PC flight simulators

There is a new sim coming out this winter called Lock On - Mordern Air
Combat (LO-MAC). A demo is availble on their homepage on
http://www.lo-mac.com. The grafics look great, and there are several
different flyable aircrafts to choose from.

Regards
------------------------
Søren Augustesen
E-mail:
Homepage: http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/sore...sen/index.html


How about in the next couple of days it will be out.

Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

"Glenfiddich" wrote in message
...
I've got MSFS, and also once was paid to play with military-class
full-motion simulators (including Harrier).

I'd like to offer a simple test for whether any device is a game or a
"real" flight simulator - can it give you white knuckles?

I have a better test, one that many PC "flight simulator" fans say is
somehow unfair. Simply put a qualified pilot that has never "flown"
computers in front of your "flight simulator". If he can take off, fly
safely and return to earth (exactly the same as he could undoubtably do in
the real thing), then you MAY have made a real flight simulator. If he
can't, then whatever it is that you are simulating, it is not flight!

That said, even if PC sims are not "real", they should certainly
be counted as valid training aids.

That depends on exactly what you are simulating and what the training
objective is. Have you ever hear of "negative transfer"?

Vaughn

Subject: PC flight simulators
From: "Vaughn"
Date: 11/20/03 3:28 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

I have a better test, one that many PC "flight simulator" fans say is
somehow unfair. Simply put a qualified pilot that has never "flown"
computers in front of your "flight simulator". If he can take off, fly
safely and return to earth (exactly the same as he could undoubtably do in
the real thing), then you MAY have made a real flight simulator. If he
can't, then whatever it is that you are simulating, it is not flight!

That said, even if PC sims are not "real", they should certainly
be counted as valid training aids.


Outstanding analogy. Well said.

Regards,

Arthur
Vaughn




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
...
Subject: PC flight simulators
From: "Scet"
Date: 11/19/03 10:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: PC flight simulators
From: "Scet"
Date: 11/18/03 10:28 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

been made using technology that is less than 2 years old?" You have no
idea
of the level of sophistication they have achieved, which includes
environmental conditions including weather and sea states. Remember
Art,
these aren't made by Microsoft

I think the general subject was about PC's, not AirForce real
simulators.

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

That's right Art it is, and since it is, I'll ask this question for the
third time, have you seen any of the current, (as in less than 12 months
old,) PC sims in use, and if you have what and where was it? I can't help
but feel your evading the question.

Scet


The question and subject is the use of PC's to learn to fly. Your
question
evades that issue and is therefore disengenious.

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

Yep just as I thought Art. You haven't even seen a PC simulator recently,
yet know what they are and aren't good for.
You won't answer that question because your full of crap.

Scet

"Vaughn" wrote in message
...

"Glenfiddich" wrote in message
...
I've got MSFS, and also once was paid to play with military-class
full-motion simulators (including Harrier).

I'd like to offer a simple test for whether any device is a game or a
"real" flight simulator - can it give you white knuckles?

I have a better test, one that many PC "flight simulator" fans say is
somehow unfair. Simply put a qualified pilot that has never "flown"
computers in front of your "flight simulator". If he can take off, fly
safely and return to earth (exactly the same as he could undoubtably do in
the real thing), then you MAY have made a real flight simulator. If he
can't, then whatever it is that you are simulating, it is not flight!

That said, even if PC sims are not "real", they should certainly
be counted as valid training aids.

That depends on exactly what you are simulating and what the training
objective is. Have you ever hear of "negative transfer"?

Vaughn

Thanks Vaughn, I was beginning to suffer from a complex....:-)) My 6000 hrs
didn't seem to help that much when I experimented on a PC sim......but my
friends 12 year old was a real ace ..:-))

BMC

Pete the real feeling of the fly not, it dont exist.
But the human factor,SA, and continues dogfighting 4-6-8 hours a day,
and the beats of your heart its a very Real combat feeling.=20
You dont read about Combat Manouvers, you do them.
When you check 6 every 3 sec at the mirror of your car,
when you answer in a question of your wife or of a friend or at job with
*roger* or *cc*, then you will know what im talking about

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 07:16:31 GMT, "Pete" wrote:


"Corey C. Jordan" wrote

Against any of the top guys in Aces High, I'd give any current Top Gun
pilot a maximum of 60 seconds after the merge before he's hanging in =
his
parachute wondering what had just happened. It's not easy coming into =
an
unfamiliar environment and having to compete against the best on the
planet at
this type of simulation.

Remember, some of these guys have more than 10,000 hours of combat
sim time. That's why many real fighter jocks come in, figure they'll =
do
well
and promptly cancel their account when they:

A) Realize that the learning curve is enormously steep.
B) Realize getting fully familiar with their chosen aircraft takes =
many
hours
in it.
C) Learn the strengths and weaknesses of enemy aircraft (over 70
possible).
D) Having to gear up their Situational Awareness to survive in an
environment

where 50 to 100 aircraft are within visual range.
E) Figure out that some fat guy sitting at a desk in Idaho has a =
better
understanding of ACM than they do.

But put that same Aces High desk jock in a real fighter, and you'll have
some poor crew chief spending the afternoon cleaning puke out of the
cockpit. If the jet comes back.

Familiarity in the particular environment. Spend a few hundred (or =
thousand)
hours working a particular tool (be it jet or sim) and you might get =
pretty
good. But being good in one does not instantly translate into being good=
in
the other.

A true Top Gun, but Aces High neophyte is working off a different set of
reflexes and responses. And conversely, the Aces High ace has =
internalized
the peculiarities and limitations of the PC sim environment.

Pete

In message , ArtKramr
writes
Subject: PC flight simulators
From: Andreas Maurer
Could you tell more about that simulator, Art?
How were the visuals done? What computed the flight model?

As I stated before, it was a real B-26 truncated behind the radio/Nav
compartment and mounted on a swive-l tilt base in a hanger.

large snip - good stuff

The run was over, We got out of the plane sweating and shaken. Note that I
call it a plane, not a simulator because to us it was a plane,not a simiulator.
And we were almost surprised to find that when we got out of the plane we were
in a hanger. Reality rushed back. That night we went to the officers club and
over a few Scotches we drank and kept saying. "holy ****. holy ****"

Adreas that is as I remember it. If you have any questions I will be glad to
answer them.

The key question, I suppose, is "was it useful to you"? Sounds like it
successfully scared the hell out of you and your crew, but also forced
you to deal with too much happening too fast, often with the "aircraft"
bouncing around and filling with smoke (the smoke generator, fans and
vents sound very effective).

Looking back on it after having done in combat what it was trying to
simulate, was it useful in training you or just preparing you?

--
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

Funny you should say that. I was just chatting with a 60 year old pilot who
had recently tried his son's flight simulator (FS2004) for the first time
and was able to land. He said he was impressed with what he saw.

Jarg

"Vaughn" wrote in message
...

"Glenfiddich" wrote in message
...
I've got MSFS, and also once was paid to play with military-class
full-motion simulators (including Harrier).

I'd like to offer a simple test for whether any device is a game or a
"real" flight simulator - can it give you white knuckles?

I have a better test, one that many PC "flight simulator" fans say is
somehow unfair. Simply put a qualified pilot that has never "flown"
computers in front of your "flight simulator". If he can take off, fly
safely and return to earth (exactly the same as he could undoubtably do in
the real thing), then you MAY have made a real flight simulator. If he
can't, then whatever it is that you are simulating, it is not flight!

That said, even if PC sims are not "real", they should certainly
be counted as valid training aids.

That depends on exactly what you are simulating and what the training
objective is. Have you ever hear of "negative transfer"?

Vaughn

Subject: PC flight simulators
From: "Paul J. Adam"
Date: 11/21/03 6:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In message , ArtKramr
writes
Subject: PC flight simulators
From: Andreas Maurer
Could you tell more about that simulator, Art?
How were the visuals done? What computed the flight model?

As I stated before, it was a real B-26 truncated behind the radio/Nav
compartment and mounted on a swive-l tilt base in a hanger.

large snip - good stuff

The run was over, We got out of the plane sweating and shaken. Note that I
call it a plane, not a simulator because to us it was a plane,not a
simiulator.
And we were almost surprised to find that when we got out of the plane we
were
in a hanger. Reality rushed back. That night we went to the officers club
and
over a few Scotches we drank and kept saying. "holy ****. holy ****"

Adreas that is as I remember it. If you have any questions I will be glad to
answer them.

The key question, I suppose, is "was it useful to you"? Sounds like it
successfully scared the hell out of you and your crew, but also forced
you to deal with too much happening too fast, often with the "aircraft"
bouncing around and filling with smoke (the smoke generator, fans and
vents sound very effective).

Looking back on it after having done in combat what it was trying to
simulate, was it useful in training you or just preparing you?

--

It was very useful. In fact just last night I was thinking about it and came to
some realisations that I haven't thought about in 60 years. It occured to me
that every time I started a bomb run, locked in the head and went on course
and, uncaged the gryo, flak concussions hit. This ended up in a tumbled
vertical flight gyro, Now to a Norden bombardier a tumbled guro is a nightmare
that requires a go around, a very dangerous procedure. And every time that
damned gyro tumbled I would have to frantically erect it by pressuring the
gumbal rings to get it erect and caged. I don't know how many, if anyone on
this NG has ever fought a tumbled gyro, but it is a dread experience. And that
hanger trainer gave me a lot of practice erecting and caging gyros. every time
we flew the trainer I became a bit faster and more proficient at getting that
gyro up and running again., It occured to me last night that those *******s
did it ail on purpose. The flak hiting once the gyro was uncaged was no
coincidence, it was programmed that way. And I guess it was a good thing in
the end because it sure built proficiency especially in B-26's. Why B-26's?
Well B-26's used to tear autopilots apart in short order. Therefore every
bomb run was done via PDI (PIlots directinal indicator). In other words the
pilot kept a needle centered as I operated the bombsight. If he did one
skidding uncordinated turn, he would tumble my gyro. That is much less of a
problen on other planes where the bomb runs were done on autopilot. So I can
see why the hanger trainer was set up to tumble gyros. Yup. I sure learned a
lot. And fast.Very fast..

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

Subject: PC flight simulators
From: "Jarg"
Date: 11/21/03 7:50 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Funny you should say that. I was just chatting with a 60 year old pilot who
had recently tried his son's flight simulator (FS2004) for the first time
and was able to land. He said he was impressed with what he saw.

Jarg

When I first got MSFS I got a big kickj out of shooting carrier landings (no
arresting wire) in a number of different planes. I got so good at it that I
could touch down at the first 6 inches of deck and brake to a stop before
running off the other end. I am certain that if you put me in a real plane I
could do those carrier landings easily even without the arresting wire. You
believe that don't you?. Wanna buy a bridge?

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