Change the name to trainers.

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 12:35:11 -0000, "Simon Robbins"
wrote:

"Corey C. Jordan" wrote in
message
.. .
However, can anyone tell me what data is used to generate the
mathmatical
model coded for the previously mentioned simulators?

No, but the procedure for simulation is approached from a different
angle.
For example, a "true" simulation of an aircraft will model the
atmosphere
and airframe so that the resultant parameters determine its performance,
i.e. the exit parameters will cause (for example) a Spitfire to roll at
say
45 degrees a second, whereas a PC simulator will use a previously
defined
input parameter to dictate the aircraft rolls at that rate. It's not a
simulation of the airframe, but of its known performance. Not the same
thing. You're not going to be able to design an aircraft and predict
it's
flight envelope using MS-FS because you have to start by knowing the
performance envelope you're wanting to simulate. A militray simulator
will
take the design of the aircraft and inform you of its likely real-world
envelope.

No, no, no. Only at the very beginning do we use predictions based on
the design. Those predictions come from the wind tunnel, CFD, and
prior experience. The instant we get such data from flight we update
the simulation with the actual, not the predicted, numbers.

Only a select few simulators actually produce a correct mathematical
modeling of the aircraft's characteristics, but in many cases a simulator
has a different purpose than modeling. In the case of the F-18, there was
no mathematically correct simulator until HARV was built in '86.

Simulators are not tools used to predict the actual flight dynamics at
all. This is exactly backward. Simulators mimic the real thing. The
flight envelope is usually defined by _design_ limits, like load
factor and qbar.

During the development of flight controls the simulator is where flight
dynamics are modeled. The YF-22 deviated from this formula and it's fate is
directly tied to skipping a step. Much the same as skipping full scale
development does not necessarily eliminate the work.

Read the paper I mentioned. You'll find a very complete explanation
of how the actual data is used.

The PC games use a very generic model, not a detailed model of the
specific vehicle. They're not predicting anything, either.

The need for predictor correctors has been addressed with faster machines
these days. I did see an instance with TCAS III flight test where I thought
a rate based stabilization algorythem might have made the system work, but
it is a lot of processor overhead.

(ArtKramr) wrote in message ...

Yeah, that is what I have been saying Home PVC's with FSFS are not
sumulators. Glad to see that someone with your vast experienc agrees with me.

Actually, we don't agree. PC sims are simulators; but to fly a real
FAA certified Simulator join the airlines!

BTW, B-26s are cool, but A-26s rule!
I know. I have flown missions in both. Have you? BTW, what rules is what you
are flying at the moment. If you don'l have it, it can't rule. I spend a lot of time at Nellis. And the guys there do play on PC sims. But they never confuse them with real flying.

Nope (buy my dad had a lot of time in B-25s and A-26s). Do you have
any time in F-4s or F-16s? I have flown missions in both! - diffetent
time and place - although I would love some time in any of the WW 2
airplanes (have only managed the T-6 and a couple of 450 Stearmans so
far - plus postwar fun things like T-28s). I love the F-4, and the
F-16 is a blast to fly, but if I had to go to war today I want an
F-15E with wall to wall AIM-120s and JDAMS. So F-4 are cool, but F-15s
rule! Actually I was just yanking your chain about the B-26 - which
was a really awesome medium bomber (lowest combat loss rate if I
remember correctly) and was available when it was needed. And the
prototype looks like something out of a science fiction movie compared
to other bomber prototypes of it's day! For some reason it has been
somewhat overshadowed by the B-25 - probably due to the fact that
B-25s survived in much greater numbers after the war for various
reasons.

BTW, gotcha saying the Nellis jocks "play on PC sims"! But we do
agree that nobody ever should confuse them with real flying - which
even applies with full up FAA cat D airline sims (lets face it, if you
screw up a single engine approach in your 777 sim to mins in a
blizzard and land in the airport terminal, it'll only hurt your pride!
And possibly your job security!


Check six, and keep the faith!

Kirk

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:21:53 GMT, "Ron W" wrote:

Excellent post Kirk. With Art's years at Madison Avenue, he knows, much
more than the rest of us, that the originator is the one that names his
product.
"Simulator" is a for more sellable name than "trainer". Our Art, the
group's
lovable WWII veteran curmudgeon has been acting as a troll. I'm sure he
knows
that Bill Gates will certainly rename MS Flight Simulator to MS Flight
Trainer
now that he has seen the error of his ways! ;}

But wouldn't that get him into trouble with Electronic Arts for their old
"Chuck Yeager's Advanced Flight Trainer" series?
;-)

--
__________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke
\_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
_H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com
'-_____|(

remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying

Subject: Change the name to trainers.
From: machf
Date: 11/25/03 10:10 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:21:53 GMT, "Ron W" wrote:

Excellent post Kirk. With Art's years at Madison Avenue, he knows, much
more than the rest of us, that the originator is the one that names his
product.
"Simulator" is a for more sellable name than "trainer". Our Art, the
group's
lovable WWII veteran curmudgeon has been acting as a troll. I'm sure he
knows
that Bill Gates will certainly rename MS Flight Simulator to MS Flight
Trainer
now that he has seen the error of his ways! ;}

But wouldn't that get him into trouble with Electronic Arts for their old
"Chuck Yeager's Advanced Flight Trainer" series?


We could get around the Advanced Flight Trainer name by just calling ours the
Retarded Flight Trainer. Simple.

Regards,

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

"machf" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:21:53 GMT, "Ron W" wrote:

But wouldn't that get him into trouble with Electronic Arts for their old
"Chuck Yeager's Advanced Flight Trainer" series?
;-)

Naw, Bill Gates wouldn't sweat "small potatoes"! By the time I had a system
that
would run the above, I couldn't find the program! I did hear that it was an
excellent
Sim tho. :}

Ron