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 |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
(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. There was an independent patch that fixed some of that. Unfortunately they never extended their work beyond the initial patch, but it dramatically improved things like zero-G accelerating, corrected roll and pitch rates, etc. It fixed fuel burn rates (mostly) but your wingmen ran out of fuel LONG, LONG before you did - even if you kept them out of burner with carefully planned ingress speeds. A fully-developed 'created' mission could include a major strike package, with SEAD over a heavily defended Soviet Motor Rifle Battalion (or worse). The basic modeling engine was quite robust - the exchange of fire between a dozen A/C and 30+ air defense units was VERY impressive - and the loss rates were, too. It's NOT full motion in a real plane - but sit through one of *my* simulated missions, and you'll have cramps, a sore backside, a slight case of motion sickness, noise fatigue, eyestrain and a serious case of stress from your RWR screeching at you over the target. Now shoot a pseudo-ILS approach. ;-D It's not *totally* bogus. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: PC flight simulators
From: "Anonymous" Date: 11/18/03 7:07 AM Pacific Standard Time But I still wouldn't class MSFS as a game simply because it isn't capable of offering what a real aircraft or a purpose-built multi-million £/$ aircraft simulator can. MSFS can teach you things. But it is a game that can teach you things. Of all the responses I got to my oirst post mostly insulting flames and personal attacks most refused to accept the fact that it wasn't flying and resented it being called a game. It is a damned computewr game. When you sit at your computer you are not flying anything. You are playing a computer game. It had educational benefits, biut it is still a game. If all you ever know about entering a pattern you learn from MSFS, you are in deep troub;le. Very deep trouble.If the only IFR you ever learn is from MSFS you are in deep trouble. If youi have no air time but thousands of hours on MSFS, you still can't fly a damn thing except FS. And that amounts to the fact that you have become good at a game. Nothing more. It also shows that reality is slipping away from many on this NG. Or maybe it was never there.But your post takes a more balanced view without a flame in sight.Thank you for that.. Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Perhaps it is time for you to give us a definition of game vs. simulator.
Because you seem to be saying that if you sit at a desk and use a simulator it is a game vs. going to someplace else and using a simulator when it becomes legitimate. Jarg "ArtKramr" wrote in message ... Subject: PC flight simulators From: "Anonymous" Date: 11/18/03 7:07 AM Pacific Standard Time But I still wouldn't class MSFS as a game simply because it isn't capable of offering what a real aircraft or a purpose-built multi-million £/$ aircraft simulator can. MSFS can teach you things. But it is a game that can teach you things. Of all the responses I got to my oirst post mostly insulting flames and personal attacks most refused to accept the fact that it wasn't flying and resented it being called a game. It is a damned computewr game. When you sit at your computer you are not flying anything. You are playing a computer game. It had educational benefits, biut it is still a game. If all you ever know about entering a pattern you learn from MSFS, you are in deep troub;le. Very deep trouble.If the only IFR you ever learn is from MSFS you are in deep trouble. If youi have no air time but thousands of hours on MSFS, you still can't fly a damn thing except FS. And that amounts to the fact that you have become good at a game. Nothing more. It also shows that reality is slipping away from many on this NG. Or maybe it was never there.But your post takes a more balanced view without a flame in sight.Thank you for that.. Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
ArtKramr wrote in message ... If all you ever know about entering a pattern you learn from MSFS, you are in deep troub;le. If the only IFR you ever learn is from MSFS you are in deep trouble. If youi have no air time but thousands of hours on MSFS, you still can't fly a damn thing except FS. This is also the case with any simulation, PC-based or one of those big moving things (can we come up with a shorter name for those damned things? Can't keep calling 'em "big moving expensive simulator things", eh?). I'm perfectly aware that there's no substitute for real flying with a qualified flight instructor - I look forward to the day I can afford to try for my PPL. It also shows that reality is slipping away from many on this NG. Or maybe it was never there. I'm a relative newbie here (lurking for a few months prior to my first post) and already I share your viewpoint ;o) But your post takes a more balanced view without a flame in sight.Thank you for that.. No worries; courtesy is free, as are good manners. I like talking to people like I'd like them to talk to me. I know this isn't really going to change anyone's views on MS Flight Sim... But take a look at this guy :- http://www.geocities.com/cap17.geo/Tony_Leaver.html He's built up a cockpit from a real F4 Phantom and has connected most of the switch inputs, the yoke, and the rudder pedals to an interface card in his PC, which runs FS2002. Looks fun, and it seems to be an interesting project to build ;o) Cheers Graeme |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: PC flight simulators
From: "Anonymous" Date: 11/18/03 9:54 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: ArtKramr wrote in message ... If all you ever know about entering a pattern you learn from MSFS, you are in deep troub;le. If the only IFR you ever learn is from MSFS you are in deep trouble. If youi have no air time but thousands of hours on MSFS, you still can't fly a damn thing except FS. This is also the case with any simulation, PC-based or one of those big moving things (can we come up with a shorter name for those damned things? Can't keep calling 'em "big moving expensive simulator things", eh?). I'm perfectly aware that there's no substitute for real flying with a qualified flight instructor - I look forward to the day I can afford to try for my PPL. It also shows that reality is slipping away from many on this NG. Or maybe it was never there. I'm a relative newbie here (lurking for a few months prior to my first post) and already I share your viewpoint ;o) But your post takes a more balanced view without a flame in sight.Thank you for that.. No worries; courtesy is free, as are good manners. I like talking to people like I'd like them to talk to me. I know this isn't really going to change anyone's views on MS Flight Sim... But take a look at this guy :- http://www.geocities.com/cap17.geo/Tony_Leaver.html He's built up a cockpit from a real F4 Phantom and has connected most of the switch inputs, the yoke, and the rudder pedals to an interface card in his PC, which runs FS2002. Looks fun, and it seems to be an interesting project to build ;o) Cheers Graeme During WW II we had a simulator at Lake Charles. It was a real B-26 Martin Marauder truncated and mounted in a hanger. When youi climbed into it you could smell the cordite, urine, vomit and 100 octane.You strapped yourself in and you could smell the leather on the seats. It behaved llike a real plane in every sense including the feel of the controls, the operation of the Norden bombsight and the results of doing bomb runs in that simulator. Now that is a simulator. MSFS doesn''t quite cut it.. But in those years with a war on, flying was a serious life and death affair, especially in Marauders. . No nonsense allowed. Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:43:12 +0000 (UTC), "Anonymous" wrote:
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). Flying at night (in the US) does not require an IFR ticket. Al Minyard |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
"ArtKramr" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... Subject: PC flight simulators [snip] A sumulator simulates to the full extent of the flying experience It is what the airlines use to train and check pilot proficiencey. It is what the Air Force uses for the same purpose. It must have full and complete instrumentation that works with total accuracy. I don't think such a thing exists. Not even the most expensive military or commercial simulators fall under this definition. For example today it is AFAIK impossible to simulate post-stall airflow in real time "with total accuracy" on any computer conceivable for training simulator use. Also let me tell you that there is quite a number of military simulators that don't even have a motion system because it is impossible to create true g-loads without massive (and expensive) mechanical efforts (which btw bring trade-offs in other areas (visual system etc.)). G-loads are "simulated" simply by inflating the g-suits (and some cushions) - not exactly "the full extent of the flying experience". It must have a fully functioning column with the " feel" the original plane through the controls. Comparing MSFS to an airline or Air Force simulator is like comparing a plastic toy pistol to a Uzi. Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: PC flight simulators
From: Alan Minyard Date: 11/18/03 11:52 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:43:12 +0000 (UTC), "Anonymous" wrote: 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). Flying at night (in the US) does not require an IFR ticket. Al Minyard Alan, as you know, something happens when you are socked in with zero vivsibility and on IFR that never happens on a computer in an easy chair. A sense of mild discomfort and a bit of anxiety which if not kept under control can lead to disaster. Pilots with long IFR hours can usually deal with it in a routine matter. But MSFS will never give you the experience to walk that IFR walk with ease and comfort. I think John John Kennedy spent long hours on MSFS.. He enjoyed it a great deal. Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: PC flight simulators
From: "Sierk Melzer" Date: 11/18/03 12:03 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: I don't think such a thing exists. Not even the most expensive military or commercial simulators fall under this definition. For example today it is AFAIK impossible to simulate post-stall airflow in real time "with total accuracy" on any computer Yes. It is a chaos theory problem that has to this date not been solved. But Dr.Mandelbrot of IBM has made progress and hopefully we will have a solution soon. When Einstein was dying someone asked him what he would ask god when he got to heaven, Einstein answered,"Well I think god will have all the answers to relativity. But I don't think he will have all the ansers to Chaos Theory". And airflow falls under chaos theory as do whirlpools. To give you some idea of the diffficulty of the problem, the most powerful super computers working for a full year could only plot whirlpool or air eddy patterns over a 30 second period. That is one reason why we can't yet predict weather with any high degree of certainty or post stall airflow in real time.. Let's all wish Dr. Mandelbrot luck. Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
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 |