"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Flight Simulators as used on PC's should not be called simulators because
they
simulate too damned little. Call them flight trainers. That is a far more
accurate description by far. Except the ones that are just games. Call
them
flight games. After all else has failed, always resort to reality no
matter
how much it hurts.

I've been following this (and the related thread) and cannot believe
the bull**** you have been saying. First, a little background and
some definitions: I'm a retired AF WSO, flew F-4s, have time in
several other fighters, lots of small plane PIC, and currently fly
about 200 hrs a year in competition sailplanes. I also did a tour
running the Air Force SIMCERT program, which certified all fighter
"simulators" and training devices. Since retiring, I have spent the
last 9 years as an F-15C/E Subject Matter Expert, and probably have
more time in the F-15E WST than anyone alive.

Now, first of all, a "Simulator" is a very specific beast, according
to the FAA. There are several levels of fidelity, but the highest (as
used by the airlines and - rarely - by the military) can be used in
place of actual flight time (requires full visuals, motion, etc).
Everything else is considered a "training device". And all of you who
think military fighter "sims" are so high tech would be in for a
surprise - the majority are pretty basic, with the emphasis on cockpit
fidelity and flight dynamics. Visuals are way behind what is available
in the PC game field, and motion is not used. So to say that PC
"simulators" are not sims but fighter "simulators" are is bogus -
neither is!

On the other hand, only a bonehead would even think to equate a PC sim
with no cockpit and only a small monitor with a real "simulator" - but
on the other hand that little PC device can be used as a really nice
training device; the key is to define what is being trained. And
guess what, the military (and airlines) use a lot of lower fidelity
devices to teach various tasks - systems, emergencies, etc.

So, Art, get off your high horse - a PC-based "flight simulator" can
be a game, or a training device, or a way to pretend to be flying, or
just a fun way to spend some time. And it is a "simulation", just not
a "Simulator" per the FAA definition. And I think only you seem to
care about what it is called. The accepted convention is to call the
PC software "simulations" to differentiate them from arcade-style
games, and in the military you get scheduled to go to the "sim" even
though it is technically an Weapons System Traner. But actually only
Airline pilots get to really fly a "simulator".

As far as training value of PC simulations; I firmly believe that they
can be useful, as long as the task to be trained is precisely defined
and the sim (and hardware) is carefully matched to that training need
- which is what the Navy does with MS FS for it's students at
Pensacola. The more experienced your are, you actually need less
overall fidelity as long as there is high fidelity in the task you are
training - you basically ignore the rest and can concentrate on
solving the specific task at hand.

Finally, your description of the B-26 trainer is fascinating - but by
current definitions (and yours in slamming PCs) was not a Simulator at
all (after all, the pilots didn't really have to fly it, they were
just going through the motions) - it was a training device! And so was
the Link Blue box no-one ever claimed it was a realistic simulation of
flying!

Bottom line, Art, qwitchubitchin and just let the young kids (and
older kids like me) enjoy our PC sims (IL2- FB is awesome). And the
next time you get on a commercial jet, or talk to a young military
pilot, ask them if they ever play on a PC sim- you might be surprised!

BTW, B-26s are cool, but A-26s rule!

Kirk