PC flight simulators

Subject: PC flight simulators
From: "Jarg"
Date: 11/16/03 7:41 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Maybe so but.....

http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computi...6/missile.idg/

Jarg



No comment.

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
...
Subject: PC flight simulators
From: "Vaughn"
Date: 11/16/03 6:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
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.


I think it depends on what you are trying to simulate. If you are
studying instrument procedures, then a good PC sim may make a great
procedure trainer. If you want to learn how to fly, then every PC sim
that
I have seen so far is worse than useless. Without motion, without a wide
view, without being able to look out the side window and back to judge
your
downwind-to-base turn, without true feedback on your controls, without
true
"butt feel" of accelerative forces, without a whole bunch of other stuff;
you are wasting your time and perhaps "learning" something dangerously
wrong.

If you just want to have fun with your PC, go for it!

Vaughn (a flight instructor)



Good sense all the way. We must never lose a firm grip on reality. And
those
who urge others to take flight simulators seriously to learn how to fly,
are
themselves playing a very dangerous game. We have to protect the innocent
against the unprincipled and the unknowing. You stated it quite well..

Art, for the love of pete, get a grip on reality. REREAD THE INITIAL POST
you loon!!! The guy, looks like from a Scandanavian country, asked which
simulator people in the NG "play" with!!! Are you consuming mass quantities
of caffeine??

After reading that initial post, look at your nonsensical, standing on a
soapbox, idiotic post above.

Jim
Sims Flown: Link, T-38, B-52, B-1B and B-727, Former Instructor Pilot in
the T-38,B-52, B-1B aircraft and simulator.
AND, I play with the Microsoft Flight Sim sometimes just for the hell of it.

Subject: PC flight simulators
From: "Jim Baker"
Date: 11/16/03 8:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


fter reading that initial post, look at your nonsensical, standing on a
soapbox, idiotic post above.

Jim
Sims Flown: Link, T-38, B-52, B-1B and B-727, Former Instructor Pilot in
the T-38,B-52, B-1B aircraft and simulator.
AND, I play with the Microsoft Flight Sim sometimes just for the hell of it.



PLONK !
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
...
Subject: PC flight simulators
From: "Jim Baker"
Date: 11/16/03 8:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


fter reading that initial post, look at your nonsensical, standing on a
soapbox, idiotic post above.

Jim
Sims Flown: Link, T-38, B-52, B-1B and B-727, Former Instructor Pilot in
the T-38,B-52, B-1B aircraft and simulator.
AND, I play with the Microsoft Flight Sim sometimes just for the hell of
it.



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

Seriously Art, get some help. I'm not one of the guys who baits you,
harasses you or gets into verbal fights with you. However, with great
sincerity and no animosity whatever, based on this thread, I think you're
having some kind of breakdown.

Regards,

Jim

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.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

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

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"ArtKramr" wrote

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


Thanks Tex. I am glad to see that someone around here is in touch with reality.

Not you two obviously...

I can take two people off the street into the 757 simulator; one who plays simulators,
and one who doesn't (both technical people). If I ask them both to set up the comm,
navigation, and take-off trim, only the simulator person has a clue.

While a pc simulator can be considered a game, the effect is more than that. The
user is developing skills that can be translated to any modern transport. Most can
easily get airborne (even with extreme weight and balance limits), while landing is
a bit harder, as they almost all want to be too fast with large inputs.

X-plane is probably my favorite, because you can have an instructor console,
and with four more PC's you can use 3 LCD projectors to provide the view
out the windows, and the instrument panel. Except for the lack of motion, it
is very good at getting a person up to speed for the full-motion simulator, and
not waste time with the bull**** level stuff.

Subject: PC flight simulators
From: Mary Shafer
Date: 11/16/03 9:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

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

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer


Good rundown. In 1943 I flew a simulator that was the cockpit and nose of a
B-26 complete with full reality sounds and feeling to the controls plus rough
air effects..My pilot was in the cockpit and we flew the simulator as a crew. I
did bombruns over Berlin that unrolled under us with accurate engine sounds and
flak impacts. It was as close as you could get to actual flying in combat
bombing and navigating. In fact we often got lost in the trainer procedure and
actually felt we were in the air on bomb runs, Comparing that to a PC is just
total a stretch beyond all reason.


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 news:20031116185355.19890.00000389
@mb-m02.aol.com:
"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

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

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

Hense his use of the word "play".

(ArtKramr) wrote:



No comment.

Arthur Kramer

Maybe not Art but you've gotten some good advice here and it
really would have helped your image if you had just said:

"Gee, guess this one does seem to have value doesn't it"
(or something similar).

I really don't expect to see this from you though.

It's a pretty telling statement when the USN thinks this highly
of a 'toy':

quote: (of Jarg's URL)
(IDG) -- Armchair jet jockeys play Microsoft Corp.'s Flight
Simulator on their PCs to capture a bit of the thrill of the real
thing, which replicates an actual flight experience closely
enough that the Navy is making its customized version of Flight
Simulator standard issue for all student naval aviators.
unquote

Replicates yet!...WooHoo, high praise indeed!.


--

-Gord.