A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

PC flight simulators



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old November 17th 03, 05:05 PM
Andreas Maurer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

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.


.... yet any game uses a completely different engine to create the
flight model. The differences are where the game engine does its short
cuts to allow realtime operation.


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.


The main problem of PC flight simulations is that the performance of a
PC is not sufficient to calculate a realtime aerodynamic simulation.
Mass models are ok these days in most flight sims, as well as
performance and envelope data which are in some cases very close to
reality. Only few PC simulations even try to simulate engine torqe
effects on prop aircraft.

The problems start if the simulated aircraft does non-linear maneuvers
(post-stall, spins) - this is when some PC simulations can get very
erratic because their simplified physics model needs to rely on
pre-calculated data (to save computing time). The result is either a
"standard" stall routine (always the same spin, independent on how you
entered it), or erratic movements that does not even look close to
what a real aircraft would do.

So far the only PC simulations that attempt to simulate post-stall
effects are MS Flight Sim 2002 and 2004, MS Combat Flight Sim 2 and 3,
and X-Plane, but the results are not entirely convincing yet.

Any PC simulator is (of course) handicapped most by the input devices
- a PC joystick and a mouse simply cannot give even a similar feeling
to the stick of a real aircraft (or a full cockpit simulator).This is
the cause why the characteristics of a PC simulated aircraft cannot be
even similar to the real thing, even if the performance data
throughout the envelope are very similar.



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.


Indeed.
The training effect concerning a PC simulator is that of a procedure
trainer. You can learn to fly standard procedures (even with ATC these
days), learn to program an FMC, to learn where to look at to keep the
plane under control, but the feeling of flight cannot be learned.
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).


There are a number of pretty realistic combat flight simulators out
there that simulate aerial combat. If the game engine is good,
real-world combat tactics need to be flown in these games to win a
dogfight. It might be interesting to compare such a game to real-world
dogfighting.

Bye
Andreas
  #42  
Old November 17th 03, 05:24 PM
Ed Rasimus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 17 Nov 2003 15:47:29 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: PC flight simulators
From: Ed Rasimus

Date: 11/17/03 7:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


But (there's always a "but" somewhere in the background), several
years ago while working at Northrop on ATF (the F-23 program), we were
grappling with the best way to train fighter pilots for that elusive
capability called "SA"--situational awareness. It's the sort of "big
picture" that the best tactical aviators can carry in their head which
allows them to know instinctively where their support is, where the
bad guy's support is, which way is "bug out", how much longer they can
stay engaged, and what to do ten, fifteen and thirty seconds into the
future.

What did work, surprisingly well, was a system of linked "desk-top"
stations that let us increase the number of players to 12 and then to
24 plus computer generated entities. A 25 inch color monitor,
configurable for instrument, HUD and sensor display; a stick grip ala
F-16, and a throttle. No motion, no video, no detailed cockpit mockup.

Surprisingly, a cadre of highly experienced tactical aviators--FWS,
Top Gun, test pilots (Edwards & Pax River)--all quickly became
immersed in the "video games". We learned a lot about teaching higher
level tactical analysis, force integration and weapons employment
without the clutter and overhead of multi-million dollar massively
mobile flight simulators.

If you want to learn to fly the jet, full motion or video simulators
are great. If you want to learn how to integrate the force and fight
the weapons in many-v-many scenarios there is a place for PC based,
network simulations.

IMNSHO.


I understand. But you are hardly talking about Flight Simulator on a home
computer are you? Sounds like what youy are decribing is way out if the reach
of anyone with a home setup..You are also talking about a highly specialised
dedicated setup to solve very specific puposes. Not the sort of stuff readily
available at Best Buy is it?


Arthur Kramer


Actually the sort of stuff that is currently available to home users
that portrays F-16, F/A-18, Tornado, etc, is much more detailed than
what we were using in terms of the cockpit displays. The off-the-shelf
controllers available at Best Buy are more realistic than what we
used. And, most importantly, the proliferation of high-speed Internet
access makes it possible to network war-game to levels that weren't
even considered in what we were doing at Northrop.

Now, whether someone is simply boring holes at random, shooting at
everyone that comes across the canopy or whether one is engaged in a
conscientious tactical training scenario is something else.

What we had hoped to do, and what is readily available to any home
user today, is to train by networking squadron to squadron, base to
base to build scenarios of virtually any size. Certainly the mix of
full motion and video, full cockpit simulations with the PC desktops
isn't in the cards for home users, but the experience of dealing with
complex battles, mutual support, total sensor integration and lots of
unknowns that typify real combat is.

In other words, don't jump to conclusions and be too eager to discount
the simple solution to a complex problem. Shave and a haircut, Mr.
Occam?



  #43  
Old November 17th 03, 05:31 PM
ArtKramr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Subject: PC flight simulators
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 11/17/03 8:24 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On 17 Nov 2003 15:47:29 GMT,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: PC flight simulators
From: Ed Rasimus

Date: 11/17/03 7:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


But (there's always a "but" somewhere in the background), several
years ago while working at Northrop on ATF (the F-23 program), we were
grappling with the best way to train fighter pilots for that elusive
capability called "SA"--situational awareness. It's the sort of "big
picture" that the best tactical aviators can carry in their head which
allows them to know instinctively where their support is, where the
bad guy's support is, which way is "bug out", how much longer they can
stay engaged, and what to do ten, fifteen and thirty seconds into the
future.

What did work, surprisingly well, was a system of linked "desk-top"
stations that let us increase the number of players to 12 and then to
24 plus computer generated entities. A 25 inch color monitor,
configurable for instrument, HUD and sensor display; a stick grip ala
F-16, and a throttle. No motion, no video, no detailed cockpit mockup.

Surprisingly, a cadre of highly experienced tactical aviators--FWS,
Top Gun, test pilots (Edwards & Pax River)--all quickly became
immersed in the "video games". We learned a lot about teaching higher
level tactical analysis, force integration and weapons employment
without the clutter and overhead of multi-million dollar massively
mobile flight simulators.

If you want to learn to fly the jet, full motion or video simulators
are great. If you want to learn how to integrate the force and fight
the weapons in many-v-many scenarios there is a place for PC based,
network simulations.

IMNSHO.


I understand. But you are hardly talking about Flight Simulator on a home
computer are you? Sounds like what youy are decribing is way out if the

reach
of anyone with a home setup..You are also talking about a highly specialised
dedicated setup to solve very specific puposes. Not the sort of stuff

readily
available at Best Buy is it?


Arthur Kramer


Actually the sort of stuff that is currently available to home users
that portrays F-16, F/A-18, Tornado, etc, is much more detailed than
what we were using in terms of the cockpit displays. The off-the-shelf
controllers available at Best Buy are more realistic than what we
used. And, most importantly, the proliferation of high-speed Internet
access makes it possible to network war-game to levels that weren't
even considered in what we were doing at Northrop.

Now, whether someone is simply boring holes at random, shooting at
everyone that comes across the canopy or whether one is engaged in a
conscientious tactical training scenario is something else.

What we had hoped to do, and what is readily available to any home
user today, is to train by networking squadron to squadron, base to
base to build scenarios of virtually any size. Certainly the mix of
full motion and video, full cockpit simulations with the PC desktops
isn't in the cards for home users, but the experience of dealing with
complex battles, mutual support, total sensor integration and lots of
unknowns that typify real combat is.

In other words, don't jump to conclusions and be too eager to discount
the simple solution to a complex problem. Shave and a haircut, Mr.
Occam?





Does this mean that you suggest home simulatorsasa means to learn to fly?
Maybe that is too simple for even our friend Occam.


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

  #44  
Old November 17th 03, 05:38 PM
Urban Fredriksson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article rfUtb.225$Jz1.32@okepread03, Gene Storey wrote:

I have a copy, but to tell the truth, the F-105 and F-4 simulators
seem pretty bogus to me.


And there's something wrong with the F-22 too, but if this
means it's bad models or if the program is better at
simulating general aviation and airliners I don't know.
--
Urban Fredriksson
Military aviation: Swedish military aviation, the rec.aviation.military FAQ
http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/
Weblog http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/avblog.html
  #45  
Old November 17th 03, 05:38 PM
ArtKramr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Subject: PC flight simulators
From: Andreas Maurer
Date: 11/17/03 8:05 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

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

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.


... yet any game uses a completely different engine to create the
flight model. The differences are where the game engine does its short
cuts to allow realtime operation.


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.


The main problem of PC flight simulations is that the performance of a
PC is not sufficient to calculate a realtime aerodynamic simulation.
Mass models are ok these days in most flight sims, as well as
performance and envelope data which are in some cases very close to
reality. Only few PC simulations even try to simulate engine torqe
effects on prop aircraft.

The problems start if the simulated aircraft does non-linear maneuvers
(post-stall, spins) - this is when some PC simulations can get very
erratic because their simplified physics model needs to rely on
pre-calculated data (to save computing time). The result is either a
"standard" stall routine (always the same spin, independent on how you
entered it), or erratic movements that does not even look close to
what a real aircraft would do.

So far the only PC simulations that attempt to simulate post-stall
effects are MS Flight Sim 2002 and 2004, MS Combat Flight Sim 2 and 3,
and X-Plane, but the results are not entirely convincing yet.

Any PC simulator is (of course) handicapped most by the input devices
- a PC joystick and a mouse simply cannot give even a similar feeling
to the stick of a real aircraft (or a full cockpit simulator).This is
the cause why the characteristics of a PC simulated aircraft cannot be
even similar to the real thing, even if the performance data
throughout the envelope are very similar.



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.


Indeed.
The training effect concerning a PC simulator is that of a procedure
trainer. You can learn to fly standard procedures (even with ATC these
days), learn to program an FMC, to learn where to look at to keep the
plane under control, but the feeling of flight cannot be learned.
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).


There are a number of pretty realistic combat flight simulators out
there that simulate aerial combat. If the game engine is good,
real-world combat tactics need to be flown in these games to win a
dogfight. It might be interesting to compare such a game to real-world
dogfighting.

Bye
Andreas



Excellant point by point rundown. I think that we can assume that the claims
made for consumer simulators is gross overpromise at best.


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

  #46  
Old November 17th 03, 05:43 PM
Anonymous
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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


  #48  
Old November 17th 03, 06:27 PM
Jarg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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



  #49  
Old November 17th 03, 06:50 PM
ArtKramr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Subject: PC flight simulators
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 11/17/03 9:06 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On 17 Nov 2003 16:31:36 GMT,
(ArtKramr) wrote:


Does this mean that you suggest home simulatorsasa means to learn to fly?
Maybe that is too simple for even our friend Occam.


Arthur Kramer


Actually, I don't mean that at all. Strangely enough, what I'm saying
is that the "simple" task of learning to fly an airplane (C-150 to
F-22 or B-777) requires the full fidelity of the multi-million dollar
simulation. The more complex task of learning force integration,
training for large formation tasks and learning the cognitive business
of situational awareness, can be done with the lower cost solution of
desktop trainers.

Sizing the training aid to the task without over-producing it is the
difficult task. You don't need full motion and multi-camera panoramic
videos to teach someone how to sort and allocate targets or fly a
low-level night WX route procedurally or cope with a basic emergency
situation or even learn initial cockpit checklist procedures.
Eventually you must integrate a number of skills to achieve combat
effectiveness, but for many tasks learning them one-by-one and then
combining them after mastery is a better training strategy.


I understand. You are describing a highly specialised limited use of PC's for
formation tasks and situational awareness with greater cost effectiveness then
with mainframes. That makes sense.



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

  #50  
Old November 17th 03, 07:35 PM
Simon Robbins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 03:26 PM
new theory of flight released Sept 2004 Mark Oliver Aerobatics 1 October 5th 04 10:20 PM
Flight Simulator 2004 pro 4CDs, Eurowings 2004, Sea Plane Adventures, Concorde, HONG KONG 2004, World Airlines, other Addons, Sky Ranch, Jumbo 747, Greece 2000 [include El.Venizelos], Polynesia 2000, Real Airports, Private Wings, FLITESTAR V8.5 - JEP vvcd Home Built 0 September 22nd 04 07:16 PM
FAA letter on flight into known icing C J Campbell Instrument Flight Rules 78 December 22nd 03 08:44 PM
Sim time loggable? [email protected] Instrument Flight Rules 12 December 6th 03 08:47 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.