PC flight simulators

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 22:51:23 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
wrote:


The desktop sims, especially Microsoft's effort, are a wonder of software
engineering for the layman. I've worked with MS on their new simulator, and
it's a great program that offers a substantial look into our world for those
who might not ever get the chance to fly otherwise.

At Dryden MS Flight Simulator offered a substantial looking into the
Edwards world for those who might (and did) get the chance to fly. We
used the FS visuals for our computerized real-time interactive mapping
(RIM) and, later, our more extensive round-earth global RIM (GRIM).
We use this in the control room to display the ground track of the
research aircraft and to manage our use of the air space. We have all
the restricted areas, spin areas, PIRAs, landmarks, roads, runways,
etc, programmed into this model but it's really obvious that it
started as MS FS, particularly when you're running it in God's-eye
view.

I don't know the whole story of its origin, but I know we were looking
for some way to retire the big 30x30" plotters that we used for the
ground track of the research aircraft (from the FPS-16 tracking
radar). MS gave us the source code when we asked and we customized it
quite thoroughly. We can enter altitude restrictions into the
restricted areas, for example, And GRIM uses a round-earth model,
because we needed it for the SR-71.

The original computer was an SGI, but I don't know what we're using
now. Our system is unlikely to bear any real resemblance to the
current version of FS, have begun its divergence so long ago. We have
shared the code with a number of other flight organizations, including
Pax and LaRC.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
ink.net...

"WaltBJ" wrote in message
om...
The big problem PC 'pilots' will run into if they have really
gotten
into 'flying' the PC is that when they get into a real airplane
to
learn to fly the instructor will be concentrating on teaching
them how
to control the aircraft by looking !outside! at the real world
and not
concentrating on the gauges. 'IFR/IMC' flying comes into play
much
later - first you have to learn to land the airplane and that is
done
looking outside! Also since most of your initial flying will be
done
in the vicinity of the airport it's a damn good idea to watch
out for
other aircraft - 'blue on blue' the hard way is generally not
survivable. That said, I reiterate that you can keep your
instrument
scan/crosscheck up to snuff using a decent PC program more
conveniently and a lot cheaper than renting an aircraft or
decent
instrument trainer (AST300 or similar.)
Walt BJ

Hi Walt;
It's funny picking you up in this thread for two reasons. I was
thinking
about you just this morning after I downloaded an absolutely
beautiful
zipper for my FS2004 :-) Secondly, my sentiments about the desktop
simulators are about in line with yours and Mary's.

I am pleased FAA has taken a different position.

No John, I'm afraid the FAA hasn't taken a contrary position at all .

Certainly initial licensing and matriculation of higher skills amoung
civil
operators using simulators is at an all time high. I can't possibly see
how
you could be unaware of that fact and have any connection to the
certification and currency issues for operators.

Since I'm fairly familiar with this issue, having worked on it a bit
myself,
I've pasted in the entire PCATD cert advisory for you to browse if you
wish.
You will note that nowhere in the text does the FAA even come
anywhere
close to recommending a simulator during the initial phases of flight
training, which was my salient point.

Dude.

Simulation time can be logged as time for experiance requirements and is
becomming more common, not less.

REALLY????????? WOW!!!!!!!! :-))

I timmed out 2/3 of your rediculess post as it is, Dud.

Go have a anither drink with your buddies, the rest of the industry sobered
up 10 years ago.

snip of lun complaining about snippage, while not snipping

Hi Tony;

Basically what it amounts to is this; and I'll address only the desk tops
here if you don't mind, as these are the simulators most often discussed by
people interested in the "value" of simulated training as opposed to actual
flight training in the air. Although the same factors apply to a military
pilot candidate, the program there is highly regimented and deserves
separate treatment as an isolated issue.
Just addressing the general aviation format, the first eight to ten hours
you spend in an airplane with a flight instructor, or the period before solo
(as the case may be) are perhaps the most important you will spend in flight
during your entire tenure as a pilot. It's here you will become accustomed
to the subtleties involved in the mental, physical, and psychological
aspects of piloting an airplane. It's here that you develop the habit
patterns, reflexes, hand eye coordination, deductive reasoning that requires
physical action, and a whole other mess of stuff with big words :-) There's
a huge amount of "use of the senses" involved in the initial learning
process. It's here that you develop a "feel" for the airplane in it's
environment...and how that "feel" interfaces with what you have to do to
function correctly in this new environment.
A desktop flight simulator simply can't duplicate these things for you. You
have to actually experience them to relate to them. For example, in flying,
we deal with control pressures, NOT control movement!! This is an important
distinction. To make the airplane do something, or correct something the
airplane is doing, you apply a SPECIFIC amount of control pressures to
accomplish this. You don't move the controls a specific amount, because that
amount will differ with airspeed!!!
A desktop simulator can duplicate control movement for you, but it won't
allow you to "feel" the pressures. (Force feedback is a joke for actual
pressures) The result of learning this way is that although you might know
that you need to move the controls a specific way to accomplish something,
you can't feel the effect of what you're doing, and that's bad!!
There's even a limitation on EXACT procedures if you examine the scenario
closely enough. The desktop simulator program, in order to accomodate a
screen projected simulation within specific constraints, displays a panel
that in some cases is simply "representative" of the real thing. This can
also be misleading to a beginning student.
The bottom line is this. The desktops have their uses it's true. I have
found that with proper supervision, they are quite good at allowing a
descent instrument training session. They allow you to practice procedure
that could be quite costly in the airplane. But, as I said before, I would
never use a simulator for a beginning student....EVER!!!
There is, I believe, a future in aviation for well designed flight
simulation. Over time, and with advanced students going for instrument and
multi-engine ratings, I believe these programs will prove quite useful. They
will save the user a ton of money, but again, I stress that this use will
find it's niche in the higher end of the training spectrum and NOT the
initial (before solo) area of the learning curve.
Hope this helps a bit!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt


"Tony Volk" wrote in message
...
The big problem PC 'pilots' will run into if they have really gotten
into 'flying' the PC is that when they get into a real airplane to
learn to fly the instructor will be concentrating on teaching them how
to control the aircraft by looking !outside! at the real world and not
concentrating on the gauges.

As instructors, I have a couple of questions for Walt and Dudley (I
certainly agree that PC sims are nothing near a perfect substitute for air
under your ass). First, wouldn't flight sims help in the important area
of
understanding the principles of flight? I would expect that compared to
someone straight off the street, someone who had flown sims would know a
lot
more off the bat about the basic physics of flight, as well as how an
airplane works. A significant advantage I'd think (at least during that
stage of instruction). Second, are you referring to PC pilots in general,
or just those that fly commercial flight sims. Questions about required
control pressure would only seem to be valid if you were flying a similar
plane in both (I don't think my experiences flying the virtual Su-27 have
much to do with flying a Cessna).
Also, as far as looking outside goes, I have two general comments.
First, there's a really neat invention that may partially alleviate that.
It's basically a helmet-mounted sight that changes the view on your
monitor
based on how you move your head (within limits). Second, and just as a
bit
of anecdote, I've heard that's actually common amongst USN fighter who go
to
Top Gun (or FWS now) to not look out often enough and rely too heavily on
their radar/avionics. So perhaps the problem isn't limited to PC pilots!
Regards,

Tony

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
ink.net...

"WaltBJ" wrote in message
om...
The big problem PC 'pilots' will run into if they have really
gotten
into 'flying' the PC is that when they get into a real
airplane
to
learn to fly the instructor will be concentrating on teaching
them how
to control the aircraft by looking !outside! at the real world
and not
concentrating on the gauges. 'IFR/IMC' flying comes into play
much
later - first you have to learn to land the airplane and that
is
done
looking outside! Also since most of your initial flying will
be
done
in the vicinity of the airport it's a damn good idea to watch
out for
other aircraft - 'blue on blue' the hard way is generally not
survivable. That said, I reiterate that you can keep your
instrument
scan/crosscheck up to snuff using a decent PC program more
conveniently and a lot cheaper than renting an aircraft or
decent
instrument trainer (AST300 or similar.)
Walt BJ

Hi Walt;
It's funny picking you up in this thread for two reasons. I was
thinking
about you just this morning after I downloaded an absolutely
beautiful
zipper for my FS2004 :-) Secondly, my sentiments about the
desktop
simulators are about in line with yours and Mary's.

I am pleased FAA has taken a different position.

No John, I'm afraid the FAA hasn't taken a contrary position at all
..

Certainly initial licensing and matriculation of higher skills amoung
civil
operators using simulators is at an all time high. I can't possibly
see
how
you could be unaware of that fact and have any connection to the
certification and currency issues for operators.

Since I'm fairly familiar with this issue, having worked on it a bit
myself,
I've pasted in the entire PCATD cert advisory for you to browse if
you
wish.
You will note that nowhere in the text does the FAA even come
anywhere
close to recommending a simulator during the initial phases of
flight
training, which was my salient point.

Dude.

Simulation time can be logged as time for experiance requirements and
is
becomming more common, not less.

REALLY????????? WOW!!!!!!!! :-))

I timmed out 2/3 of your rediculess post as it is, Dud.

Go have a anither drink with your buddies, the rest of the industry
sobered
up 10 years ago.

snip of lun complaining about snippage, while not snipping

WELL!!!!!!! No need to get "snippy" about it John.

LUN!!!!!.l..... LUN!!!!!...... How DARE you call me a LUN!!!!!

"Honey....come down here and see this. John just called me a
LUN!!!!!!"........and bring me "anither" drink will ya.

Nite JT!! :-)

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
ink.net...

snip of lun complaining about snippage, while not snipping

WELL!!!!!!! No need to get "snippy" about it John.

You certainly did a fine job of showing your ass, Henriques.

You have a good time at the bar and quit pretending here.

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 22:51:23 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
wrote:


The desktop sims, especially Microsoft's effort, are a wonder of
software
engineering for the layman. I've worked with MS on their new simulator,
and
it's a great program that offers a substantial look into our world for
those
who might not ever get the chance to fly otherwise.

At Dryden MS Flight Simulator offered a substantial looking into the
Edwards world for those who might (and did) get the chance to fly. We
used the FS visuals for our computerized real-time interactive mapping
(RIM) and, later, our more extensive round-earth global RIM (GRIM).
We use this in the control room to display the ground track of the
research aircraft and to manage our use of the air space. We have all
the restricted areas, spin areas, PIRAs, landmarks, roads, runways,
etc, programmed into this model but it's really obvious that it
started as MS FS, particularly when you're running it in God's-eye
view.

I don't know the whole story of its origin, but I know we were looking
for some way to retire the big 30x30" plotters that we used for the
ground track of the research aircraft (from the FPS-16 tracking
radar). MS gave us the source code when we asked and we customized it
quite thoroughly. We can enter altitude restrictions into the
restricted areas, for example, And GRIM uses a round-earth model,
because we needed it for the SR-71.

The original computer was an SGI, but I don't know what we're using
now. Our system is unlikely to bear any real resemblance to the
current version of FS, have begun its divergence so long ago. We have
shared the code with a number of other flight organizations, including
Pax and LaRC.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer


Hi Mary,

I found MS extremely competent and good to work with.....a very professional
bunch.

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Vicente Vazquez wrote:

"ArtKramr" escreveu na mensagem
...
They are not really simulators. They are just computer games.

Mr. Kramer,

Some of them, like "Microsoft Flight Simulator", are actually more like
simulators than games. If you check them out, you will also notice that
there are no such things as "scores" or "adversaries". It's just plain
flight. They might not be "reallistic" simulators, but that's another
question.

They also do 'Combat Simulator' now.

Best sim I've used to date for flight modelling was Flight Unlimited btw.


Graham

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

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

Checked out any of the flight sim groups ?

There's some awesome add-ons for MS Flight Simulator including multiple
screen support. You'll need mutliple PCs and a server though. :-)


Graham

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
ink.net...

snip
I found MS extremely competent and good to work with.....a very
professional
bunch.

Now the Dud man has turned schitzo.

Number of answers he
If you were flying close formation you could barely hear the howl
right around 89%. We used it on cross-countrys to let people know we
were in town. We'd make a VFR letdown in close formation circling over
town while Lead jockeyed his throttle around that magic 89%. Quite a
few times I've walked away from my bird and there was a car waiting
for me. On the ground it'd howl around 69% - handy to let your crew
chief know you were back early. It was due to the interaction between
the secondary and primary airflow in the nozzle. The J79-19 engine did
not howl, alas, but it made up for that in performance. The Dash-19
also gave a definite sideways motion to the fuselage when acclerated
off idle - kind of like gunning a good hot rod back in the old days in
SoCal.
PACATD - They are being used to good effect in the Part 141 school
(AIMS Community College, Greeley, Colorado) that I taught in and
retired from in 1995. AIMS still works very closely with our local
FADO. The school also uses two AST 300 digital twin trainers - they
are excellent for instrument training. I might add the final sim check
in the professional pilot program is an exact duplication of an ATP
check and the students pass it at about 220 total hours. Also, they
fly the check in two parts, once as copilot and once as PIC. This is
to evaluate CRM. The school has airline check captains give a good
portion of these checks as a quality control monitoring method, too.
FWIW I started that program at AIMS in 1987 as an Eastern rep, then
when EAL got sick I retired from them in 89 and stayed here in
Colorado rather than go back to Miami..
Walt BJ