Change the name to trainers.

"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.

Obviously there's varying different methods and levels of fidelity. I'm not
trying to denegrate PC sims, I love 'em and it's the main reason why I spend
a fortune at regular intervals upgrading my PC. But I'm not under the
illusion that they compare in method or fidelity to the "real" thing.
(Favourites being Falcon 4 SP3, EAW and FS2002.)

A good example is at (generally) how badly departed flight is modelled. They
generally model the instability of the aircraft and its predicted behaviour
outside the envelope, rather than the extremely complicated chaotic dynamics
which go into causing that behaviour. Anyone who's performed spins and
stalls in a Cessna and then tried the same thing in MS-FS or any WW2 prop
sim will likely agree.

Si