and they were all using expensive driving wheels.

N0body Of The Goat
10-01-2016, 14:39
A quicker way to address someone known as Simon. ;)

Konan
10-01-2016, 15:11
And yet, there are quite a few videos showing people who play PC or console sims, getting a shot at a real F1 simulator and doing just fine. They're may not pro-level drivers, but they're handling it just fine. And, given a few more hours, they would have been pretty darn good. But even at first run, they were keeping it on the track. Just because you can't, doesn't mean others can't. But honestly, I think you underestimate yourself, or overestimate the difficulty of the professional simulators. As others have already said, the real challenge of professional racing is maintaining consistency while driving at the edge of control.


Yep...and that's where experience kicks in...

hkraft300
10-01-2016, 20:10
Coming from GT and Forza, project cars has really left them with their pants round their ankles.
A good sim replicates reality, we all agree on this yes?
Accuracy is forever debated/argued because when 2 people debate a topic with no understanding of it, they end up chasing their tails.
Opinions don't mean much unless they're qualified; internet allows us to aerate our opinions more than their worth. "Tell a lie enough times, it becomes the truth", or something along those lines. Though I think we've got a good bunch and great discussion here.

So what criteria would be relevant to measure the accuracy?
Car behaviour to in-game circumstances?
Damage model?
Ffb feel?
Tyre grip?
Lap times?
Code?

RaceNut
10-01-2016, 21:47
That's a good comparison. However, none of the major flight sims simulate proper AoA, lift, drag etc. None. They all use look up tables and the difference between one plane and the next is just the multipliers and offsets on those lookup tables.

There is only one "flight" sim that I know of which simulates proper aerodynamics and that is "Real Flight", the radio controlled flying sim. It actually uses low level fluid dynamics to model air-flow, lift, drag, etc. Although I believe it is fairly low resolution as realtime fluid dynamics is massively CPU intensive, beyond your average desktop.

If you are into your flight sims, here is a test. Maintain level flight. Slow down, keep slowing down, keep angling the nose higher and higher to maintain level flight until you hear the stall warning and wings start to 'waggle'. Now kick the rudder hard one way or the other and pin the stick full back. The plane should snap over into a spin which in anything but a high wing trainer should be pretty difficult to get back out of and require positive and careful correction.

MS Flight Sim, nor P3D will do this, except in a few plane where it is programmed in via a physics hack. Real flight will. EDIT: Another test which real flight handles really well is the prop wash over control surfaces. If you put a plane into a hammer head position and cut the throttle, while it is still more or less stationary the control surfaces do nothing, but flick the throttle open and while the plane is still stationary you have full controls due to the prop wash alone providing force on the control surfaces. This is fluid dynamics at work. MS Flight sim just doesn't do this kind of detail.

Actually Condor gliding sim does a pretty good spin and even "floating leaf", but again it's a "next gen" sim where are MS flight sim and P3D are previous generation.

It's actually quite sad, but the whole flight sim market has failed. There is too small a user base who want "As real as it gets" physics and so Microsoft tried with FSX to add in 'games' and 'progression paths' to entertain the casual flight simmer. That failed also, so they sold it to Lockhead Martin, which just rebadged it and re-released it. They also sold the game to another casual gaming company who are selling as a kind of "mission based" game. The licenses are that Lockhead can't sell the sim for personal use and the gaming company can't sell it for commercial use.
I have RealFlight and still use it to maintain some degree of RC-control reflex. I used to be active in RC; cars, trucks, planes, boats and Heli's - way back and still have some collecting dust in the garage.

"Sim definition" discussions are always interesting ones.:)