PC flight simulators

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

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

"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

My humble opinion, coming from a background of hundreds of hours of playing
PC combat sims, is that Mr Art "in 1943 I flew a simulator" Kramer (mmm....a
clue to his cranky disposition perhaps?) is mostly right in a rude,
blustery, obnoxious sort of way.

However, when I was fortunate enough to be able to afford to charter a
Hawker Hunter out of Thunder City, Cape Town, South Africa, I was very at
home on the stick and was immediately capable of basic flight manouvres, it
took only seconds to get over the initial tendency to make 'too big'
movements. That's because I got a serious fright when I yanked on the stick,
the Hunter is as agile as a cat!. The pilot only took over for the seriously
rough aerobatics (and of course take off and landing). So, unrealistic as
they may be and although they will never make me a pilot, PC flight sims
teach you more than you may think or are willing to admit.

Whilst on the subject, I am having a debate on the subject of whether planes
like the BF109 and FW190 were really as unstable and prone to stalls and
spins at the drop of a hat as modelled in the PC sim IL2 Sturmovik,
Forgotten Battles. I am taking a Kramer view (but more politely because
they're my friends) and saying that the air war would never have been won if
planes of that era could barely fly. Does anyone know of real
stories/reports on this issue or maybe know someone of Art's vintage who
flew them? I have already read of a Mustang pilot who says the sim feels
about right if the 'stalls and spins' setting is turned off.


"Tex Houston" wrote in message
...

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in message
...

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


Regards...

I put "flight sim" in "Newsgroup Subscriptions" and got 13 hits. You will
probably get more play there.

Tex

Almost forgot, the debate extended into 'blackouts and redouts'. I blacked
out at around 5 G's in the Hunter and the pilot reckons he has bult up a
tolerance quite a bit hight than that (I'm glad, otherwise who would have
been watching where we were going?!)

In the sim, a hard pull on the stick and the screen goes black, very
annoying and I believe unrealistic. How many G's could those WWII planes
pull without tearing off the wings? Should 'blackouts and redouts' even be
modelled in a WWII sim? I know the sim, I'm hoping to get the reality
here.........

All things considered Art, maybe you should sit this one out.

Subject: PC flight simulators
From:
Date: 11/19/03 4:48 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: bpfoq6$1q5c$1@newsreader02

I know the sim, I'm hoping to get the reality
here.........

Never the twain shall meet on a PC.

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

Then instead of being obtuse, answer my questions about the real planes. Oh
wait, none of your posts actually contain any facts do they? Maybe you don't
know.........

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: PC flight simulators
From:
Date: 11/19/03 4:48 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: bpfoq6$1q5c$1@newsreader02

I know the sim, I'm hoping to get the reality
here.........

Never the twain shall meet on a PC.

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
:

Subject: PC flight simulators
From:
Date: 11/19/03 4:48 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: bpfoq6$1q5c$1@newsreader02

I know the sim, I'm hoping to get the reality
here.........

Never the twain shall meet on a PC.

I think we all get that you think that PC sims are trash by this
point.

Why do you keep going on about it? The original poster asked which
sims were fun to play, not which sims would give him a completely
accurate recreation of a bomb run over Schweinfurt with no deviations
from reality whatsoever.

It doesn't really *matter* if they teach me everything I'd need to
know about flying a P-51 or an XB-70. Nobody's ever going to let me
near any military aircraft since my vision is between 20/600 and
20/800. Nor am I interested and rich enough to purchase an actual
military simulator and hire several servants to run and maintain it
for me. By the same token, I don't really have the interest to
justify the time and money getting into actual aviation would cost,
and I'm pretty sure I'd just end up puking all over the airplane
anytime something remotely aerobatic happened anyway (ah haaaaates
fallin', ah do).

It just doesn't matter whether or not a pc sim is a terribly accurate
recreation of, say, a Hellcat mission or a Tomcat landing. PC sims
are all I'll ever get. Why not let people answer questions about
which ones are relatively less unrealistic unmolested? Why keep
****ing in my wheaties?

(if you can find a copy, _Stunt Island_ from the early 90's is a
blast, if really really outdated (320x200 graphics anyone?) It's
*very* cartoony, but they have you landing on moving trains and such,
and you can construct your own stunts -- I was always partial to
landing the F-117 on the aircraft carrier)

--
Jim Battista
A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.

In message ,
writes
Whilst on the subject, I am having a debate on the subject of whether planes
like the BF109 and FW190 were really as unstable and prone to stalls and
spins at the drop of a hat as modelled in the PC sim IL2 Sturmovik,
Forgotten Battles. I am taking a Kramer view (but more politely because
they're my friends) and saying that the air war would never have been won if
planes of that era could barely fly.

A humble Cessna can be a spinning, stalling brute in MS Flight Sim (in
my distant experience of trying to fling one around). Flying a similar
light, novice-friendly aircraft, it was extraordinarily forgiving...
provided you felt it through your seat and hands and middle ear, and
were much more gentle with the controls in reality than you were in the
game.

I'd hazard that the aircraft in Il-2 were a lot easier to fly when the
feedback of "get the stick out of that corner, you idiot" came from the
effort of hauling it there and holding it, and your _feeling_ the
airspeed bleed off... but that trying to model them in a computer game
played through a monitor and joystick means a lot of the crucial cues
are lost, and so the nasty characteristics are much easier to experience
because the warnings are missing.


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in message
...

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


IL-2 Sturmovik Forgotten Battles is the best WWII sim on the market IMHO.

For modern, well for fun I would have to say Jane's USAF, for realism,
honestly I cannot say as most of the ones I have played seem to come up a
bit short, but Jane's F-15, IAF and Longbow were good in their day.