This should settle it!

Gary wrote:
On Apr 16, 12:15 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
My attitude won't get me killed.


You assume that spending every waking hour on your simulator game, or
on usenet, is risk free...

Let me suggest it isn't, if you consider your BMI and triglicerides
level...

Or the off chance that at some point he is going to display the attitude
that he displays here to someone in the real world.

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news

But I don't see that this does anything to improve the realism of these
devices with regard to those illusions or visual efforts I mentioned
earlier. Am I missing this?

Disclaimer: I only read about this and have no practical experience.

From what I understand, you are wearing blue safety glasses. These could be
made tight against your face so everything you see has a blue tint to it.
You peripheral vision is also blue.

You have no problems seeing the instruments, they only have a blue tint to
them.

The windows are covered (on the inside) with orange cellophane/plastic. This
gives the safety pilot an orange tint to everything outside the windows.

When you look out the windows with your blue glasses, all you see is grey.

I would like to point out that (and most pilots here already
know this) X-Plane has been approved by the FAA for training towards
an Airline Transport certificate, when used in a full motion simulator.

Out of curiosity, what are the limitations of a full motion simulator?
I am guessing it can't simulate G-forces or other extreme manuevers.

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:02:20 +0000, Steve Foley wrote:

When you look out the windows with your blue glasses, all you see is grey.

Right. So you'd not suffer from the illusion of a false horizon from a
slanted cloudscape. And you'd not be forced to struggle to see the
airport environment on a low approach while avoiding dropping below the
MDA. Instead, at the MAP, you whip off the blue glasses and visibility is
suddenly perfect (well...as perfect as my glasses provide, which is
apparently enough for the FAA {8^).

I'm sure that there are other examples where these devices fail to
completely simulate true IMC; those are just the examples I've noticed
(and remembered) from my own flying.

But they're why I try to do all my "practice" in real IMC.

- Andrew

P.S. Plus, as I wrote, no device I've tried is perfectly
comfortable grin.

Gene Seibel wrote:

On Apr 15, 8:01 am, "Oz Lander" wrote:
http://overtheairwaves.com/

I refer to the first article on this page.

--
Oz Lander.
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong.

Don't think it settlled it.

LOL! NO, me either!

--
Oz Lander.
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong.

writes:

Out of curiosity, what are the limitations of a full motion simulator?
I am guessing it can't simulate G-forces or other extreme manuevers.

Most full-motion simulators engage in various tricks to persuade the occupants
that they are experiencing large G forces. You're correct that they cannot
produce significant G forces directly, at least not for any length of time.

G force in acceleration can be simulated by tilting the simulator in just the
right way. Gravity then pulls the occupants "backwards," producing an
acceleration vector that pretty much matches the real thing, except for
magnitude. Visual input and other factors do the rest.

For a climb, the simulator moves upwards. However, at all times it gradually
approaches a neutral position, which is gentle enough that the occupants don't
notice. The first suggestion of acceleration is enough (along with other
factors) to persuade the occupants that they are being continuously
accelerated. So the simulator moves up very briefly, and then slowly sinks
back into a neutral position. Human perception is such that the occupants
will still think they are being accelerated upward, if this motion is
accomplished correctly. Then a slight downward motion convinces them that the
acceleration is stopping. And so on.

Simulators can also move directly forward and back, from side to side, and
vertically up and down to add some additional sensations.

If you've never been in a full-motion aircraft simulator, go through the Star
Tours attraction at Disneyland, which uses full-motion simulators.

There's a way to detect that you're in a simulator. Hold your body upright
and your head straight ahead, and compensate for any movement you feel so that
you remain upright and straight ahead. If you're in a real vehicle, this will
have only a slight effect on the sensation of movement. If you're in a
simulator, it will nearly destroy the sensation of movement, and you'll
quickly perceive that you aren't really moving very much at all.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
writes:

Out of curiosity, what are the limitations of a full motion simulator?
I am guessing it can't simulate G-forces or other extreme manuevers.


snip --- inexperienced commentary

Luke!! Luke!! Snap out of it boy, you are talking to yourself again. Next
thing you know you will be playing with it.

On 2007-04-16 13:42:54 -0700, Andrew Gideon said:

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:02:20 +0000, Steve Foley wrote:

When you look out the windows with your blue glasses, all you see is grey.

Right. So you'd not suffer from the illusion of a false horizon from a
slanted cloudscape. And you'd not be forced to struggle to see the
airport environment on a low approach while avoiding dropping below the
MDA. Instead, at the MAP, you whip off the blue glasses and visibility is
suddenly perfect (well...as perfect as my glasses provide, which is
apparently enough for the FAA {8^).

Naw, you just have the instructor breathe on your glasses to fog them up. :-)

Maybe what we really need is goggles with a little mist machine
attached so that the top half of the goggles is fogged. The bottom half
would remain clear so you could see the instruments. You could adjust
the mist machine for different levels of visibility.

Or, instead of a mist machine, you have LCD goggles which, the more
current you run through them the more opaque the top half becomes. Or
however it is that LCDs work. Sayyy. That could actually work...
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
news:2007041615540316807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
On 2007-04-16 13:42:54 -0700, Andrew Gideon said:

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:02:20 +0000, Steve Foley wrote:

When you look out the windows with your blue glasses, all you see is
grey.

Right. So you'd not suffer from the illusion of a false horizon from a
slanted cloudscape. And you'd not be forced to struggle to see the
airport environment on a low approach while avoiding dropping below the
MDA. Instead, at the MAP, you whip off the blue glasses and visibility is
suddenly perfect (well...as perfect as my glasses provide, which is
apparently enough for the FAA {8^).

Naw, you just have the instructor breathe on your glasses to fog them up.
:-)

Maybe what we really need is goggles with a little mist machine attached
so that the top half of the goggles is fogged. The bottom half would
remain clear so you could see the instruments. You could adjust the mist
machine for different levels of visibility.

Or, instead of a mist machine, you have LCD goggles which, the more
current you run through them the more opaque the top half becomes. Or
however it is that LCDs work. Sayyy. That could actually work...
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor


Wouldn't it be easier/cheaper/less trouble to just climb into an actual
airplane and fly into an actual thunderstorm? The technology already exists
and you
wouldn't have to wait in line for your turn in the sim. And you wouldn't
have to keep filling up the little mist bottle! Someone will probably insist
that the mist
machine needs to be calibrated annually. After a couple of years the
manufacturer will re-engineer the software and you'll have to find another
mist-head that's
compatible with the new software. Of course, you will be forced to pay 3
times the price of the old mist-head (which worked perfectly fine with the
old software
until Micros.... I mean the software developer came out with their new
product.) BTW, the "instructor-breath" idea doesn't sound so hot either.
:-)

On 2007-04-16 17:48:53 -0700, "muff528" said:


"C J Campbell" wrote in message
news:2007041615540316807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
On 2007-04-16 13:42:54 -0700, Andrew Gideon said:

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:02:20 +0000, Steve Foley wrote:

When you look out the windows with your blue glasses, all you see is
grey.

Right. So you'd not suffer from the illusion of a false horizon from a
slanted cloudscape. And you'd not be forced to struggle to see the
airport environment on a low approach while avoiding dropping below the
MDA. Instead, at the MAP, you whip off the blue glasses and visibility is
suddenly perfect (well...as perfect as my glasses provide, which is
apparently enough for the FAA {8^).

Naw, you just have the instructor breathe on your glasses to fog them up.
:-)

Maybe what we really need is goggles with a little mist machine attached
so that the top half of the goggles is fogged. The bottom half would
remain clear so you could see the instruments. You could adjust the mist
machine for different levels of visibility.

Or, instead of a mist machine, you have LCD goggles which, the more
current you run through them the more opaque the top half becomes. Or
however it is that LCDs work. Sayyy. That could actually work...
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor


Wouldn't it be easier/cheaper/less trouble to just climb into an actual
airplane and fly into an actual thunderstorm?

BTDT. I hope never to do it again.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor