PC flight simulators

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

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Tex Houston" message

I've used B-52, KC-135, Boeing 737, A-10 and LGM-30B simulators. Art is
right PC flight sims are computer games.

Tex

I flew the KC-135 flight sim the same day I flew the FB-111 sim. After
spending
a morning on the KC-135 sim the FB-111 seemed squirrely. I guess the
difference
is the acreage of the wings.

I have also flown the C-130, F-4E and F-15 flight sims. If anyone wants to
buy
me an F-15 flight sim for Christmas I'd be polite and accept.

The only flight sim I've flown was long ago for the RF-101.
Compared to it, some of the games now on the market will
do if outfitted with proper controls.

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

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

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.


Actually one that I found, which had an outstanding flight model, was A-10 Cuba
back from 1997.

They concentrated more on getting the only the A-10 modeled correctly, and
worried less about eye candy or having other planes you could fly. Its still
fun to go fly around with, because of that.




Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: PC flight simulators
From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy" am
Date: 11/16/03 3:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


I was wondering if anyone in this NG play simulators?
If so, which one? What's the best out there, currently.


Regards...

They are not really simulators. They are just computer games.
Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Have you had a look at some of these "games" lately Art?

Scet

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...

Subject: PC flight simulators
From: "Scet"
Date: 11/17/03 1:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: PC flight simulators
From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy" am
Date: 11/16/03 3:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


I was wondering if anyone in this NG play simulators?
If so, which one? What's the best out there, currently.


Regards...

They are not really simulators. They are just computer games.
Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Have you had a look at some of these "games" lately Art?

Scet






Read Mary's message. She said it 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

On 17 Nov 2003 02:29:49 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: PC flight simulators
From: "Gord Beaman" )
Date: 11/16/03 5:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(ArtKramr) wrote:

They are not really simulators. They are just computer games.
Arthur Kramer


Pretty inconsiderate Art...just because you don't play with them
why denigerate someone elses fun?

I flew real simulators. And I have flown the crap they make for computers.And
anything that you can do on a computer isn't even close. If you want to fly
your computer for fun ok,bur remember it is just a toy. but don't confuse it
with real flying or flying a real simulator. I guess you have never flown Air
Force simulators. If you had you wouldn't be talking such patent nonsense. Now
be a good guy and just go away.

Arthur Kramer

Well, I've got to disagree, Art. I've not had the opportunity to fly
the latest operational simulators, but will be the first to
acknowledge the incredible state of the simulation art. They make it
almost practical to conduct total training on the ground without ever
getting airborne. Certainly the heavy jet simulation capability is a
$$$-saver for the airline industry.

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.

We had a massive mainframe computer running three domes and capable of
being reprogrammed to flight models of virtually anything the
designers could propose. We did trade-off evals of RCS
(radar-cross-section) changes against flight agility. We did full
instrumentation mock-ups to test symbology and ergonomics, but we
weren't satisfied with SA training.

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.

Subject: PC flight simulators
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 11/17/03 7:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On 17 Nov 2003 02:29:49 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: PC flight simulators
From: "Gord Beaman" )
Date: 11/16/03 5:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(ArtKramr) wrote:

They are not really simulators. They are just computer games.
Arthur Kramer


Pretty inconsiderate Art...just because you don't play with them
why denigerate someone elses fun?

I flew real simulators. And I have flown the crap they make for
computers.And
anything that you can do on a computer isn't even close. If you want to fly
your computer for fun ok,bur remember it is just a toy. but don't confuse
it
with real flying or flying a real simulator. I guess you have never flown
Air
Force simulators. If you had you wouldn't be talking such patent nonsense.
Now
be a good guy and just go away.

Arthur Kramer

Well, I've got to disagree, Art. I've not had the opportunity to fly
the latest operational simulators, but will be the first to
acknowledge the incredible state of the simulation art. They make it
almost practical to conduct total training on the ground without ever
getting airborne. Certainly the heavy jet simulation capability is a
$$$-saver for the airline industry.

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.

We had a massive mainframe computer running three domes and capable of
being reprogrammed to flight models of virtually anything the
designers could propose. We did trade-off evals of RCS
(radar-cross-section) changes against flight agility. We did full
instrumentation mock-ups to test symbology and ergonomics, but we
weren't satisfied with SA training.

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