PC flight simulators

Andreas Maurer wrote in message ...
Flying a PC simulation too often indeed tends to teach a couple of bad
habits that are hard to train away again (looking a the instruments
too often is one of them).

Perfect for learning to fly IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) as opposed to
VFR (Visual Flight Rules).

Anyone who flies at night, or in conditions with poor visibility, or in
clouds, needs an IFR rating. Under these conditions, your instruments
are all you have.

I agree that in conditions where VFR is possible within the sim, the
trouble is that the player has limited visibility, and "looking" around
is more cumbersome and less natural-feeling than just turning your head
around - so the player just looks forward, at his/her instruments.

I fly MSFS2002, and use the virtual cockpit view with "ActiveCamera",
which allows me to "look around" using my mouse. It includes head lag,
so that you get a better impression of movement as your "head" is
"pushed" to one side as your aircraft turns. And because MSFS features
dynamic virtual cockpits, all the instruments are still visible in full
working order within the 3D environment (independant of the 2D panel it
renders when in 2D cockpit view).

Cheers
Graeme

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:43:12 +0000 (UTC), "Anonymous" wrote:


Andreas Maurer wrote in message ...
Flying a PC simulation too often indeed tends to teach a couple of bad
habits that are hard to train away again (looking a the instruments
too often is one of them).

Perfect for learning to fly IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) as opposed to
VFR (Visual Flight Rules).

Flying at night (in the US) does not require an IFR ticket.

Al Minyard

Subject: PC flight simulators
From: Alan Minyard
Date: 11/18/03 11:52 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:43:12 +0000 (UTC), "Anonymous"
wrote:


Andreas Maurer wrote in message ...
Flying a PC simulation too often indeed tends to teach a couple of bad
habits that are hard to train away again (looking a the instruments
too often is one of them).

Perfect for learning to fly IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) as opposed to
VFR (Visual Flight Rules).

Flying at night (in the US) does not require an IFR ticket.

Al Minyard



Alan, as you know, something happens when you are socked in with zero
vivsibility and on IFR that never happens on a computer in an easy chair. A
sense of mild discomfort and a bit of anxiety which if not kept under
control can lead to disaster. Pilots with long IFR hours can usually deal with
it in a routine matter. But MSFS will never give you the experience to walk
that IFR walk with ease and comfort. I think John John Kennedy spent long hours
on MSFS.. He enjoyed it a great deal.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Alan, as you know, something happens when you are socked in with zero
vivsibility and on IFR that never happens on a computer in an easy chair. A
sense of mild discomfort and a bit of anxiety which if not kept under
control can lead to disaster. Pilots with long IFR hours can usually deal
with
it in a routine matter. But MSFS will never give you the experience to walk
that IFR walk with ease and comfort. I think John John Kennedy spent long
hours
on MSFS.. He enjoyed it a great deal.


Well IFR on a desktop sim, which many of them are far far better than many of
the older analog sims which are used for ifr training, is not something that is
going to build proficiency or comfort when going down to mins...

But it can be great for honing procedures and practicing approaches, which can
make you a better IFR pilot.


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

In message , Alan Minyard
writes
Flying at night (in the US) does not require an IFR ticket.

Nor in the UK, but it does require an extra ticket: typically ~5 hours
(as opposed to at least 10hrs plus lots of maintenance for IFR - if it
was easy, everyone would do it)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
On 16 Nov 2003 18:51:41 -0800, (WaltBJ) wrote:

snip
When I was at the F-18 RAG/FRS, they had three simulators, of three
entirely different levels of sophistication. The simplest one was
really just for practicing switchology on. The most realistic one had
a real cockpit and dome, with incredibly good CGI and the ability to
link with the other dome sim to fly in a two-man in a common scenario.
The third was about halfway between these two.

All of which run with large errors to the actual aircraft. A lack of
simulator accuracy often leads to the flight test operator flying through
the requested parameter, while having had the same manouver produce correct
results.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

The only recent one I've messed with is Jane's Fighter Anthology - it
is deficient in that it does not incorporate the effect of gravity in
3-dimensional maneuvering. Pitch-over is same rate as pull-up which is
totally false. G limit is the same no matter what the pitch angle is
up, down sideways or in between. Zero-G acceleration is not modeled.
Fuel burn is also bogus - way below actual when in AB/reheat. Lots of
little quibbles but those are the major ones which really detract from
reality.

Well most any sim from Janes will be a "survey" type sim, where they try have
the options of flying many different aircraft, and just vary the flight model a
bit from each one.

I know in Janes USAF, the F-105 sure did not need much runway to take off,
which I am pretty sure Ed can verify was not the case.

But others, like Falcon 4.0, were much more realistic, where you had to
actually flip the flight control override switch, and rock it out of a stall,
much like viper pilots have told me you do.

SU-27 Flanker (2.5 version), and the upcoming LO-MAC (Lock on :Modern air
combat) from the same company, are rather impressive

LOMAC will be interesting

http://www.lo-mac.com/



Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

362436 (Ron) wrote in
:

SU-27 Flanker (2.5 version), and the upcoming LO-MAC (Lock on :Modern
air combat) from the same company, are rather impressive

LOMAC will be interesting

http://www.lo-mac.com/


The graphic is amazing:

http://www.lo-mac.com/screens.php?id=728
http://www.lo-mac.com/screenshots.php


They even have the Penguin MK3 in there (second row, far
right):

http://www.lo-mac.com/screens.php?id=384


Though I can pretty much say that the paint scheeme on the
Norwegian MLU Vipers there is wrong (should be all light gray).



Regards...

With all due respect I don't really consider Fighter Anthology a "recent"
release. It is composed of 6+ year old software which makes it very dated
given the rapid rate of pc hardware and software development. Sims like
Falcon 4, MS Fligh simulator 2004 are great imporvements over thius. I've
flown light planes and spent plenty of time on sims and though the sims do
not replicated the experience of flying, the avionics, physics, and
necessary piloting techniques are increasingly close to the real thing.

Jarg

WaltBJ" wrote in message
om...
The only recent one I've messed with is Jane's Fighter Anthology - it
is deficient in that it does not incorporate the effect of gravity in
3-dimensional maneuvering. Pitch-over is same rate as pull-up which is
totally false. G limit is the same no matter what the pitch angle is
up, down sideways or in between. Zero-G acceleration is not modeled.
Fuel burn is also bogus - way below actual when in AB/reheat. Lots of
little quibbles but those are the major ones which really detract from
reality. BTW I speak from about 4500 hours in fighters and about 1500
hours instructor time also in fighters, from F86 Sabre, F102, F104 and
F4.
Now, if you want to practice instrument flight and work on your scan
technique, Mcsft Flt Sim is quite adequate. Unfortunately no sim gives
you 'real motion.' You will definitely notice the sensations of motion
in the real aircraft, however. These must be ignored and will take
some getting used to. Your flight instructor should explain them to
you. Believe your instruments!
Walt BJ

(WaltBJ) wrote:
The only recent one I've messed with is Jane's Fighter Anthology - it
is deficient in that it does not incorporate the effect of gravity in
3-dimensional maneuvering. Pitch-over is same rate as pull-up which is
totally false. G limit is the same no matter what the pitch angle is
up, down sideways or in between. Zero-G acceleration is not modeled.
Fuel burn is also bogus - way below actual when in AB/reheat. Lots of
little quibbles but those are the major ones which really detract from
reality. BTW I speak from about 4500 hours in fighters and about 1500
hours instructor time also in fighters, from F86 Sabre, F102, F104 and
F4.

There was an independent patch that fixed some of that.
Unfortunately they never extended their work beyond the initial patch,
but it dramatically improved things like zero-G accelerating,
corrected roll and pitch rates, etc.

It fixed fuel burn rates (mostly) but your wingmen ran out of
fuel LONG, LONG before you did - even if you kept them out of burner
with carefully planned ingress speeds.

A fully-developed 'created' mission could include a major
strike package, with SEAD over a heavily defended Soviet Motor Rifle
Battalion (or worse). The basic modeling engine was quite robust - the
exchange of fire between a dozen A/C and 30+ air defense units was
VERY impressive - and the loss rates were, too.

It's NOT full motion in a real plane - but sit through one of
*my* simulated missions, and you'll have cramps, a sore backside, a
slight case of motion sickness, noise fatigue, eyestrain and a serious
case of stress from your RWR screeching at you over the target.

Now shoot a pseudo-ILS approach. ;-D It's not *totally*
bogus.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---