PC flight simulators

Subject: PC flight simulators
From: user
Date: 11/16/03 10:24 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

wow


On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 21:11:40 -0800, Mary Shafer
wrote:

On 16 Nov 2003 18:51:41 -0800, (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.

Every "game" simulator I've ever flown seemed to use the same math
model, one that, as you say, was not dynamically possible. Fun's fun,
but physics is physics.

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!

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.

Each one has a place in the training. Sometimes all you want is a
cockpit with switches and working displays. Sometimes you want to fly
IFR. Sometimes you want to fly with every cue but motion, including a
wingman. If you've got the money and the technology, you can do that.
The airlines use moving-base simulations that are so good that the FAA
accepts them as being equal to actual flight for training. A lot of
airline pilots fly the airplane for the first time on their check
flight.

This level of simulation costs a lot of money. About as much as
actually flying. Even with the large general market that PC
simulations (for this discussion, MACs are PCs) have, which reduces
the cost of the software to very reasonable levels for entertainment,
just as it reduces the cost of the controllers, there's no way that
the complexity comes even vaguely close to the complexity of dome sims
or moving-base sims. It just can't. The sims are too generic, partly
because there just isn't enough time and space for a detailed math
model, because the FCS is proprietary and much too big to be modeled,
because the control surfaces aren't modeled correctly, the mass model
isn't right, and so on.

However, if someone is trying to learn switchology, etc, there are
simulators that resemble the PTT, Part-Task Trainer, that the USN
uses. They do have some value.

However, learning to "fly" with a fixed-base, low-fidelity sim game
isn't going to happen. All that will happen is that the student will
pick up responses and habits that will have to be unlearned before the
correct responses and habits can be acquired in the actual airplane.
I've heard flight instructors complaining about how they can always
tell if someone plays with MS Flight Simulator a lot, because it takes
a lot longer to teach them how to fly the actual airplane.

Mary


Those FS programs can be quite counterproductive and in some cases destructive


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

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...

Those FS programs can be quite counterproductive and in some cases
destructive

Of course, but then if you thought you could learn to drive a car safely and
become a responsible user of an integrated road system after playing Gran
Turismo you'd be seriously kidding yourself. When I took PPL lessons my
instructor said he felt my instrument and control familiarity from playing
sims helped a great deal, but only to a certain extent, naturally. It
doesn't teach me how to use depth of field or how to "see" properly, and it
doesn't instill in me the responsibility I must learn to show to other air
traffic. But it gave me a few hours head-start.

What modern flight sim games excel at is dynamic environments. Military
sims generally simulate the performance of the vehicle being modelled in
almost scripted environments. I seriously doubt there's a "professional"
aircraft simulator out there that attempts even a tiny fraction of, say,
Falcon 4's wider campaign and arena modelling. I think the majority of home
games players would be thoroughly sick of the limitations of a professional
simulator in a matter of hours.

No-one's suggesting a game will teach you about the seriousness of your
duty, or the very real fear of dying in combat, just as Medal of Honor isn't
going to really teach you what it's like to storm the beaches of Normandy.

To answer the original poster's question: FS 2004 is a fantastically
detailed product for civilian flight, and Falcon 4 has yet to be beaten for
sheer wealth of features and attention to detail in the military games
market. But they are, in the end, entertainment products.

Si

Subject: PC flight simulators
From: "Simon Robbins"
Date: 11/17/03 10:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

To answer the original poster's question: FS 2004 is a fantastically
detailed product for civilian flight, and Falcon 4 has yet to be beaten for
sheer wealth of features and attention to detail in the military games
market. But they are, in the end, entertainment products.

Si



Exactly. I think that is what I pointed out in my original reply.


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