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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
"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!! :-) |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
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 |