PC flight simulators

(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 =---

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

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

Subject: PC flight simulators
From: "Jarg"
Date: 11/18/03 9:16 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: m

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





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. 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

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

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

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

"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

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

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