![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 23:23:07 -0000, "Simon Robbins"
wrote: Flight Simulator implies replicating the dynamics of the science behind the process, which is plainly modelled only very simply in a "game." Please define for me what is specifically modeled "very simply" in Aces High or MSFS. Do you think it's flight modeling? My regards, Widewing Widewing (C.C. Jordan) http://www.worldwar2aviation.com http://www.cradleofaviation.org |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Wow
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:10:26 -0800, Mary Shafer wrote: On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:26:55 GMT, (Corey C. Jordan) wrote: On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 23:23:07 -0000, "Simon Robbins" wrote: Flight Simulator implies replicating the dynamics of the science behind the process, which is plainly modelled only very simply in a "game." Please define for me what is specifically modeled "very simply" in Aces High or MSFS. The dynamics of the airframe. Frequency, damping, poles, zeros, transfer functions, the stability and control coefficients of the six equations of motion, the atmosphere, the actuators, controller dynamics, mass characteristics, that kind of stuff. As well as the flight control system. The mathematical model of the vehicle, in other words. That which makes each airplane fly like that kind of airplane. I spent a lot of my career determining this stuff so it could be put into engineering simulations. Read Iliff & Shafer on the estimation of S&C derivatives for the Space Shuttle to see how we determine such numbers and put them into the mathematical model used in the simulation. You'll find it on www.dfrc.nasa.gov, in the technical reports section. Mary |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:10:26 -0800, Mary Shafer wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:26:55 GMT, (Corey C. Jordan) wrote: On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 23:23:07 -0000, "Simon Robbins" wrote: Flight Simulator implies replicating the dynamics of the science behind the process, which is plainly modelled only very simply in a "game." Please define for me what is specifically modeled "very simply" in Aces High or MSFS. The dynamics of the airframe. Frequency, damping, poles, zeros, transfer functions, the stability and control coefficients of the six equations of motion, the atmosphere, the actuators, controller dynamics, mass characteristics, that kind of stuff. As well as the flight control system. The mathematical model of the vehicle, in other words. That which makes each airplane fly like that kind of airplane. I spent a lot of my career determining this stuff so it could be put into engineering simulations. Read Iliff & Shafer on the estimation of S&C derivatives for the Space Shuttle to see how we determine such numbers and put them into the mathematical model used in the simulation. You'll find it on www.dfrc.nasa.gov, in the technical reports section. That's very interesting and extremely impressive work. However, can anyone tell me what data is used to generate the mathmatical model coded for the previously mentioned simulators? My regards, Widewing (C.C. Jordan) http://www.worldwar2aviation.com http://www.cradleofaviation.org |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Corey C. Jordan" wrote in message
.. . However, can anyone tell me what data is used to generate the mathmatical model coded for the previously mentioned simulators? No, but the procedure for simulation is approached from a different angle. For example, a "true" simulation of an aircraft will model the atmosphere and airframe so that the resultant parameters determine its performance, i.e. the exit parameters will cause (for example) a Spitfire to roll at say 45 degrees a second, whereas a PC simulator will use a previously defined input parameter to dictate the aircraft rolls at that rate. It's not a simulation of the airframe, but of its known performance. Not the same thing. You're not going to be able to design an aircraft and predict it's flight envelope using MS-FS because you have to start by knowing the performance envelope you're wanting to simulate. A militray simulator will take the design of the aircraft and inform you of its likely real-world envelope. Obviously there's varying different methods and levels of fidelity. I'm not trying to denegrate PC sims, I love 'em and it's the main reason why I spend a fortune at regular intervals upgrading my PC. But I'm not under the illusion that they compare in method or fidelity to the "real" thing. (Favourites being Falcon 4 SP3, EAW and FS2002.) A good example is at (generally) how badly departed flight is modelled. They generally model the instability of the aircraft and its predicted behaviour outside the envelope, rather than the extremely complicated chaotic dynamics which go into causing that behaviour. Anyone who's performed spins and stalls in a Cessna and then tried the same thing in MS-FS or any WW2 prop sim will likely agree. Si |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Subject: Change the name to trainers.
From: "Simon Robbins" Date: 11/23/03 4:35 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "Corey C. Jordan" wrote in message . .. However, can anyone tell me what data is used to generate the mathmatical model coded for the previously mentioned simulators? No, but the procedure for simulation is approached from a different angle. For example, a "true" simulation of an aircraft will model the atmosphere and airframe so that the resultant parameters determine its performance, i.e. the exit parameters will cause (for example) a Spitfire to roll at say 45 degrees a second, whereas a PC simulator will use a previously defined input parameter to dictate the aircraft rolls at that rate. It's not a simulation of the airframe, but of its known performance. Not the same thing. You're not going to be able to design an aircraft and predict it's flight envelope using MS-FS because you have to start by knowing the performance envelope you're wanting to simulate. A militray simulator will take the design of the aircraft and inform you of its likely real-world envelope. Obviously there's varying different methods and levels of fidelity. I'm not trying to denegrate PC sims, I love 'em and it's the main reason why I spend a fortune at regular intervals upgrading my PC. But I'm not under the illusion that they compare in method or fidelity to the "real" thing. (Favourites being Falcon 4 SP3, EAW and FS2002.) A good example is at (generally) how badly departed flight is modelled. They generally model the instability of the aircraft and its predicted behaviour outside the envelope, rather than the extremely complicated chaotic dynamics which go into causing that behaviour. Anyone who's performed spins and stalls in a Cessna and then tried the same thing in MS-FS or any WW2 prop sim will likely agree. Si And of course no one has ever said that MSFS or any other home PC simulator program was a military simulator. But hope springs eternal. (:-)) Regards, Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 12:35:11 -0000, "Simon Robbins"
wrote: "Corey C. Jordan" wrote in message .. . However, can anyone tell me what data is used to generate the mathmatical model coded for the previously mentioned simulators? No, but the procedure for simulation is approached from a different angle. For example, a "true" simulation of an aircraft will model the atmosphere and airframe so that the resultant parameters determine its performance, i.e. the exit parameters will cause (for example) a Spitfire to roll at say 45 degrees a second, whereas a PC simulator will use a previously defined input parameter to dictate the aircraft rolls at that rate. It's not a simulation of the airframe, but of its known performance. Not the same thing. You're not going to be able to design an aircraft and predict it's flight envelope using MS-FS because you have to start by knowing the performance envelope you're wanting to simulate. A militray simulator will take the design of the aircraft and inform you of its likely real-world envelope. No, no, no. Only at the very beginning do we use predictions based on the design. Those predictions come from the wind tunnel, CFD, and prior experience. The instant we get such data from flight we update the simulation with the actual, not the predicted, numbers. Simulators are not tools used to predict the actual flight dynamics at all. This is exactly backward. Simulators mimic the real thing. The flight envelope is usually defined by _design_ limits, like load factor and qbar. Read the paper I mentioned. You'll find a very complete explanation of how the actual data is used. The PC games use a very generic model, not a detailed model of the specific vehicle. They're not predicting anything, either. A good example is at (generally) how badly departed flight is modelled. They generally model the instability of the aircraft and its predicted behaviour outside the envelope, rather than the extremely complicated chaotic dynamics which go into causing that behaviour. Anyone who's performed spins and stalls in a Cessna and then tried the same thing in MS-FS or any WW2 prop sim will likely agree. That's usually because we don't have data for post-stall flight. Aircraft are not necessary unstable in that region, either. Stall and spin don't imply instability. Mary -- Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Mary Shafer" wrote in message ... No, no, no. Only at the very beginning do we use predictions based on the design. Those predictions come from the wind tunnel, CFD, and prior experience. The instant we get such data from flight we update the simulation with the actual, not the predicted, numbers. Ok, I take your correction. But my point was essentially that pc sims generally concentrate on the back end of the simulation process, i.e. what is represented to the operator, rather than the front end, the inputs to the process. i.e. accurate descriptions of the airframe qualities and environmental modelling. Si |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
ubject: Change the name to trainers.
From: Mary Shafer Date: 11/23/03 9:02 AM Pacific The PC games use a very generic model, not a detailed model of the specific vehicle. They're not predicting anything, either. TADAAAAH !!! Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Mary Shafer" wrote in message ... On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 12:35:11 -0000, "Simon Robbins" wrote: "Corey C. Jordan" wrote in message .. . However, can anyone tell me what data is used to generate the mathmatical model coded for the previously mentioned simulators? No, but the procedure for simulation is approached from a different angle. For example, a "true" simulation of an aircraft will model the atmosphere and airframe so that the resultant parameters determine its performance, i.e. the exit parameters will cause (for example) a Spitfire to roll at say 45 degrees a second, whereas a PC simulator will use a previously defined input parameter to dictate the aircraft rolls at that rate. It's not a simulation of the airframe, but of its known performance. Not the same thing. You're not going to be able to design an aircraft and predict it's flight envelope using MS-FS because you have to start by knowing the performance envelope you're wanting to simulate. A militray simulator will take the design of the aircraft and inform you of its likely real-world envelope. No, no, no. Only at the very beginning do we use predictions based on the design. Those predictions come from the wind tunnel, CFD, and prior experience. The instant we get such data from flight we update the simulation with the actual, not the predicted, numbers. Only a select few simulators actually produce a correct mathematical modeling of the aircraft's characteristics, but in many cases a simulator has a different purpose than modeling. In the case of the F-18, there was no mathematically correct simulator until HARV was built in '86. Simulators are not tools used to predict the actual flight dynamics at all. This is exactly backward. Simulators mimic the real thing. The flight envelope is usually defined by _design_ limits, like load factor and qbar. During the development of flight controls the simulator is where flight dynamics are modeled. The YF-22 deviated from this formula and it's fate is directly tied to skipping a step. Much the same as skipping full scale development does not necessarily eliminate the work. Read the paper I mentioned. You'll find a very complete explanation of how the actual data is used. The PC games use a very generic model, not a detailed model of the specific vehicle. They're not predicting anything, either. The need for predictor correctors has been addressed with faster machines these days. I did see an instance with TCAS III flight test where I thought a rate based stabilization algorythem might have made the system work, but it is a lot of processor overhead. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Time to change the air in your tires | Rich S. | Home Built | 18 | March 22nd 04 06:47 PM |
PC flight simulators | Bjørnar Bolsøy | Military Aviation | 178 | December 14th 03 12:14 PM |
they took me back in time and the nsa or japan wired my head and now they know the idea came from me so if your back in time and wounder what happen they change tim liverance history for good. I work at rts wright industries and it a time travel trap | tim liverance | Military Aviation | 0 | August 18th 03 12:18 AM |
Change in TAS with constant Power and increasing altitude. | Big John | Home Built | 6 | July 13th 03 03:29 PM |
Playing Card Deck Shows Way to U.S. Regime Change | John Mullen | Military Aviation | 4 | July 8th 03 12:03 PM |