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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 02:26 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 07:44 PM |
Sim time loggable? | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 12 | December 6th 03 07:47 AM |