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


Regards...

>Subject: PC flight simulators
>From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
>Date: 11/16/03 3:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
> I was wondering if anyone in this NG play simulators?
> If so, which one? What's the best out there, currently.
>
>
> Regards...

They are not really simulators. They are just computer games.
Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Take a look at:

http://www.x-plane.com/

There's some simulator companies that use this for FAA certification.
It's pretty complex, as you can have 10 computers running and all
networked together for the different views and gauges, etc.

I have a copy, but to tell the truth, the F-105 and F-4 simulators
seem pretty bogus to me.

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

"Gene Storey" > wrote in
news:rfUtb.225$Jz1.32@okepread03:

> Take a look at:
>
> http://www.x-plane.com/
>
> There's some simulator companies that use this for FAA
> certification. It's pretty complex, as you can have 10 computers
> running and all networked together for the different views and
> gauges, etc.
>
> I have a copy, but to tell the truth, the F-105 and F-4
> simulators seem pretty bogus to me.

Great, this seems to be exactly what I'm looking for. :)

Thank's!


Regards...


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

"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

(ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: PC flight simulators
>>From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
>>Date: 11/16/03 3:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>
>> I was wondering if anyone in this NG play simulators?
>> If so, which one? What's the best out there, currently.
>>
>>
>> Regards...
>
>They are not really simulators. They are just computer games.
>Arthur Kramer


Pretty inconsiderate Art...just because you don't play with them
why denigerate someone elses fun?

They do indeed simulate flight, so why do you make that stupid
statement?
--

-Gord.

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
> >>Subject: PC flight simulators
> >>From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
> >>Date: 11/16/03 3:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >>Message-id: >
> >>
> >>
> >> I was wondering if anyone in this NG play simulators?
> >> If so, which one? What's the best out there, currently.
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards...
> >
> >They are not really simulators. They are just computer games.
> >Arthur Kramer
>
>
> Pretty inconsiderate Art...just because you don't play with them
> why denigerate someone elses fun?
>
> They do indeed simulate flight, so why do you make that stupid
> statement?
> --
>
> -Gord.

I've used B-52, KC-135, Boeing 737, A-10 and LGM-30B simulators. Art is
right PC flight sims are computer games.

Tex

>>> Regards...
>>
>>They are not really simulators. They are just computer games.
>>Arthur Kramer

The PC software you can get now, is better than many real simulators, in terms
of what it can do.

Sure, a pc sim/game is not the same as a multi million dollar system, nor is it
meant to, but you can certainly have a lot more fun, while still learning a lot
about aviation, aircraft, systems, navigation, etc.


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

"Tex Houston" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>>
>> >>Subject: PC flight simulators
>> >>From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
>> >>Date: 11/16/03 3:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >>Message-id: >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I was wondering if anyone in this NG play simulators?
>> >> If so, which one? What's the best out there, currently.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Regards...
>> >
>> >They are not really simulators. They are just computer games.
>> >Arthur Kramer
>>
>>
>> Pretty inconsiderate Art...just because you don't play with them
>> why denigerate someone elses fun?
>>
>> They do indeed simulate flight, so why do you make that stupid
>> statement?
>> --
>>
>> -Gord.
>
>I've used B-52, KC-135, Boeing 737, A-10 and LGM-30B simulators. Art is
>right PC flight sims are computer games.
>
>Tex
>
Get a room for chrissakes...
--

-Gord.

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> Get a room for chrissakes...
> --
>
> -Gord.

I've always been polite to you even with a disagreement. Why are you all of
a sudden getting ****y with Art Kramer and me?

Bewildered,

Tex

>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>From: "Gord Beaman" )
>Date: 11/16/03 5:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: PC flight simulators
>>>From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
>>>Date: 11/16/03 3:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>
>>> I was wondering if anyone in this NG play simulators?
>>> If so, which one? What's the best out there, currently.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards...
>>
>>They are not really simulators. They are just computer games.
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>
>Pretty inconsiderate Art...just because you don't play with them
>why denigerate someone elses fun?
>
>They do indeed simulate flight, so why do you make that stupid
>statement?
>--
>
>-Gord.


I flew real simulators. And I have flown the crap they make for computers.And
anything that you can do on a computer isn't even close. If you want to fly
your computer for fun ok,bur remember it is just a toy. but don't confuse it
with real flying or flying a real simulator. I guess you have never flown Air
Force simulators. If you had you wouldn't be talking such patent nonsense. Now
be a good guy and just go away.

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: Re: PC flight simulators
>From: "Tex Houston"
>Date: 11/16/03 5:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>>
>> >>Subject: PC flight simulators
>> >>From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
>> >>Date: 11/16/03 3:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >>Message-id: >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I was wondering if anyone in this NG play simulators?
>> >> If so, which one? What's the best out there, currently.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Regards...
>> >
>> >They are not really simulators. They are just computer games.
>> >Arthur Kramer
>>
>>
>> Pretty inconsiderate Art...just because you don't play with them
>> why denigerate someone elses fun?
>>
>> They do indeed simulate flight, so why do you make that stupid
>> statement?
>> --
>>
>> -Gord.
>
>I've used B-52, KC-135, Boeing 737, A-10 and LGM-30B simulators. Art is
>right PC flight sims are computer games.
>
>Tex
>
>


Thanks Tex. I am glad to see that someone around here is in touch with reality.

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: Re: PC flight simulators
>From: "Vicente Vazquez"
>Date: 11/16/03 7:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"ArtKramr" > escreveu na mensagem
...
>> They are not really simulators. They are just computer games.
>
>Mr. Kramer,
>
>Some of them, like "Microsoft Flight Simulator", are actually more like
>simulators than games. If you check them out, you will also notice that
>there are no such things as "scores" or "adversaries". It's just plain
>flight. They might not be "reallistic" simulators, but that's another
>question.
>
>Vicente
>
>
No. That is not another question. That is THE question.I am familiar with
Flight Simulator. It might be interesting. It migt be fun. But it is not flying
or anything close.



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

"Tex Houston" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> Get a room for chrissakes...
>> --
>>
>> -Gord.
>
>I've always been polite to you even with a disagreement. Why are you all of
>a sudden getting ****y with Art Kramer and me?
>
>Bewildered,
>
>Tex
>
Sorry Tex, I agree, I usually don't sink to that level...I just
so disagree with Art's intolerance that I flew off the handle I
guess...you'd think that I was a flight sim guy wouldn't you.
Don't own one. I just find AK so frikkin negative.
--

-Gord.

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.
Now, if you want to practice instrument flight and work on your scan
technique, Mcsft Flt Sim is quite adequate. Unfortunately no sim gives
you 'real motion.' You will definitely notice the sensations of motion
in the real aircraft, however. These must be ignored and will take
some getting used to. Your flight instructor should explain them to
you. Believe your instruments!
Walt BJ

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> I flew real simulators. And I have flown the crap they make for
computers.And
> anything that you can do on a computer isn't even close. If you want to
fly
> your computer for fun ok,bur remember it is just a toy. but don't confuse
it
> with real flying or flying a real simulator. I guess you have never flown
Air
> Force simulators. If you had you wouldn't be talking such patent nonsense.
Now
> be a good guy and just go away.


I think it depends on what you are trying to simulate. If you are
studying instrument procedures, then a good PC sim may make a great
procedure trainer. If you want to learn how to fly, then every PC sim that
I have seen so far is worse than useless. Without motion, without a wide
view, without being able to look out the side window and back to judge your
downwind-to-base turn, without true feedback on your controls, without true
"butt feel" of accelerative forces, without a whole bunch of other stuff;
you are wasting your time and perhaps "learning" something dangerously
wrong.

If you just want to have fun with your PC, go for it!

Vaughn (a flight instructor)

(ArtKramr) wrote:

>
>
>I flew real simulators. And I have flown the crap they make for computers.And
>anything that you can do on a computer isn't even close. If you want to fly
>your computer for fun ok,bur remember it is just a toy. but don't confuse it
>with real flying or flying a real simulator. I guess you have never flown Air
>Force simulators. If you had you wouldn't be talking such patent nonsense. Now
>be a good guy and just go away.
>
>Arthur Kramer

Whaaaatever you say Arthur...you da MAN after all...

--

-Gord.

>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>From: "Vaughn"
>Date: 11/16/03 6:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:

>ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> I flew real simulators. And I have flown the crap they make for
>computers.And
>> anything that you can do on a computer isn't even close. If you want to
>fly
>> your computer for fun ok,bur remember it is just a toy. but don't confuse
>it
>> with real flying or flying a real simulator. I guess you have never flown
>Air
>> Force simulators. If you had you wouldn't be talking such patent nonsense.
>Now
>> be a good guy and just go away.
>
>
> I think it depends on what you are trying to simulate. If you are
>studying instrument procedures, then a good PC sim may make a great
>procedure trainer. If you want to learn how to fly, then every PC sim that
>I have seen so far is worse than useless. Without motion, without a wide
>view, without being able to look out the side window and back to judge your
>downwind-to-base turn, without true feedback on your controls, without true
>"butt feel" of accelerative forces, without a whole bunch of other stuff;
>you are wasting your time and perhaps "learning" something dangerously
>wrong.
>
> If you just want to have fun with your PC, go for it!
>
>Vaughn (a flight instructor)
>
>

Good sense all the way. We must never lose a firm grip on reality. And those
who urge others to take flight simulators seriously to learn how to fly, are
themselves playing a very dangerous game. We have to protect the innocent
against the unprincipled and the unknowing. You stated it quite well..




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

Maybe so but.....

http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/01/26/missile.idg/

Jarg

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: PC flight simulators
> >From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
> >Date: 11/16/03 3:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> > I was wondering if anyone in this NG play simulators?
> > If so, which one? What's the best out there, currently.
> >
> >
> > Regards...
>
> They are not really simulators. They are just computer games.
> 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" > escreveu na mensagem
...
> They are not really simulators. They are just computer games.

Mr. Kramer,

Some of them, like "Microsoft Flight Simulator", are actually more like
simulators than games. If you check them out, you will also notice that
there are no such things as "scores" or "adversaries". It's just plain
flight. They might not be "reallistic" simulators, but that's another
question.

Vicente

>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>From: "Jarg"
>Date: 11/16/03 7:41 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Maybe so but.....
>
>http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/01/26/missile.idg/
>
>Jarg
>


No comment.

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: Re: PC flight simulators
> >From: "Vaughn"
> >Date: 11/16/03 6:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id:
>
> >ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> I flew real simulators. And I have flown the crap they make for
> >computers.And
> >> anything that you can do on a computer isn't even close. If you want to
> >fly
> >> your computer for fun ok,bur remember it is just a toy. but don't
confuse
> >it
> >> with real flying or flying a real simulator. I guess you have never
flown
> >Air
> >> Force simulators. If you had you wouldn't be talking such patent
nonsense.
> >Now
> >> be a good guy and just go away.
> >
> >
> > I think it depends on what you are trying to simulate. If you are
> >studying instrument procedures, then a good PC sim may make a great
> >procedure trainer. If you want to learn how to fly, then every PC sim
that
> >I have seen so far is worse than useless. Without motion, without a wide
> >view, without being able to look out the side window and back to judge
your
> >downwind-to-base turn, without true feedback on your controls, without
true
> >"butt feel" of accelerative forces, without a whole bunch of other stuff;
> >you are wasting your time and perhaps "learning" something dangerously
> >wrong.
> >
> > If you just want to have fun with your PC, go for it!
> >
> >Vaughn (a flight instructor)
> >
> >
>
> Good sense all the way. We must never lose a firm grip on reality. And
those
> who urge others to take flight simulators seriously to learn how to fly,
are
> themselves playing a very dangerous game. We have to protect the innocent
> against the unprincipled and the unknowing. You stated it quite well..

Art, for the love of pete, get a grip on reality. REREAD THE INITIAL POST
you loon!!! The guy, looks like from a Scandanavian country, asked which
simulator people in the NG "play" with!!! Are you consuming mass quantities
of caffeine??

After reading that initial post, look at your nonsensical, standing on a
soapbox, idiotic post above.

Jim
Sims Flown: Link, T-38, B-52, B-1B and B-727, Former Instructor Pilot in
the T-38,B-52, B-1B aircraft and simulator.
AND, I play with the Microsoft Flight Sim sometimes just for the hell of it.

>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>From: "Jim Baker"
>Date: 11/16/03 8:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>

>fter reading that initial post, look at your nonsensical, standing on a
>soapbox, idiotic post above.
>
>Jim
>Sims Flown: Link, T-38, B-52, B-1B and B-727, Former Instructor Pilot in
>the T-38,B-52, B-1B aircraft and simulator.
>AND, I play with the Microsoft Flight Sim sometimes just for the hell of it.
>
>

PLONK !
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: Re: PC flight simulators
> >From: "Jim Baker"
> >Date: 11/16/03 8:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
>
> >fter reading that initial post, look at your nonsensical, standing on a
> >soapbox, idiotic post above.
> >
> >Jim
> >Sims Flown: Link, T-38, B-52, B-1B and B-727, Former Instructor Pilot in
> >the T-38,B-52, B-1B aircraft and simulator.
> >AND, I play with the Microsoft Flight Sim sometimes just for the hell of
it.
> >
> >
>
> PLONK !
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Seriously Art, get some help. I'm not one of the guys who baits you,
harasses you or gets into verbal fights with you. However, with great
sincerity and no animosity whatever, based on this thread, I think you're
having some kind of breakdown.

Regards,

Jim

>From: "Tex Houston" message

>I've used B-52, KC-135, Boeing 737, A-10 and LGM-30B simulators. Art is
>right PC flight sims are computer games.
>
>Tex

I flew the KC-135 flight sim the same day I flew the FB-111 sim. After spending
a morning on the KC-135 sim the FB-111 seemed squirrely. I guess the difference
is the acreage of the wings.

I have also flown the C-130, F-4E and F-15 flight sims. If anyone wants to buy
me an F-15 flight sim for Christmas I'd be polite and accept.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

On 16 Nov 2003 18:51:41 -0800, (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.

Every "game" simulator I've ever flown seemed to use the same math
model, one that, as you say, was not dynamically possible. Fun's fun,
but physics is physics.

> Now, if you want to practice instrument flight and work on your scan
> technique, Mcsft Flt Sim is quite adequate. Unfortunately no sim gives
> you 'real motion.' You will definitely notice the sensations of motion
> in the real aircraft, however. These must be ignored and will take
> some getting used to. Your flight instructor should explain them to
> you. Believe your instruments!

When I was at the F-18 RAG/FRS, they had three simulators, of three
entirely different levels of sophistication. The simplest one was
really just for practicing switchology on. The most realistic one had
a real cockpit and dome, with incredibly good CGI and the ability to
link with the other dome sim to fly in a two-man in a common scenario.
The third was about halfway between these two.

Each one has a place in the training. Sometimes all you want is a
cockpit with switches and working displays. Sometimes you want to fly
IFR. Sometimes you want to fly with every cue but motion, including a
wingman. If you've got the money and the technology, you can do that.
The airlines use moving-base simulations that are so good that the FAA
accepts them as being equal to actual flight for training. A lot of
airline pilots fly the airplane for the first time on their check
flight.

This level of simulation costs a lot of money. About as much as
actually flying. Even with the large general market that PC
simulations (for this discussion, MACs are PCs) have, which reduces
the cost of the software to very reasonable levels for entertainment,
just as it reduces the cost of the controllers, there's no way that
the complexity comes even vaguely close to the complexity of dome sims
or moving-base sims. It just can't. The sims are too generic, partly
because there just isn't enough time and space for a detailed math
model, because the FCS is proprietary and much too big to be modeled,
because the control surfaces aren't modeled correctly, the mass model
isn't right, and so on.

However, if someone is trying to learn switchology, etc, there are
simulators that resemble the PTT, Part-Task Trainer, that the USN
uses. They do have some value.

However, learning to "fly" with a fixed-base, low-fidelity sim game
isn't going to happen. All that will happen is that the student will
pick up responses and habits that will have to be unlearned before the
correct responses and habits can be acquired in the actual airplane.
I've heard flight instructors complaining about how they can always
tell if someone plays with MS Flight Simulator a lot, because it takes
a lot longer to teach them how to fly the actual airplane.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"ArtKramr" > wrote
> >
> >I've used B-52, KC-135, Boeing 737, A-10 and LGM-30B simulators. Art is
> >right PC flight sims are computer games.
> >
> >Tex
>
>
> Thanks Tex. I am glad to see that someone around here is in touch with reality.

Not you two obviously...

I can take two people off the street into the 757 simulator; one who plays simulators,
and one who doesn't (both technical people). If I ask them both to set up the comm,
navigation, and take-off trim, only the simulator person has a clue.

While a pc simulator can be considered a game, the effect is more than that. The
user is developing skills that can be translated to any modern transport. Most can
easily get airborne (even with extreme weight and balance limits), while landing is
a bit harder, as they almost all want to be too fast with large inputs.

X-plane is probably my favorite, because you can have an instructor console,
and with four more PC's you can use 3 LCD projectors to provide the view
out the windows, and the instrument panel. Except for the lack of motion, it
is very good at getting a person up to speed for the full-motion simulator, and
not waste time with the bull**** level stuff.

>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>From: Mary Shafer
>Date: 11/16/03 9:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 16 Nov 2003 18:51:41 -0800, (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.
>
>Every "game" simulator I've ever flown seemed to use the same math
>model, one that, as you say, was not dynamically possible. Fun's fun,
>but physics is physics.
>
>> Now, if you want to practice instrument flight and work on your scan
>> technique, Mcsft Flt Sim is quite adequate. Unfortunately no sim gives
>> you 'real motion.' You will definitely notice the sensations of motion
>> in the real aircraft, however. These must be ignored and will take
>> some getting used to. Your flight instructor should explain them to
>> you. Believe your instruments!
>
>When I was at the F-18 RAG/FRS, they had three simulators, of three
>entirely different levels of sophistication. The simplest one was
>really just for practicing switchology on. The most realistic one had
>a real cockpit and dome, with incredibly good CGI and the ability to
>link with the other dome sim to fly in a two-man in a common scenario.
>The third was about halfway between these two.
>
>Each one has a place in the training. Sometimes all you want is a
>cockpit with switches and working displays. Sometimes you want to fly
>IFR. Sometimes you want to fly with every cue but motion, including a
>wingman. If you've got the money and the technology, you can do that.
>The airlines use moving-base simulations that are so good that the FAA
>accepts them as being equal to actual flight for training. A lot of
>airline pilots fly the airplane for the first time on their check
>flight.
>
>This level of simulation costs a lot of money. About as much as
>actually flying. Even with the large general market that PC
>simulations (for this discussion, MACs are PCs) have, which reduces
>the cost of the software to very reasonable levels for entertainment,
>just as it reduces the cost of the controllers, there's no way that
>the complexity comes even vaguely close to the complexity of dome sims
>or moving-base sims. It just can't. The sims are too generic, partly
>because there just isn't enough time and space for a detailed math
>model, because the FCS is proprietary and much too big to be modeled,
>because the control surfaces aren't modeled correctly, the mass model
>isn't right, and so on.
>
>However, if someone is trying to learn switchology, etc, there are
>simulators that resemble the PTT, Part-Task Trainer, that the USN
>uses. They do have some value.
>
>However, learning to "fly" with a fixed-base, low-fidelity sim game
>isn't going to happen. All that will happen is that the student will
>pick up responses and habits that will have to be unlearned before the
>correct responses and habits can be acquired in the actual airplane.
>I've heard flight instructors complaining about how they can always
>tell if someone plays with MS Flight Simulator a lot, because it takes
>a lot longer to teach them how to fly the actual airplane.
>
>Mary
>
>--
>Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer


Good rundown. In 1943 I flew a simulator that was the cockpit and nose of a
B-26 complete with full reality sounds and feeling to the controls plus rough
air effects..My pilot was in the cockpit and we flew the simulator as a crew. I
did bombruns over Berlin that unrolled under us with accurate engine sounds and
flak impacts. It was as close as you could get to actual flying in combat
bombing and navigating. In fact we often got lost in the trainer procedure and
actually felt we were in the air on bomb runs, Comparing that to a PC is just
total a stretch beyond all reason.


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 news:20031116185355.19890.00000389
@mb-m02.aol.com:
> "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:
>>
>> I was wondering if anyone in this NG play simulators?
>> If so, which one? What's the best out there, currently.
>
> They are not really simulators. They are just computer games.

Hense his use of the word "play".

(ArtKramr) wrote:

>
>
>No comment.
>
>Arthur Kramer

Maybe not Art but you've gotten some good advice here and it
really would have helped your image if you had just said:

"Gee, guess this one does seem to have value doesn't it"
(or something similar).

I really don't expect to see this from you though.

It's a pretty telling statement when the USN thinks this highly
of a 'toy':

quote: (of Jarg's URL)
(IDG) -- Armchair jet jockeys play Microsoft Corp.'s Flight
Simulator on their PCs to capture a bit of the thrill of the real
thing, which replicates an actual flight experience closely
enough that the Navy is making its customized version of Flight
Simulator standard issue for all student naval aviators.
unquote

Replicates yet!...WooHoo, high praise indeed!.


--

-Gord.

wow


On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 21:11:40 -0800, Mary Shafer >
wrote:

>On 16 Nov 2003 18:51:41 -0800, (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.
>
>Every "game" simulator I've ever flown seemed to use the same math
>model, one that, as you say, was not dynamically possible. Fun's fun,
>but physics is physics.
>
>> Now, if you want to practice instrument flight and work on your scan
>> technique, Mcsft Flt Sim is quite adequate. Unfortunately no sim gives
>> you 'real motion.' You will definitely notice the sensations of motion
>> in the real aircraft, however. These must be ignored and will take
>> some getting used to. Your flight instructor should explain them to
>> you. Believe your instruments!
>
>When I was at the F-18 RAG/FRS, they had three simulators, of three
>entirely different levels of sophistication. The simplest one was
>really just for practicing switchology on. The most realistic one had
>a real cockpit and dome, with incredibly good CGI and the ability to
>link with the other dome sim to fly in a two-man in a common scenario.
>The third was about halfway between these two.
>
>Each one has a place in the training. Sometimes all you want is a
>cockpit with switches and working displays. Sometimes you want to fly
>IFR. Sometimes you want to fly with every cue but motion, including a
>wingman. If you've got the money and the technology, you can do that.
>The airlines use moving-base simulations that are so good that the FAA
>accepts them as being equal to actual flight for training. A lot of
>airline pilots fly the airplane for the first time on their check
>flight.
>
>This level of simulation costs a lot of money. About as much as
>actually flying. Even with the large general market that PC
>simulations (for this discussion, MACs are PCs) have, which reduces
>the cost of the software to very reasonable levels for entertainment,
>just as it reduces the cost of the controllers, there's no way that
>the complexity comes even vaguely close to the complexity of dome sims
>or moving-base sims. It just can't. The sims are too generic, partly
>because there just isn't enough time and space for a detailed math
>model, because the FCS is proprietary and much too big to be modeled,
>because the control surfaces aren't modeled correctly, the mass model
>isn't right, and so on.
>
>However, if someone is trying to learn switchology, etc, there are
>simulators that resemble the PTT, Part-Task Trainer, that the USN
>uses. They do have some value.
>
>However, learning to "fly" with a fixed-base, low-fidelity sim game
>isn't going to happen. All that will happen is that the student will
>pick up responses and habits that will have to be unlearned before the
>correct responses and habits can be acquired in the actual airplane.
>I've heard flight instructors complaining about how they can always
>tell if someone plays with MS Flight Simulator a lot, because it takes
>a lot longer to teach them how to fly the actual airplane.
>
>Mary

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Tex Houston" message
>
> >I've used B-52, KC-135, Boeing 737, A-10 and LGM-30B simulators. Art is
> >right PC flight sims are computer games.
> >
> >Tex
>
> I flew the KC-135 flight sim the same day I flew the FB-111 sim. After
spending
> a morning on the KC-135 sim the FB-111 seemed squirrely. I guess the
difference
> is the acreage of the wings.
>
> I have also flown the C-130, F-4E and F-15 flight sims. If anyone wants to
buy
> me an F-15 flight sim for Christmas I'd be polite and accept.

The only flight sim I've flown was long ago for the RF-101.
Compared to it, some of the games now on the market will
do if outfitted with proper controls.

>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>From: user
>Date: 11/16/03 10:24 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>wow
>
>
>On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 21:11:40 -0800, Mary Shafer >
>wrote:
>
>>On 16 Nov 2003 18:51:41 -0800, (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.
>>
>>Every "game" simulator I've ever flown seemed to use the same math
>>model, one that, as you say, was not dynamically possible. Fun's fun,
>>but physics is physics.
>>
>>> Now, if you want to practice instrument flight and work on your scan
>>> technique, Mcsft Flt Sim is quite adequate. Unfortunately no sim gives
>>> you 'real motion.' You will definitely notice the sensations of motion
>>> in the real aircraft, however. These must be ignored and will take
>>> some getting used to. Your flight instructor should explain them to
>>> you. Believe your instruments!
>>
>>When I was at the F-18 RAG/FRS, they had three simulators, of three
>>entirely different levels of sophistication. The simplest one was
>>really just for practicing switchology on. The most realistic one had
>>a real cockpit and dome, with incredibly good CGI and the ability to
>>link with the other dome sim to fly in a two-man in a common scenario.
>>The third was about halfway between these two.
>>
>>Each one has a place in the training. Sometimes all you want is a
>>cockpit with switches and working displays. Sometimes you want to fly
>>IFR. Sometimes you want to fly with every cue but motion, including a
>>wingman. If you've got the money and the technology, you can do that.
>>The airlines use moving-base simulations that are so good that the FAA
>>accepts them as being equal to actual flight for training. A lot of
>>airline pilots fly the airplane for the first time on their check
>>flight.
>>
>>This level of simulation costs a lot of money. About as much as
>>actually flying. Even with the large general market that PC
>>simulations (for this discussion, MACs are PCs) have, which reduces
>>the cost of the software to very reasonable levels for entertainment,
>>just as it reduces the cost of the controllers, there's no way that
>>the complexity comes even vaguely close to the complexity of dome sims
>>or moving-base sims. It just can't. The sims are too generic, partly
>>because there just isn't enough time and space for a detailed math
>>model, because the FCS is proprietary and much too big to be modeled,
>>because the control surfaces aren't modeled correctly, the mass model
>>isn't right, and so on.
>>
>>However, if someone is trying to learn switchology, etc, there are
>>simulators that resemble the PTT, Part-Task Trainer, that the USN
>>uses. They do have some value.
>>
>>However, learning to "fly" with a fixed-base, low-fidelity sim game
>>isn't going to happen. All that will happen is that the student will
>>pick up responses and habits that will have to be unlearned before the
>>correct responses and habits can be acquired in the actual airplane.
>>I've heard flight instructors complaining about how they can always
>>tell if someone plays with MS Flight Simulator a lot, because it takes
>>a lot longer to teach them how to fly the actual airplane.
>>
>>Mary
>

Those FS programs can be quite counterproductive and in some cases destructive


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

>
>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.

Well most any sim from Janes will be a "survey" type sim, where they try have
the options of flying many different aircraft, and just vary the flight model a
bit from each one.

I know in Janes USAF, the F-105 sure did not need much runway to take off,
which I am pretty sure Ed can verify was not the case.

But others, like Falcon 4.0, were much more realistic, where you had to
actually flip the flight control override switch, and rock it out of a stall,
much like viper pilots have told me you do.

SU-27 Flanker (2.5 version), and the upcoming LO-MAC (Lock on :Modern air
combat) from the same company, are rather impressive

LOMAC will be interesting

http://www.lo-mac.com/



Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

>
>Every "game" simulator I've ever flown seemed to use the same math
>model, one that, as you say, was not dynamically possible. Fun's fun,
>but physics is physics.
>

Actually one that I found, which had an outstanding flight model, was A-10 Cuba
back from 1997.

They concentrated more on getting the only the A-10 modeled correctly, and
worried less about eye candy or having other planes you could fly. Its still
fun to go fly around with, because of that.




Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: PC flight simulators
> >From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
> >Date: 11/16/03 3:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> > I was wondering if anyone in this NG play simulators?
> > If so, which one? What's the best out there, currently.
> >
> >
> > Regards...
>
> They are not really simulators. They are just computer games.
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Have you had a look at some of these "games" lately Art?

Scet
>

(Ron) wrote in
:

> SU-27 Flanker (2.5 version), and the upcoming LO-MAC (Lock on :Modern
> air combat) from the same company, are rather impressive
>
> LOMAC will be interesting
>
> http://www.lo-mac.com/


The graphic is amazing:

http://www.lo-mac.com/screens.php?id=728
http://www.lo-mac.com/screenshots.php


They even have the Penguin MK3 in there (second row, far
right):

http://www.lo-mac.com/screens.php?id=384


Though I can pretty much say that the paint scheeme on the
Norwegian MLU Vipers there is wrong (should be all light gray).



Regards...

>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>From: "Scet"
>Date: 11/17/03 1:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: PC flight simulators
>> >From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
>> >Date: 11/16/03 3:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >
>> > I was wondering if anyone in this NG play simulators?
>> > If so, which one? What's the best out there, currently.
>> >
>> >
>> > Regards...
>>
>> They are not really simulators. They are just computer games.
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
>Have you had a look at some of these "games" lately Art?
>
>Scet
>>
>
>
>


Read Mary's message. She said it best.

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 17 Nov 2003 02:29:49 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>>From: "Gord Beaman" )
>>Date: 11/16/03 5:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
(ArtKramr) wrote:
>>
>>>They are not really simulators. They are just computer games.
>>>Arthur Kramer
>>
>>
>>Pretty inconsiderate Art...just because you don't play with them
>>why denigerate someone elses fun?

>I flew real simulators. And I have flown the crap they make for computers.And
>anything that you can do on a computer isn't even close. If you want to fly
>your computer for fun ok,bur remember it is just a toy. but don't confuse it
>with real flying or flying a real simulator. I guess you have never flown Air
>Force simulators. If you had you wouldn't be talking such patent nonsense. Now
>be a good guy and just go away.
>
>Arthur Kramer

Well, I've got to disagree, Art. I've not had the opportunity to fly
the latest operational simulators, but will be the first to
acknowledge the incredible state of the simulation art. They make it
almost practical to conduct total training on the ground without ever
getting airborne. Certainly the heavy jet simulation capability is a
$$$-saver for the airline industry.

But (there's always a "but" somewhere in the background), several
years ago while working at Northrop on ATF (the F-23 program), we were
grappling with the best way to train fighter pilots for that elusive
capability called "SA"--situational awareness. It's the sort of "big
picture" that the best tactical aviators can carry in their head which
allows them to know instinctively where their support is, where the
bad guy's support is, which way is "bug out", how much longer they can
stay engaged, and what to do ten, fifteen and thirty seconds into the
future.

We had a massive mainframe computer running three domes and capable of
being reprogrammed to flight models of virtually anything the
designers could propose. We did trade-off evals of RCS
(radar-cross-section) changes against flight agility. We did full
instrumentation mock-ups to test symbology and ergonomics, but we
weren't satisfied with SA training.

What did work, surprisingly well, was a system of linked "desk-top"
stations that let us increase the number of players to 12 and then to
24 plus computer generated entities. A 25 inch color monitor,
configurable for instrument, HUD and sensor display; a stick grip ala
F-16, and a throttle. No motion, no video, no detailed cockpit mockup.

Surprisingly, a cadre of highly experienced tactical aviators--FWS,
Top Gun, test pilots (Edwards & Pax River)--all quickly became
immersed in the "video games". We learned a lot about teaching higher
level tactical analysis, force integration and weapons employment
without the clutter and overhead of multi-million dollar massively
mobile flight simulators.

If you want to learn to fly the jet, full motion or video simulators
are great. If you want to learn how to integrate the force and fight
the weapons in many-v-many scenarios there is a place for PC based,
network simulations.

IMNSHO.

>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 11/17/03 7:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 17 Nov 2003 02:29:49 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>>>From: "Gord Beaman" )
>>>Date: 11/16/03 5:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
(ArtKramr) wrote:
>>>
>>>>They are not really simulators. They are just computer games.
>>>>Arthur Kramer
>>>
>>>
>>>Pretty inconsiderate Art...just because you don't play with them
>>>why denigerate someone elses fun?
>
>>I flew real simulators. And I have flown the crap they make for
>computers.And
>>anything that you can do on a computer isn't even close. If you want to fly
>>your computer for fun ok,bur remember it is just a toy. but don't confuse
>it
>>with real flying or flying a real simulator. I guess you have never flown
>Air
>>Force simulators. If you had you wouldn't be talking such patent nonsense.
>Now
>>be a good guy and just go away.
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>Well, I've got to disagree, Art. I've not had the opportunity to fly
>the latest operational simulators, but will be the first to
>acknowledge the incredible state of the simulation art. They make it
>almost practical to conduct total training on the ground without ever
>getting airborne. Certainly the heavy jet simulation capability is a
>$$$-saver for the airline industry.
>
>But (there's always a "but" somewhere in the background), several
>years ago while working at Northrop on ATF (the F-23 program), we were
>grappling with the best way to train fighter pilots for that elusive
>capability called "SA"--situational awareness. It's the sort of "big
>picture" that the best tactical aviators can carry in their head which
>allows them to know instinctively where their support is, where the
>bad guy's support is, which way is "bug out", how much longer they can
>stay engaged, and what to do ten, fifteen and thirty seconds into the
>future.
>
>We had a massive mainframe computer running three domes and capable of
>being reprogrammed to flight models of virtually anything the
>designers could propose. We did trade-off evals of RCS
>(radar-cross-section) changes against flight agility. We did full
>instrumentation mock-ups to test symbology and ergonomics, but we
>weren't satisfied with SA training.
>
>What did work, surprisingly well, was a system of linked "desk-top"
>stations that let us increase the number of players to 12 and then to
>24 plus computer generated entities. A 25 inch color monitor,
>configurable for instrument, HUD and sensor display; a stick grip ala
>F-16, and a throttle. No motion, no video, no detailed cockpit mockup.
>
>Surprisingly, a cadre of highly experienced tactical aviators--FWS,
>Top Gun, test pilots (Edwards & Pax River)--all quickly became
>immersed in the "video games". We learned a lot about teaching higher
>level tactical analysis, force integration and weapons employment
>without the clutter and overhead of multi-million dollar massively
>mobile flight simulators.
>
>If you want to learn to fly the jet, full motion or video simulators
>are great. If you want to learn how to integrate the force and fight
>the weapons in many-v-many scenarios there is a place for PC based,
>network simulations.
>
>IMNSHO.
>

I understand. But you are hardly talking about Flight Simulator on a home
computer are you? Sounds like what youy are decribing is way out if the reach
of anyone with a home setup..You are also talking about a highly specialised
dedicated setup to solve very specific puposes. Not the sort of stuff readily
available at Best Buy is it?



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 Sun, 16 Nov 2003 21:11:40 -0800, Mary Shafer >
wrote:

>Every "game" simulator I've ever flown seemed to use the same math
>model, one that, as you say, was not dynamically possible. Fun's fun,
>but physics is physics.

.... yet any game uses a completely different engine to create the
flight model. The differences are where the game engine does its short
cuts to allow realtime operation.


>The sims are too generic, partly
>because there just isn't enough time and space for a detailed math
>model, because the FCS is proprietary and much too big to be modeled,
>because the control surfaces aren't modeled correctly, the mass model
>isn't right, and so on.

The main problem of PC flight simulations is that the performance of a
PC is not sufficient to calculate a realtime aerodynamic simulation.
Mass models are ok these days in most flight sims, as well as
performance and envelope data which are in some cases very close to
reality. Only few PC simulations even try to simulate engine torqe
effects on prop aircraft.

The problems start if the simulated aircraft does non-linear maneuvers
(post-stall, spins) - this is when some PC simulations can get very
erratic because their simplified physics model needs to rely on
pre-calculated data (to save computing time). The result is either a
"standard" stall routine (always the same spin, independent on how you
entered it), or erratic movements that does not even look close to
what a real aircraft would do.

So far the only PC simulations that attempt to simulate post-stall
effects are MS Flight Sim 2002 and 2004, MS Combat Flight Sim 2 and 3,
and X-Plane, but the results are not entirely convincing yet.

Any PC simulator is (of course) handicapped most by the input devices
- a PC joystick and a mouse simply cannot give even a similar feeling
to the stick of a real aircraft (or a full cockpit simulator).This is
the cause why the characteristics of a PC simulated aircraft cannot be
even similar to the real thing, even if the performance data
throughout the envelope are very similar.



>However, learning to "fly" with a fixed-base, low-fidelity sim game
>isn't going to happen. All that will happen is that the student will
>pick up responses and habits that will have to be unlearned before the
>correct responses and habits can be acquired in the actual airplane.
>I've heard flight instructors complaining about how they can always
>tell if someone plays with MS Flight Simulator a lot, because it takes
>a lot longer to teach them how to fly the actual airplane.

Indeed.
The training effect concerning a PC simulator is that of a procedure
trainer. You can learn to fly standard procedures (even with ATC these
days), learn to program an FMC, to learn where to look at to keep the
plane under control, but the feeling of flight cannot be learned.
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).


There are a number of pretty realistic combat flight simulators out
there that simulate aerial combat. If the game engine is good,
real-world combat tactics need to be flown in these games to win a
dogfight. It might be interesting to compare such a game to real-world
dogfighting.

Bye
Andreas

On 17 Nov 2003 15:47:29 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>>From: Ed Rasimus
>>Date: 11/17/03 7:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >

>>But (there's always a "but" somewhere in the background), several
>>years ago while working at Northrop on ATF (the F-23 program), we were
>>grappling with the best way to train fighter pilots for that elusive
>>capability called "SA"--situational awareness. It's the sort of "big
>>picture" that the best tactical aviators can carry in their head which
>>allows them to know instinctively where their support is, where the
>>bad guy's support is, which way is "bug out", how much longer they can
>>stay engaged, and what to do ten, fifteen and thirty seconds into the
>>future.
>>
>>What did work, surprisingly well, was a system of linked "desk-top"
>>stations that let us increase the number of players to 12 and then to
>>24 plus computer generated entities. A 25 inch color monitor,
>>configurable for instrument, HUD and sensor display; a stick grip ala
>>F-16, and a throttle. No motion, no video, no detailed cockpit mockup.
>>
>>Surprisingly, a cadre of highly experienced tactical aviators--FWS,
>>Top Gun, test pilots (Edwards & Pax River)--all quickly became
>>immersed in the "video games". We learned a lot about teaching higher
>>level tactical analysis, force integration and weapons employment
>>without the clutter and overhead of multi-million dollar massively
>>mobile flight simulators.
>>
>>If you want to learn to fly the jet, full motion or video simulators
>>are great. If you want to learn how to integrate the force and fight
>>the weapons in many-v-many scenarios there is a place for PC based,
>>network simulations.
>>
>>IMNSHO.
>>
>
>I understand. But you are hardly talking about Flight Simulator on a home
>computer are you? Sounds like what youy are decribing is way out if the reach
>of anyone with a home setup..You are also talking about a highly specialised
>dedicated setup to solve very specific puposes. Not the sort of stuff readily
>available at Best Buy is it?
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

Actually the sort of stuff that is currently available to home users
that portrays F-16, F/A-18, Tornado, etc, is much more detailed than
what we were using in terms of the cockpit displays. The off-the-shelf
controllers available at Best Buy are more realistic than what we
used. And, most importantly, the proliferation of high-speed Internet
access makes it possible to network war-game to levels that weren't
even considered in what we were doing at Northrop.

Now, whether someone is simply boring holes at random, shooting at
everyone that comes across the canopy or whether one is engaged in a
conscientious tactical training scenario is something else.

What we had hoped to do, and what is readily available to any home
user today, is to train by networking squadron to squadron, base to
base to build scenarios of virtually any size. Certainly the mix of
full motion and video, full cockpit simulations with the PC desktops
isn't in the cards for home users, but the experience of dealing with
complex battles, mutual support, total sensor integration and lots of
unknowns that typify real combat is.

In other words, don't jump to conclusions and be too eager to discount
the simple solution to a complex problem. Shave and a haircut, Mr.
Occam?

>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 11/17/03 8:24 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 17 Nov 2003 15:47:29 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>>>From: Ed Rasimus
>>>Date: 11/17/03 7:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: >
>
>>>But (there's always a "but" somewhere in the background), several
>>>years ago while working at Northrop on ATF (the F-23 program), we were
>>>grappling with the best way to train fighter pilots for that elusive
>>>capability called "SA"--situational awareness. It's the sort of "big
>>>picture" that the best tactical aviators can carry in their head which
>>>allows them to know instinctively where their support is, where the
>>>bad guy's support is, which way is "bug out", how much longer they can
>>>stay engaged, and what to do ten, fifteen and thirty seconds into the
>>>future.
>>>
>>>What did work, surprisingly well, was a system of linked "desk-top"
>>>stations that let us increase the number of players to 12 and then to
>>>24 plus computer generated entities. A 25 inch color monitor,
>>>configurable for instrument, HUD and sensor display; a stick grip ala
>>>F-16, and a throttle. No motion, no video, no detailed cockpit mockup.
>>>
>>>Surprisingly, a cadre of highly experienced tactical aviators--FWS,
>>>Top Gun, test pilots (Edwards & Pax River)--all quickly became
>>>immersed in the "video games". We learned a lot about teaching higher
>>>level tactical analysis, force integration and weapons employment
>>>without the clutter and overhead of multi-million dollar massively
>>>mobile flight simulators.
>>>
>>>If you want to learn to fly the jet, full motion or video simulators
>>>are great. If you want to learn how to integrate the force and fight
>>>the weapons in many-v-many scenarios there is a place for PC based,
>>>network simulations.
>>>
>>>IMNSHO.
>>>
>>
>>I understand. But you are hardly talking about Flight Simulator on a home
>>computer are you? Sounds like what youy are decribing is way out if the
>reach
>>of anyone with a home setup..You are also talking about a highly specialised
>>dedicated setup to solve very specific puposes. Not the sort of stuff
>readily
>>available at Best Buy is it?
>>
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>Actually the sort of stuff that is currently available to home users
>that portrays F-16, F/A-18, Tornado, etc, is much more detailed than
>what we were using in terms of the cockpit displays. The off-the-shelf
>controllers available at Best Buy are more realistic than what we
>used. And, most importantly, the proliferation of high-speed Internet
>access makes it possible to network war-game to levels that weren't
>even considered in what we were doing at Northrop.
>
>Now, whether someone is simply boring holes at random, shooting at
>everyone that comes across the canopy or whether one is engaged in a
>conscientious tactical training scenario is something else.
>
>What we had hoped to do, and what is readily available to any home
>user today, is to train by networking squadron to squadron, base to
>base to build scenarios of virtually any size. Certainly the mix of
>full motion and video, full cockpit simulations with the PC desktops
>isn't in the cards for home users, but the experience of dealing with
>complex battles, mutual support, total sensor integration and lots of
>unknowns that typify real combat is.
>
>In other words, don't jump to conclusions and be too eager to discount
>the simple solution to a complex problem. Shave and a haircut, Mr.
>Occam?
>
>
>


Does this mean that you suggest home simulatorsasa means to learn to fly?
Maybe that is too simple for even our friend Occam.


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

In article <rfUtb.225$Jz1.32@okepread03>, Gene Storey > wrote:

>I have a copy, but to tell the truth, the F-105 and F-4 simulators
>seem pretty bogus to me.

And there's something wrong with the F-22 too, but if this
means it's bad models or if the program is better at
simulating general aviation and airliners I don't know.
--
Urban Fredriksson
Military aviation: Swedish military aviation, the rec.aviation.military FAQ
http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/
Weblog http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/avblog.html

>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>From: Andreas Maurer
>Date: 11/17/03 8:05 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 21:11:40 -0800, Mary Shafer >
>wrote:
>
>>Every "game" simulator I've ever flown seemed to use the same math
>>model, one that, as you say, was not dynamically possible. Fun's fun,
>>but physics is physics.
>
>... yet any game uses a completely different engine to create the
>flight model. The differences are where the game engine does its short
>cuts to allow realtime operation.
>
>
>>The sims are too generic, partly
>>because there just isn't enough time and space for a detailed math
>>model, because the FCS is proprietary and much too big to be modeled,
>>because the control surfaces aren't modeled correctly, the mass model
>>isn't right, and so on.
>
>The main problem of PC flight simulations is that the performance of a
>PC is not sufficient to calculate a realtime aerodynamic simulation.
>Mass models are ok these days in most flight sims, as well as
>performance and envelope data which are in some cases very close to
>reality. Only few PC simulations even try to simulate engine torqe
>effects on prop aircraft.
>
>The problems start if the simulated aircraft does non-linear maneuvers
>(post-stall, spins) - this is when some PC simulations can get very
>erratic because their simplified physics model needs to rely on
>pre-calculated data (to save computing time). The result is either a
>"standard" stall routine (always the same spin, independent on how you
>entered it), or erratic movements that does not even look close to
>what a real aircraft would do.
>
>So far the only PC simulations that attempt to simulate post-stall
>effects are MS Flight Sim 2002 and 2004, MS Combat Flight Sim 2 and 3,
>and X-Plane, but the results are not entirely convincing yet.
>
>Any PC simulator is (of course) handicapped most by the input devices
>- a PC joystick and a mouse simply cannot give even a similar feeling
>to the stick of a real aircraft (or a full cockpit simulator).This is
>the cause why the characteristics of a PC simulated aircraft cannot be
>even similar to the real thing, even if the performance data
>throughout the envelope are very similar.
>
>
>
>>However, learning to "fly" with a fixed-base, low-fidelity sim game
>>isn't going to happen. All that will happen is that the student will
>>pick up responses and habits that will have to be unlearned before the
>>correct responses and habits can be acquired in the actual airplane.
>>I've heard flight instructors complaining about how they can always
>>tell if someone plays with MS Flight Simulator a lot, because it takes
>>a lot longer to teach them how to fly the actual airplane.
>
>Indeed.
>The training effect concerning a PC simulator is that of a procedure
>trainer. You can learn to fly standard procedures (even with ATC these
>days), learn to program an FMC, to learn where to look at to keep the
>plane under control, but the feeling of flight cannot be learned.
>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).
>
>
>There are a number of pretty realistic combat flight simulators out
>there that simulate aerial combat. If the game engine is good,
>real-world combat tactics need to be flown in these games to win a
>dogfight. It might be interesting to compare such a game to real-world
>dogfighting.
>
>Bye
>Andreas


Excellant point by point rundown. I think that we can assume that the claims
made for consumer simulators is gross overpromise at best.


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

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).

Anyone who flies at night, or in conditions with poor visibility, or in
clouds, needs an IFR rating. Under these conditions, your instruments
are all you have.

I agree that in conditions where VFR is possible within the sim, the
trouble is that the player has limited visibility, and "looking" around
is more cumbersome and less natural-feeling than just turning your head
around - so the player just looks forward, at his/her instruments.

I fly MSFS2002, and use the virtual cockpit view with "ActiveCamera",
which allows me to "look around" using my mouse. It includes head lag,
so that you get a better impression of movement as your "head" is
"pushed" to one side as your aircraft turns. And because MSFS features
dynamic virtual cockpits, all the instruments are still visible in full
working order within the 3D environment (independant of the 2D panel it
renders when in 2D cockpit view).

Cheers
Graeme

On 17 Nov 2003 16:31:36 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>
>Does this mean that you suggest home simulatorsasa means to learn to fly?
>Maybe that is too simple for even our friend Occam.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

Actually, I don't mean that at all. Strangely enough, what I'm saying
is that the "simple" task of learning to fly an airplane (C-150 to
F-22 or B-777) requires the full fidelity of the multi-million dollar
simulation. The more complex task of learning force integration,
training for large formation tasks and learning the cognitive business
of situational awareness, can be done with the lower cost solution of
desktop trainers.

Sizing the training aid to the task without over-producing it is the
difficult task. You don't need full motion and multi-camera panoramic
videos to teach someone how to sort and allocate targets or fly a
low-level night WX route procedurally or cope with a basic emergency
situation or even learn initial cockpit checklist procedures.
Eventually you must integrate a number of skills to achieve combat
effectiveness, but for many tasks learning them one-by-one and then
combining them after mastery is a better training strategy.

With all due respect I don't really consider Fighter Anthology a "recent"
release. It is composed of 6+ year old software which makes it very dated
given the rapid rate of pc hardware and software development. Sims like
Falcon 4, MS Fligh simulator 2004 are great imporvements over thius. I've
flown light planes and spent plenty of time on sims and though the sims do
not replicated the experience of flying, the avionics, physics, and
necessary piloting techniques are increasingly close to the real thing.

Jarg

WaltBJ" > wrote in message
om...
> 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.
> Now, if you want to practice instrument flight and work on your scan
> technique, Mcsft Flt Sim is quite adequate. Unfortunately no sim gives
> you 'real motion.' You will definitely notice the sensations of motion
> in the real aircraft, however. These must be ignored and will take
> some getting used to. Your flight instructor should explain them to
> you. Believe your instruments!
> Walt BJ

>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 11/17/03 9:06 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 17 Nov 2003 16:31:36 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>
>>Does this mean that you suggest home simulatorsasa means to learn to fly?
>>Maybe that is too simple for even our friend Occam.
>>
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>Actually, I don't mean that at all. Strangely enough, what I'm saying
>is that the "simple" task of learning to fly an airplane (C-150 to
>F-22 or B-777) requires the full fidelity of the multi-million dollar
>simulation. The more complex task of learning force integration,
>training for large formation tasks and learning the cognitive business
>of situational awareness, can be done with the lower cost solution of
>desktop trainers.
>
>Sizing the training aid to the task without over-producing it is the
>difficult task. You don't need full motion and multi-camera panoramic
>videos to teach someone how to sort and allocate targets or fly a
>low-level night WX route procedurally or cope with a basic emergency
>situation or even learn initial cockpit checklist procedures.
>Eventually you must integrate a number of skills to achieve combat
>effectiveness, but for many tasks learning them one-by-one and then
>combining them after mastery is a better training strategy.
>
>
I understand. You are describing a highly specialised limited use of PC's for
formation tasks and situational awareness with greater cost effectiveness then
with mainframes. That makes sense.



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
...
>
> Those FS programs can be quite counterproductive and in some cases
destructive

Of course, but then if you thought you could learn to drive a car safely and
become a responsible user of an integrated road system after playing Gran
Turismo you'd be seriously kidding yourself. When I took PPL lessons my
instructor said he felt my instrument and control familiarity from playing
sims helped a great deal, but only to a certain extent, naturally. It
doesn't teach me how to use depth of field or how to "see" properly, and it
doesn't instill in me the responsibility I must learn to show to other air
traffic. But it gave me a few hours head-start.

What modern flight sim games excel at is dynamic environments. Military
sims generally simulate the performance of the vehicle being modelled in
almost scripted environments. I seriously doubt there's a "professional"
aircraft simulator out there that attempts even a tiny fraction of, say,
Falcon 4's wider campaign and arena modelling. I think the majority of home
games players would be thoroughly sick of the limitations of a professional
simulator in a matter of hours.

No-one's suggesting a game will teach you about the seriousness of your
duty, or the very real fear of dying in combat, just as Medal of Honor isn't
going to really teach you what it's like to storm the beaches of Normandy.

To answer the original poster's question: FS 2004 is a fantastically
detailed product for civilian flight, and Falcon 4 has yet to be beaten for
sheer wealth of features and attention to detail in the military games
market. But they are, in the end, entertainment products.

Si

>
> I flew real simulators. And I have flown the crap they make for
computers.And
> anything that you can do on a computer isn't even close. If you want to
fly
> your computer for fun ok,bur remember it is just a toy. but don't confuse
it
> with real flying or flying a real simulator. I guess you have never flown
Air
> Force simulators. If you had you wouldn't be talking such patent nonsense.
Now
> be a good guy and just go away.
>
My God, I really cannot believe how much of a git you are. Get back on your
Lithium and stay away from the keyboard until your therapist clears you to
use it again.

Van.

"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.

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. 'IFR/IMC' flying comes into play much
later - first you have to learn to land the airplane and that is done
looking outside! Also since most of your initial flying will be done
in the vicinity of the airport it's a damn good idea to watch out for
other aircraft - 'blue on blue' the hard way is generally not
survivable. That said, I reiterate that you can keep your instrument
scan/crosscheck up to snuff using a decent PC program more
conveniently and a lot cheaper than renting an aircraft or decent
instrument trainer (AST300 or similar.)
Walt BJ

>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>From: "Voltigeur"
>Date: 11/17/03 12:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <UW9ub.8931$vi5.4042@okepread04>
>
>
>>
>> I flew real simulators. And I have flown the crap they make for
>computers.And
>> anything that you can do on a computer isn't even close. If you want to
>fly
>> your computer for fun ok,bur remember it is just a toy. but don't confuse
>it
>> with real flying or flying a real simulator. I guess you have never flown
>Air
>> Force simulators. If you had you wouldn't be talking such patent nonsense.
>Now
>> be a good guy and just go away.
>>
>My God, I really cannot believe how much of a git you are. Get back on your
>Lithium and stay away from the keyboard until your therapist clears you to
>use it again.
>
>Van.
>
>

PLONK
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: Re: PC flight simulators
>From: "Simon Robbins"
>Date: 11/17/03 10:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:

>To answer the original poster's question: FS 2004 is a fantastically
>detailed product for civilian flight, and Falcon 4 has yet to be beaten for
>sheer wealth of features and attention to detail in the military games
>market. But they are, in the end, entertainment products.
>
>Si
>
>

Exactly. I think that is what I pointed out in my original reply.


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

"Jim Baker" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
> > >From: "Jim Baker"
> > >Date: 11/16/03 8:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
> > >Message-id: >
> > >
> >
> > >fter reading that initial post, look at your nonsensical, standing on a
> > >soapbox, idiotic post above.
> > >
> > >Jim
> > >Sims Flown: Link, T-38, B-52, B-1B and B-727, Former Instructor Pilot
in
> > >the T-38,B-52, B-1B aircraft and simulator.
> > >AND, I play with the Microsoft Flight Sim sometimes just for the hell
of
> it.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > PLONK !
> > Arthur Kramer
> > 344th BG 494th BS
> > England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> > Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> > http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
> Seriously Art, get some help. I'm not one of the guys who baits you,
> harasses you or gets into verbal fights with you. However, with great
> sincerity and no animosity whatever, based on this thread, I think you're
> having some kind of breakdown.

Art is a good guy, Baker and unlike yourself has not misreprestnted his
airplane. (ie Bone) Now bugger off.

>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>Date: 11/17/03 12:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Jim Baker" > wrote in message
t...
>>
>> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > >Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>> > >From: "Jim Baker"
>> > >Date: 11/16/03 8:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> > >Message-id: >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >fter reading that initial post, look at your nonsensical, standing on a
>> > >soapbox, idiotic post above.
>> > >
>> > >Jim
>> > >Sims Flown: Link, T-38, B-52, B-1B and B-727, Former Instructor Pilot
>in
>> > >the T-38,B-52, B-1B aircraft and simulator.
>> > >AND, I play with the Microsoft Flight Sim sometimes just for the hell
>of
>> it.
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > PLONK !
>> > Arthur Kramer
>> > 344th BG 494th BS
>> > England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> > Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> > http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>
>> Seriously Art, get some help. I'm not one of the guys who baits you,
>> harasses you or gets into verbal fights with you. However, with great
>> sincerity and no animosity whatever, based on this thread, I think you're
>> having some kind of breakdown.
>
>Art is a good guy, Baker and unlike yourself has not misreprestnted his
>airplane. (ie Bone) Now bugger off.
>
>

At least I have one friend around here. (grin)





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

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On 16 Nov 2003 18:51:41 -0800, (WaltBJ) wrote:

<snip>
> When I was at the F-18 RAG/FRS, they had three simulators, of three
> entirely different levels of sophistication. The simplest one was
> really just for practicing switchology on. The most realistic one had
> a real cockpit and dome, with incredibly good CGI and the ability to
> link with the other dome sim to fly in a two-man in a common scenario.
> The third was about halfway between these two.

All of which run with large errors to the actual aircraft. A lack of
simulator accuracy often leads to the flight test operator flying through
the requested parameter, while having had the same manouver produce correct
results.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
> >From: Ed Rasimus
> >Date: 11/17/03 7:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >

> I understand. But you are hardly talking about Flight Simulator on a home
> computer are you? Sounds like what youy are decribing is way out if the
reach
> of anyone with a home setup..You are also talking about a highly
specialised
> dedicated setup to solve very specific puposes. Not the sort of stuff
readily
> available at Best Buy is it?

No Art, what Ed is describing is that the state of the art for military
simulators was highly deficient in accuracy, at the time of the YF-23. What
mary described is true, but also showed a basic ignorance of the limitations
of the high dollar military simulator.

The cocktail aviation crowd has been out of touch, since the industry
sobered up in the 1990s.

>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>Date: 11/17/03 1:08 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>> >From: Ed Rasimus
>> >Date: 11/17/03 7:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>
>> I understand. But you are hardly talking about Flight Simulator on a home
>> computer are you? Sounds like what youy are decribing is way out if the
>reach
>> of anyone with a home setup..You are also talking about a highly
>specialised
>> dedicated setup to solve very specific puposes. Not the sort of stuff
>readily
>> available at Best Buy is it?
>
>No Art, what Ed is describing is that the state of the art for military
>simulators was highly deficient in accuracy, at the time of the YF-23. What
>mary described is true, but also showed a basic ignorance of the limitations
>of the high dollar military simulator.
>
>The cocktail aviation crowd has been out of touch, since the industry
>sobered up in the 1990s.
>
>

(HIC)

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

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

There is no "best one". (Purists would say that the only realistic
simulator soaks you in gasoline and ignites you if you get shot down...
but that's an artifact of any simulation of combat)


First question, what phase of history interests you? Stick-and-string
biplanes, WW2, fast jets? Those are the three main areas (Korea is
generally underrepresented, IMHO, but WW2 is the period I find I like
best on current implementations)

Secondly, do you want a 'realistic' detailed simulation where you're
trying to synchronise RPMs and manage manifold pressure on your engines,
or do you want a 'combat' simulation where the engine controls consist
of 'a throttle' and you're left free to concentrate on flying around
blowing things up? (Personally I like the latter...)


My current flight sim is "Il-2 Forgotten Battles", having enjoyed the
predecessor. WW2 period, a less-travelled theatre, and a very good
execution; with the ability to turn the detail up or down as desired.
(In my case, down: I can't get good enough SA with a monitor view,
compensate by pegging the stick to turn and see what's going on, and
without flicking that handy difficulty switch end up stalling and
spinning... and once a LaGG-3 decides to spin, it doesn't want to stop.
Less realistic but more fun to 'make' the simulated aircraft be
forgiving)



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

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
om...
> 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. 'IFR/IMC' flying comes into play much
> later - first you have to learn to land the airplane and that is done
> looking outside! Also since most of your initial flying will be done
> in the vicinity of the airport it's a damn good idea to watch out for
> other aircraft - 'blue on blue' the hard way is generally not
> survivable. That said, I reiterate that you can keep your instrument
> scan/crosscheck up to snuff using a decent PC program more
> conveniently and a lot cheaper than renting an aircraft or decent
> instrument trainer (AST300 or similar.)
> Walt BJ

Hi Walt;
It's funny picking you up in this thread for two reasons. I was thinking
about you just this morning after I downloaded an absolutely beautiful
zipper for my FS2004 :-) Secondly, my sentiments about the desktop
simulators are about in line with yours and Mary's.
I've actually done some work in this area, both as a consultant to sim
software developers, and as an instructor dealing with the issue with
students. I have some strong opinions about it, and have spoken to the issue
many times in seminars with CFI's.
First of all, I make a huge differentiation between the general desktop
simulators and the simulators used professionally by both the professional
airline and military communities. Both have one striking similarity however,
and that is the fact that in my opinion, both can actually retard the
learning curve if used during the initial stages of flight training, where
sight picture, physical sensation, and especially required control pressure
is a factor.
I like simulators to be integrated into the flight training program after
solo for just these reasons. I've found them extremely useful for practicing
instrument and emergency procedures. The old Link ANT18 (blue and yellow
peril :-) was a good way to learn how to fly a low freq range, but hardly
what I'd use to teach someone to fly an airplane :-)) In the T-Bird days, we
had the old C11B simulator where you could learn to use that damn zero
reader correctly...but you couldn't handle the T33 without training in the
airplane of course.
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. I'm amazed at exactly
what MS has managed to achieve with their effort. I use the sim when I have
the time, and I have to admit, it's VERY well done. I understand that the
services have ok'd it's limited use for training. Still, as a flight
instructor, I absolutely would demand that any student of mine stay
completely away from ANY simulator, ESPECIALLY a desk top simulator until
after solo for the reasons I have given.

BTW, while I have your ear, can I ask you..... just how audible was that God
awful howl that was the result of the marriage between the zipper, the J79,
and the IGV's on the airplane? Could you actually hear that mess through the
helmet between 80 and 90%
???? :-)))
All the best as always,
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "WaltBJ" > wrote in message
> om...
> > 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. 'IFR/IMC' flying comes into play much
> > later - first you have to learn to land the airplane and that is done
> > looking outside! Also since most of your initial flying will be done
> > in the vicinity of the airport it's a damn good idea to watch out for
> > other aircraft - 'blue on blue' the hard way is generally not
> > survivable. That said, I reiterate that you can keep your instrument
> > scan/crosscheck up to snuff using a decent PC program more
> > conveniently and a lot cheaper than renting an aircraft or decent
> > instrument trainer (AST300 or similar.)
> > Walt BJ
>
> Hi Walt;
> It's funny picking you up in this thread for two reasons. I was thinking
> about you just this morning after I downloaded an absolutely beautiful
> zipper for my FS2004 :-) Secondly, my sentiments about the desktop
> simulators are about in line with yours and Mary's.

I am pleased FAA has taken a different position. :)

To address the initial question, the best modern air combat sim (this is
..military after all) is IMHO the Flanker 2/Lo-mac suite of simulations.
Falcon 4 has a dynamic campaign, and a highly interactive cockpit, but lomac
has more planes (Su-27, Su-33, Mig-29, Su-25, F-15, A-10) as well as the
more accurate flight model (and naval ops!). A huge number of other planes,
choppers, ships, and land vehicles round out the package (good eye candy
too!). Rumor has it that the Russian military used a similar flight model
in their trainers as in the previous version of the sim, v1.5 (Victor
Pugachev -sp?- praised it highly, but then he was associated with the
product so take that for what it's worth). More details (and demo and
plenty of videos) at http://www.lo-mac.com.

Tony

"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...

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "WaltBJ" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > 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. 'IFR/IMC' flying comes into play much
> > > later - first you have to learn to land the airplane and that is done
> > > looking outside! Also since most of your initial flying will be done
> > > in the vicinity of the airport it's a damn good idea to watch out for
> > > other aircraft - 'blue on blue' the hard way is generally not
> > > survivable. That said, I reiterate that you can keep your instrument
> > > scan/crosscheck up to snuff using a decent PC program more
> > > conveniently and a lot cheaper than renting an aircraft or decent
> > > instrument trainer (AST300 or similar.)
> > > Walt BJ
> >
> > Hi Walt;
> > It's funny picking you up in this thread for two reasons. I was thinking
> > about you just this morning after I downloaded an absolutely beautiful
> > zipper for my FS2004 :-) Secondly, my sentiments about the desktop
> > simulators are about in line with yours and Mary's.
>
> I am pleased FAA has taken a different position. :)

No John, I'm afraid the FAA hasn't taken a contrary position at all .

Since I'm fairly familiar with this issue, having worked on it a bit myself,
I've pasted in the entire PCATD cert advisory for you to browse if you wish.
You will note that nowhere in the text does the FAA even come anywhere
close to recommending a simulator during the initial phases of flight
training, which was my salient point. The entire PCATD push is geared ONLY
toward instrument procedures and practice as a certified replacement for
flight time. Even this stresses the move toward an instrument rating, which
as I said, and it's fairly safe to assume, is well past the pre solo stage
for any "normal pilot". Of course I can't speak for you. :-)
This is EXACTLY in line with what I have posted here on this issue, which of
course I assume you already know anyway.
Of course; please feel free to select the text in the advisory you feel
takes a "contrary position" by the FAA to what I posted. Then we can take it
on sentence by sentence. You'd like that I'm sure......counting responses
and all. I'm not busy tonight...go for it!! :-))
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Subject: QUALIFICATION AND APPROVAL OF
PERSONAL COMPUTER BASED AVIATION TRAINING DEVICES

Date: 5/12/97
Initiated By: AFS-840
AC No: 61-126

1. PURPOSE. This Advisory Circular (AC) provides information and guidance
to potential training device manufacturers and aviation training consumers
concerning a means, acceptable to the Administrator, by which personal
computer-based aviation training devices (PCATD) may be qualified and
approved for flight training toward satisfying the instrument rating
training under the provisions of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR) parts 61 and 141. While these guidelines are not mandatory, they
are derived from extensive Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and
industry experience in determining compliance with the pertinent parts of 14
CFR. Mandatory terms used in this AC such as "shall" and "must" are used
only in the sense of ensuring applicability of this method of compliance.
PCATD's are distinct from flight training devices (FTD) qualified under AC
120-45, Airplane Flight Training Device Qualification, and flight simulators
qualified under AC 120-40, Airplane Simulator Qualification. It also
provides acceptable criteria under which the airplane or FTD flight-hour
training time required for an instrument rating may be reduced by using
PCATD's that have been determined to meet acceptable FAA standards. This AC
details only one means of determining the acceptability of such devices for
use in instrument training curricula.

2. RELATED 14 CFR SECTIONS. Sections of the regulations to the information
in this AC are in parts 61 and 141.

3. DEFINITIONS.

a. PCATD. A device which:
1. Meets or exceeds the criteria shown in Appendix 1.
2. Functionally provides a training platform for at least
the procedural aspects of flight relating to an instrument training
curriculum.
3. Has been qualified by the FAA.

b. Qualification Guide. Design criteria to assist in the
evaluation and qualification process for PCATD's. A Qualification Guide is
included in Appendix 1.

4. BACKGROUND. During the past several years, there has been significant
development in training aid and training device technology. This includes
the development of aviation-related computer hardware and software
applications. There is considerable interest in making use of new
technology which may provide increased training capability at decreased
cost. This AC reflects the FAA's objective to formally recognize the
potential of aviation training devices for use in general aviation
instrument flight training.

a. Flight Task Procedural Skills. Flight task procedural skills have
traditionally been trained almost exclusively during in-flight training.
Ground training has been used to impart required aeronautical knowledge.
Recent studies, however, have suggested that procedural understanding of
instrument flight tasks can be taught during ground training using devices
such as those described in this AC. Two of the most recent studies were
conducted by the Embry Riddle Aeronautical University and the University of
Illinois.

b. Evaluations of PCATD's and Associated Aviation Training Software.
The FAA has evaluated several computer hardware and software applications at
the request of manufacturers and potential users. These evaluations were
conducted to determine whether certification of airman recency of experience
requirements reasonably could be met using such devices under applicable
provisions of part 61 or part 141. A study conducted by the University of
Illinois, titled "Transfer of Training Effectiveness of Personal
Computer-Based Aviation Training Devices: Final Report", dated October 1996,
examined each task addressed in the AC. The director of the study affirmed
that all instrument training tasks allowed by this AC have a positive
transfer effectiveness, or no statistically-significant negative transfer
effectiveness. Given this background, the FAA has determined that there is
sufficient justification to allow the use of PCATD's meeting acceptable
standards as creditable devices for meeting some of the training
requirements for an instrument rating under the applicable provisions of
part 61 or part 141.

5. AUTHORIZED USE.

a. Instruction by an Authorized Instructor. Qualified PCATD's may be
highly beneficial when used under the guidance of an authorized instructor
to achieve learning in certain procedural tasks such as area departures and
arrivals, navigational aid tracking, holding pattern entries, instrument
approaches, and missed approach procedures. Accordingly, the FAA has
determined to continue the policy that any time instruction is to be used to
log time toward meeting any requirement of the regulations, an authorized
instructor must have presented the instruction.

b. Reducing Flight Hours Through Ground Training. This AC provides for
some training time on PCATD's meeting acceptable FAA standards to be used to
reduce the total flight hour that otherwise would have to be accomplished in
an aircraft or a flight training device to meet the requirement for an
instrument rating under part 61 or part 141. PCATD's determined to meet the
criteria established by this AC may be used in lieu of , and for not more
than, 10 hours of time that ordinarily may be acquired in a flight simulator
or flight training device authorized for use under part 61 or part 141,
However the FAA has not authorized the use of PCATD's for conducting
practical tests nor for accomplishing recency of experience requirements.

6. GUIDELINES FOR QUALIFICATION OF PCATD's.

a. One qualification is required for each model of PCATD. Normally,
the qualification will be obtained by the manufacturer. It will be valid
for all serial numbers of that model, provided that no value for criterion
in Appendix 1 is changed.

b. Should a PCATD be modified in any manner, a revised Qualification
Guide must be submitted to the FAA, accompanied by a request for
qualification as modified, as described in paragraph 6d below.

c. Qualified PCATD's may be used by part 61 schools without further
approval, and should be used in accordance with the guidance provided in
paragraph 7. Qualified PCATD's may be approved for use in a part 141 pilot
school as outlined in paragraph 8.

d. To request qualification of a PCATD, manufacturers should send a
request for qualification to the General Aviation and Commercial Division,
Airman Certification Branch, AFS-840, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591. The request for qualification must include a
qualification guide stating a value for each item in Appendix 1. Each value
must meet or exceed the minimum value sated in Appendix 1. The request for
qualification should be submitted at least 60 days before any training using
the PCATD involved is scheduled to commence. This time frame is necessary
to permit the FAA to properly review and evaluate the PCATD. Upon Finding
the PCATD acceptable, the FAA will approve the qualification guide and
return it to the manufacturer. The manufacturer must ensure that the PCATD
meets the criteria stated in the qualification guide. The PCATD may be
evaluated at the manufacturer's facility or at another site that may be
mutually agreeable to the manufacturer and the FAA.

7. ACCEPTABILITY OF PCATD's FOR USE UNDER PART 61

a. To be acceptable for use in part 61, a PCATD must:

1. Be capable of providing training in all elements for
which it will be used. Those elements should be specified in a curriculum.
2. Meet the description and criteria established in this AC.

b. The PCATD should be used in a curriculum which will provide
for:

1. A scope and content which should be in general compliance
with part 141.
2. Not more than 10 hours of flight instruction in a PCATD
in lieu of 10 of the 20 hours of flight instruction allowed for a flight
simulator or FTD. The 20-hour allowance for a flight simulator or an FTD
and the 10-hour allowance for PCATD's are not additive. If a PCATD is used
for the maximum of 10 hours, that 10 hours shall be a part of the 20-hour
maximum allowance for a flight simulator or flight training device.
3. Instructional materials for flight events.
4. An outline of stage (phase) checks and criterion levels
of performance.

8. APPROVAL OF PCATD's FOR USE UNDER PART 141.

a. To be approved for use under the provisions of part 141, a
PCATD must:

1. Meet the description and the criteria established in
this AC.
2. Be capable of providing training in all elements in which it will
be used, as specified in the syllabus.
3. Be used for not more that 10 hours of flight instruction
time in lieu of 10 hours of the flight instruction time in a flight
simulator or flight training device time allowed by part 141. The 10-hour
allowance for use of a PCATD and the 15-hour allowance for flight simulator
or flight training device under the provisions of part 141 are not additive.
If a PCATD is to be used in the certificate holder's part 141 curricula. It
is not the intent of the FAA to require each user to seek individual PCATD
qualification from the jurisdictional FSDO.

9. REPORTING PCATD TRAINING DATA. While there is no requirement to do so,
annually, during the anniversary month of FAA qualification or approval of a
PCATD, as applicable, pilot schools and other persons utilizing PCATD's
under part 61 or 141 in accordance with this AC in an instrument rating
curriculum are requested to provide the General Aviation and Commercial
Division with the information shown below. This information will be used to
validate the permissible use of PCATD's and to determine whether additional
permissible use or regulatory amendment to provide for such use is
warranted. The information provided should be sent to the address shown in
paragraph 6d. The report should contain:

a. The name and address of the individual, organization, and pilot
school certificate number (if applicable) providig the training;
b. The number of persons enrolled in the instrument rating course in
which the PCATD is used;
c. The number of flight hours each graduate required to satisfactorily
complete the course of training;
d. The number of graduates who passed the instrument rating practical
test the first time; and
e. Any other information deemed helpful in determining the level of
effectiveness of the devices used as authorized under the provisions of this
AC; e.g., the portion of the curriculum attributable to the PCATD used, the
grading scheme used, and how the instructional management of training using
the simulation device differs from that using an aircraft.

10. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION. Requests for additional information or
guidance about using training devices should be directed to AFS-840 at (202)
267--8196.

W. Michael Sacrey
Acting Deputy Director
Flight Standards Service

APPENDIX 1. PERSONAL COMPUTER-BASED AVIATION TRAINING DEVICE (PCATD)
QUALIFICATION GUIDE

This qualification guide provides a means for qualifying PCATD's for use as
FTD's in part 61 or approved part 141 instrument training curricula. This
Qualification Guide may be used to determine that a PCATD meets or exceeds
minimum acceptable FAA design criteria. PCATD's qualified in accordance
with this AC may be used for instrument training tasks only. They may not
be used for testing or checking.

Each qualification Guide submitted to the FAA for evaluation must state what
type airplane or family of airplanes is being replicated and used as the
basis for the following criteria.

PCATD DESIGN CRITERIA

Controls. A PCATD must provide some physical controls and may provide some
virtual controls.

1. Physical controls should be recognizable as to their function and how
they can be manipulated solely from their appearance. Physical controls
eliminate the use of either a keyboard or mouse to control the simulated
aircraft.

2. For the purposes of this guide, virtual control is any input device to
control aspects of the simulation (such as setting aircraft configuration,
location and wind) and to program, pause, or freeze the device. Virtual
controls should be primarily for instructor use.

Control Requirements.

1. A physical, self-centering, displacement yoke or control stick that
allows continuous adjustment of pitch and bank.

2. Physical, self-centering rudder pedals that allow continuous
adjustment of yaw.

3. A physical throttle lever or power lever that allows continuous
movement from idle to full power settings.

4. Physical controls for the following items, as applicable to the
aircraft or family of aircraft replicated:

a. Flaps
b. Propellers
c. Mixtures
d. Pitch trim
e. Communication and navigation radios
f. Clock or timer
g. Gear handle
h. Transponder
i. Altimeter
j. Microphone with push to talk switch
k. Carburetor heat
l. Cowl Flaps

5. Control Inputs.

a. Time from control input to recognizable system response (transport
delay) must be 300 milliseconds or less. This standard must be certified by
the manufacturer in the qualification guide submitted for qualification.
Users will not be required to verify this standard when requesting approval
of a PCATD. Normally, FAA inspectors will not be expected to measure or
verify this maximum delay time as a part of the PCATD approval process.

b. The control inputs must be tested by the computer and software at
each start and displayed as a confirmation message or a warning message that
the transport delay time or any design parameter is out of original
tolerances. This test must consider the items listed under Display
Requirements (see paragraphs 1 through 4 below.)

Display Requirements.

1. Instruments and indicators.

a. An adjustable altimeter with incremental markings each 20 feet or
less, operable throughout the normal operating range of the aircraft or
family of aircraft replicated.

b. A heading indicator with incremental markings each 5 degrees or
less displayed on a 360 degree circle. Arc segments of less that 360 degree
may be selectively displayed if desired or required, as applicable to the
aircraft or family of aircraft replicated.

c. An airspeed indicator with incremental markings as shown on the
aircraft or family of aircraft replicated; however, airspeed markings of
less than 40 knots need not be displayed.

d. A vertical speed indicator with incremental markings each 100 feet
per minute (fpm) for both climb and descent, for the first 1000 fpm of climb
and descent, and at each 500 fpm climb and descent for the remainder of a
minimum 2000 fpm total display, or as applicable to the aircraft or family
of aircraft being replicated.

e. A turn and bank indicator with incremental markings for a rate of 3
degree per second turn for left and right turns. The 3 degree per second
rate index must be inside of the maximum deflection of the indicator.

f. A slip and skid indicator with coordination information displayed in
the conventional skid ball format where a coordinated flight condition is
indicated with the ball in the center position. A split image triangle
indication may be used if applicable to the aircraft or family of aircraft
being replicated.

g. An attitude indicator with incremental markings each 5 degrees of
pitch or less, from 20 degree pitch up to 40 degree pitch down or as
applicable to the aircraft or family of aircraft replicated. Bank angles
must be identified at "wing level" and at 10, 20, 30, and 60 degree of bank
(with an optional additional identification at 45 degrees) in left and right
banks.

h. Engine instruments as applicable to the aircraft or family of
aircraft being replicated, providing markings for normal ranges and minimum
and maximum limits.

i. A suction gauge or instrument pressure gauge, as applicable, with a
display applicable to the aircraft or family of aircraft replicated.

j. A flap setting indicator which displays the current flap setting.
Setting indications must be typical of that found in an actual aircraft.

k. A pitch trim indicator with display that shows zero trim and
appropriate indices of aircraft nose down and aircraft nose up trim, as
would be found in an aircraft.

l. Communication radio(s) with display (s) of the radio frequency in
use.

m. Navigation radio (s), including an ADF and a VOR with ILS indicator
(each with an aural identification feature), and a marker beacon receiver.
As applicable, the incremental markings noted below must be present.

1. One-half dot or less for course/glide slope deviation (i.e.,
VOR/ILS)
2. 5 degree or less for bearing deviation for ADF and RMI, as
applicable.

n. A clock with sweep second hand and incremental markings each minute
and second or a timer with a display of minutes and seconds.

o. A magnetic compass with incremental markings each 10 degrees or less.
The compass should display the proper lead or lag during turns.

p. A transponder panel which displays the current transponder setting.

q. A fuel quantity indicator(s) which displays the fuel remaining,
either in analog or digital format, as appropriate for the aircraft or
family of aircraft replicated.

2. All instrument displays listed above must be visible during all flight
operations. The update rate of all displays must provide an image of the
instrument that:

a. Does not appear to be out of focus.
b. Does not appear to "jump" or "step" to a distracting degree during
operation.
c. Does not appear with distracting jagged lines or edges.

3. Display update must be 10 Hz or faster. Each display must sense a
change and react at a value less than the stated. Display updates must
display all changes (within the total range of the replicated instrument)
that are equal to or greater than the values stated below:

a. Airspeed indicator: Change of 5 knots
b. Attitude indicator: Change of 2 degrees in pitch and bank.
c. Altimeter: Change of 10 feet
d. Turn and bank: Change of 1/4 standard rate turn.
e. Heading indicator: Change of 2 degrees
f. VSI: Change of 100fpm
g. Tachometer: Change of 25 rpm or 2% of turbine speed.
h. VOR/ILS: Change of 1 degree for VOR or 1/4 of 1 degree for ILS.
i. ADF: Change of 2 degrees
j. Clock or timer: Change of 1 second

4. Displays must reflect dynamic behavior of an actual aircraft display;
e.g., a VSI reading of 500 fpm must reflect a corresponding movement in
altimeter, and an increase in power must reflect an increase in the rpm
indication or power indicator.

Flight Dynamics Requirements.

1. Flight dynamics of the PCATD must be comparable to the way the training
aircraft represented performs and handles. There is no requirement for a
PCATD to have control loading to exactly replicate any particular aircraft.
An air data handling package is not required for determination of forces to
simulate during the manufacturing process.

2. Aircraft performance parameters (maximum speed, cruise speed, stall
speed, maximum climb rate) must be comparable to the aircraft or family of
aircraft being replicated.

3. Aircraft vertical lift component must change as a function of bank,
comparable to the way the aircraft or family of aircraft being replicated
performs and handles.

4. Changes in flap setting, slat setting (if any), and gear position (if
any) must be accompanied by changes in flight dynamics, comparable to the
way the aircraft or family of aircraft replicated performs and handles.

5. The presence and intensity of wind and turbulence must be reflected in
the handling and performance qualities of the simulated aircraft and must be
comparable to the way the aircraft or family of aircraft replicated performs
and handles.

Instructional Management Requirements.

1. The instructor must be able to pause the system at any point for the
purpose of administering instruction regarding the task.

2. If a training session will begin with the aircraft already in the air
and ready for the performance of a particular procedural task, the
instructor must be able to manipulate the following system parameters
independently of the simulation:

a. Aircraft geographic location
b. Aircraft heading
c. Aircraft airspeed
d. Aircraft altitude
e. Engine power
f. Wind direction, speed and turbulence

3. The system must be capable of recording both a horizontal and vertical
track of aircraft movement for later playback and review.

4. The instructor must be able to disable any of the instruments prior to
the beginning of a training session, and to simulate failure of any of the
instruments during a training session without stopping or freezing the
simulation to effect the failure.

5. The PCATD must have at least a navigational area data base that is
local to the training facility to allow reinforcement of procedures learned
during actual flight in that area. All navigational data must be based on
procedures as published in 14 CFR part 97.

Task Requirements List.

A PCATD having the features specified above will be qualified for use in
procedural training in the instrument flight tasks listed below. These
instrument tasks must be incorporated in an integrated ground and flight
instrument training curriculum:

1. Flight by Reference to Instruments

a. Straight and level flight
b. Change of airspeed
c. Constant airspeed climbs
d. Constant rate climbs
e. Constant airspeed descents
f. Constant rate descents
g. Level turns, including standard rate turns
h. Climbing turns
i. Descending turns
j. Steep turns

2. Abnormal and Emergency Procedures

a. Timed turns
b. Compass turns
c. Instrument failures
d. Procedures for turbulence

3. Radio Navigation Procedures

a. VOR navigation
b. NDB navigation
c. Localizer and ILS navigation
d. VOR holding pattern
e. NDB holding pattern
f. Localizer holding pattern
g. Intersection holding pattern
h. Use of RNAV, including GPS
i. Use of DME

4. Instrument Approach Procedures

a. Precision approaches
b. Nonprecision approaches
c. ILS back course approach
d. Missed approach

5. Communications Procedures

a. Air traffic control clearances

i. Departure clearances
ii. Enroute clearances
iii. Arrival clearances

b. Radio advisories and warnings

i. ATIS and CTAF

ii. SIGMETS, AIRMETS, NOTAMS, FSS communications, and flight
plan changes.

6. Cross-country Procedures

a. Departure
b. Enroute
c. Arrival

END------------------------------------------------------------------------E
ND

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "WaltBJ" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > 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. 'IFR/IMC' flying comes into play much
> > > > later - first you have to learn to land the airplane and that is
done
> > > > looking outside! Also since most of your initial flying will be done
> > > > in the vicinity of the airport it's a damn good idea to watch out
for
> > > > other aircraft - 'blue on blue' the hard way is generally not
> > > > survivable. That said, I reiterate that you can keep your instrument
> > > > scan/crosscheck up to snuff using a decent PC program more
> > > > conveniently and a lot cheaper than renting an aircraft or decent
> > > > instrument trainer (AST300 or similar.)
> > > > Walt BJ
> > >
> > > Hi Walt;
> > > It's funny picking you up in this thread for two reasons. I was
thinking
> > > about you just this morning after I downloaded an absolutely beautiful
> > > zipper for my FS2004 :-) Secondly, my sentiments about the desktop
> > > simulators are about in line with yours and Mary's.
> >
> > I am pleased FAA has taken a different position. :)
>
> No John, I'm afraid the FAA hasn't taken a contrary position at all .

Certainly initial licensing and matriculation of higher skills amoung civil
operators using simulators is at an all time high. I can't possibly see how
you could be unaware of that fact and have any connection to the
certification and currency issues for operators.

> Since I'm fairly familiar with this issue, having worked on it a bit
myself,
> I've pasted in the entire PCATD cert advisory for you to browse if you
wish.
> You will note that nowhere in the text does the FAA even come anywhere
> close to recommending a simulator during the initial phases of flight
> training, which was my salient point.

Dude. :)

Simulation time can be logged as time for experiance requirements and is
becomming more common, not less.

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > > >
> > > > "WaltBJ" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > > 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. 'IFR/IMC' flying comes into play much
> > > > > later - first you have to learn to land the airplane and that is
> done
> > > > > looking outside! Also since most of your initial flying will be
done
> > > > > in the vicinity of the airport it's a damn good idea to watch out
> for
> > > > > other aircraft - 'blue on blue' the hard way is generally not
> > > > > survivable. That said, I reiterate that you can keep your
instrument
> > > > > scan/crosscheck up to snuff using a decent PC program more
> > > > > conveniently and a lot cheaper than renting an aircraft or decent
> > > > > instrument trainer (AST300 or similar.)
> > > > > Walt BJ
> > > >
> > > > Hi Walt;
> > > > It's funny picking you up in this thread for two reasons. I was
> thinking
> > > > about you just this morning after I downloaded an absolutely
beautiful
> > > > zipper for my FS2004 :-) Secondly, my sentiments about the desktop
> > > > simulators are about in line with yours and Mary's.
> > >
> > > I am pleased FAA has taken a different position. :)
> >
> > No John, I'm afraid the FAA hasn't taken a contrary position at all .
>
> Certainly initial licensing and matriculation of higher skills amoung
civil
> operators using simulators is at an all time high. I can't possibly see
how
> you could be unaware of that fact and have any connection to the
> certification and currency issues for operators.
>
> > Since I'm fairly familiar with this issue, having worked on it a bit
> myself,
> > I've pasted in the entire PCATD cert advisory for you to browse if you
> wish.
> > You will note that nowhere in the text does the FAA even come anywhere
> > close to recommending a simulator during the initial phases of flight
> > training, which was my salient point.
>
> Dude. :)
>
> Simulation time can be logged as time for experiance requirements and is
> becomming more common, not less.

REALLY????????? WOW!!!!!!!! :-))

Hey John; do me a favor will ya please.....When we get into these little
"conversations" , can you just select a few lines instead of bottom posting
the entire message. It's a royal pain in the ass scrolling down through the
whole mess getting to some two word answer. Besides, my middle finger hurts
from all that "mousing with the wheel thingy in the middle...and if my
middle finger won't work, I can't drive in normal American traffic!!!! :-))
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>
>>>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>>>
>>>>>"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
om...
>>>>>
>>>>>>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. 'IFR/IMC' flying comes into play much
>>>>>>later - first you have to learn to land the airplane and that is
>>
>>done
>>
>>>>>>looking outside! Also since most of your initial flying will be
>
> done
>
>>>>>>in the vicinity of the airport it's a damn good idea to watch out
>>
>>for
>>
>>>>>>other aircraft - 'blue on blue' the hard way is generally not
>>>>>>survivable. That said, I reiterate that you can keep your
>
> instrument
>
>>>>>>scan/crosscheck up to snuff using a decent PC program more
>>>>>>conveniently and a lot cheaper than renting an aircraft or decent
>>>>>>instrument trainer (AST300 or similar.)
>>>>>>Walt BJ
>>>>>
>>>>>Hi Walt;
>>>>>It's funny picking you up in this thread for two reasons. I was
>>
>>thinking
>>
>>>>>about you just this morning after I downloaded an absolutely
>
> beautiful
>
>>>>>zipper for my FS2004 :-) Secondly, my sentiments about the desktop
>>>>>simulators are about in line with yours and Mary's.
>>>>
>>>>I am pleased FAA has taken a different position. :)
>>>
>>>No John, I'm afraid the FAA hasn't taken a contrary position at all .
>>
>>Certainly initial licensing and matriculation of higher skills amoung
>
> civil
>
>>operators using simulators is at an all time high. I can't possibly see
>
> how
>
>>you could be unaware of that fact and have any connection to the
>>certification and currency issues for operators.
>>
>>
>>>Since I'm fairly familiar with this issue, having worked on it a bit
>>
>>myself,
>>
>>>I've pasted in the entire PCATD cert advisory for you to browse if you
>>
>>wish.
>>
>>>You will note that nowhere in the text does the FAA even come anywhere
>>>close to recommending a simulator during the initial phases of flight
>>>training, which was my salient point.
>>
>>Dude. :)
>>
>>Simulation time can be logged as time for experiance requirements and is
>>becomming more common, not less.
>
>
> REALLY????????? WOW!!!!!!!! :-))
>
> Hey John; do me a favor will ya please.....When we get into these little
> "conversations" , can you just select a few lines instead of bottom posting
> the entire message. It's a royal pain in the ass scrolling down through the
> whole mess getting to some two word answer. Besides, my middle finger hurts
> from all that "mousing with the wheel thingy in the middle...and if my
> middle finger won't work, I can't drive in normal American traffic!!!! :-))
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> For personal email, please replace
> the z's with e's.
> dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>
>
Damn Dud, you owe me a new keyboard, just blew RC cola all over mine.
B-) Besides, I thought you were an ossifer and a gennelman.

George

> > 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

They are computer games...... that realistically produce images and
techniques that help learn and maintain aviation knowledge.

Back in '90 I had angioplasty that grounded me for 6 months, then a
quadruple bypass that stretched my grounding another 6 months.
Yeager's Air Combat and MS Flight Simulator kept my head in aviation to a
degree that when I finally got my medical back and went back to flying
Captain with AA, the transition was much easier than if I hadn't used my
"games".

The games don't really teach or maintain basic "stick and rudder" technique
but they do teach and maintain procedures and spatial awareness.
I have 2 new pilots starting tomorrow in the MD-88 flight simulator with
EFIS and FMS. Like my last 2 pilots they probably don't have any previous
jet or FMS experience. Their learning curve will be primarily procedures.
Hopefully they will already have the stick and rudder skills. And I DO
agree that only a full motion flight simulator can teach the "stick and
rudder" techniques.

--

B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-

" > I was wondering if anyone in this NG play simulators?
> > If so, which one? What's the best out there, currently.
> >
> >
> > Regards...
>
> They are not really simulators. They are just computer games.
> 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 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

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> > > > ink.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "WaltBJ" > wrote in message
> > > > > om...
> > > > > > 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. 'IFR/IMC' flying comes into play
much
> > > > > > later - first you have to learn to land the airplane and that is
done
> > > > > > looking outside! Also since most of your initial flying will be
done
> > > > > > in the vicinity of the airport it's a damn good idea to watch
out for
> > > > > > other aircraft - 'blue on blue' the hard way is generally not
> > > > > > survivable. That said, I reiterate that you can keep your
instrument
> > > > > > scan/crosscheck up to snuff using a decent PC program more
> > > > > > conveniently and a lot cheaper than renting an aircraft or
decent
> > > > > > instrument trainer (AST300 or similar.)
> > > > > > Walt BJ
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Walt;
> > > > > It's funny picking you up in this thread for two reasons. I was
thinking
> > > > > about you just this morning after I downloaded an absolutely
beautiful
> > > > > zipper for my FS2004 :-) Secondly, my sentiments about the desktop
> > > > > simulators are about in line with yours and Mary's.
> > > >
> > > > I am pleased FAA has taken a different position. :)
> > >
> > > No John, I'm afraid the FAA hasn't taken a contrary position at all .
> >
> > Certainly initial licensing and matriculation of higher skills amoung
civil
> > operators using simulators is at an all time high. I can't possibly see
how
> > you could be unaware of that fact and have any connection to the
> > certification and currency issues for operators.
> >
> > > Since I'm fairly familiar with this issue, having worked on it a bit
myself,
> > > I've pasted in the entire PCATD cert advisory for you to browse if you
wish.
> > > You will note that nowhere in the text does the FAA even come
anywhere
> > > close to recommending a simulator during the initial phases of flight
> > > training, which was my salient point.
> >
> > Dude. :)
> >
> > Simulation time can be logged as time for experiance requirements and is
> > becomming more common, not less.
>
> REALLY????????? WOW!!!!!!!! :-))

I timmed out 2/3 of your rediculess post as it is, Dud.

Go have a anither drink with your buddies, the rest of the industry sobered
up 10 years ago.

<snip of lun complaining about snippage, while not snipping>

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
>
>

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> > > > > ink.net...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "WaltBJ" > wrote in message
> > > > > > om...
> > > > > > > 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. 'IFR/IMC' flying comes into play
> much
> > > > > > > later - first you have to learn to land the airplane and that
is
> done
> > > > > > > looking outside! Also since most of your initial flying will
be
> done
> > > > > > > in the vicinity of the airport it's a damn good idea to watch
> out for
> > > > > > > other aircraft - 'blue on blue' the hard way is generally not
> > > > > > > survivable. That said, I reiterate that you can keep your
> instrument
> > > > > > > scan/crosscheck up to snuff using a decent PC program more
> > > > > > > conveniently and a lot cheaper than renting an aircraft or
> decent
> > > > > > > instrument trainer (AST300 or similar.)
> > > > > > > Walt BJ
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Walt;
> > > > > > It's funny picking you up in this thread for two reasons. I was
> thinking
> > > > > > about you just this morning after I downloaded an absolutely
> beautiful
> > > > > > zipper for my FS2004 :-) Secondly, my sentiments about the
desktop
> > > > > > simulators are about in line with yours and Mary's.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am pleased FAA has taken a different position. :)
> > > >
> > > > No John, I'm afraid the FAA hasn't taken a contrary position at all
..
> > >
> > > Certainly initial licensing and matriculation of higher skills amoung
> civil
> > > operators using simulators is at an all time high. I can't possibly
see
> how
> > > you could be unaware of that fact and have any connection to the
> > > certification and currency issues for operators.
> > >
> > > > Since I'm fairly familiar with this issue, having worked on it a bit
> myself,
> > > > I've pasted in the entire PCATD cert advisory for you to browse if
you
> wish.
> > > > You will note that nowhere in the text does the FAA even come
> anywhere
> > > > close to recommending a simulator during the initial phases of
flight
> > > > training, which was my salient point.
> > >
> > > Dude. :)
> > >
> > > Simulation time can be logged as time for experiance requirements and
is
> > > becomming more common, not less.
> >
> > REALLY????????? WOW!!!!!!!! :-))
>
> I timmed out 2/3 of your rediculess post as it is, Dud.
>
> Go have a anither drink with your buddies, the rest of the industry
sobered
> up 10 years ago.
>
> <snip of lun complaining about snippage, while not snipping>

WELL!!!!!!! No need to get "snippy" about it John.

LUN!!!!!.l..... LUN!!!!!...... How DARE you call me a LUN!!!!!

"Honey....come down here and see this. John just called me a
LUN!!!!!!"........and bring me "anither" drink will ya.

Nite JT!! :-)

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...

<snip of lun complaining about snippage, while not snipping>
>
> WELL!!!!!!! No need to get "snippy" about it John.

You certainly did a fine job of showing your ass, Henriques.

You have a good time at the bar and quit pretending here.

"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

Vicente Vazquez wrote:

> "ArtKramr" > escreveu na mensagem
> ...
> > They are not really simulators. They are just computer games.
>
> Mr. Kramer,
>
> Some of them, like "Microsoft Flight Simulator", are actually more like
> simulators than games. If you check them out, you will also notice that
> there are no such things as "scores" or "adversaries". It's just plain
> flight. They might not be "reallistic" simulators, but that's another
> question.

They also do 'Combat Simulator' now.

Best sim I've used to date for flight modelling was Flight Unlimited btw.


Graham

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

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

Checked out any of the flight sim groups ?

There's some awesome add-ons for MS Flight Simulator including multiple
screen support. You'll need mutliple PCs and a server though. :-)


Graham

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...

<snip>
> I found MS extremely competent and good to work with.....a very
professional
> bunch.

Now the Dud man has turned schitzo.

Number of answers here:
If you were flying close formation you could barely hear the howl
right around 89%. We used it on cross-countrys to let people know we
were in town. We'd make a VFR letdown in close formation circling over
town while Lead jockeyed his throttle around that magic 89%. Quite a
few times I've walked away from my bird and there was a car waiting
for me. On the ground it'd howl around 69% - handy to let your crew
chief know you were back early. It was due to the interaction between
the secondary and primary airflow in the nozzle. The J79-19 engine did
not howl, alas, but it made up for that in performance. The Dash-19
also gave a definite sideways motion to the fuselage when acclerated
off idle - kind of like gunning a good hot rod back in the old days in
SoCal.
PACATD - They are being used to good effect in the Part 141 school
(AIMS Community College, Greeley, Colorado) that I taught in and
retired from in 1995. AIMS still works very closely with our local
FADO. The school also uses two AST 300 digital twin trainers - they
are excellent for instrument training. I might add the final sim check
in the professional pilot program is an exact duplication of an ATP
check and the students pass it at about 220 total hours. Also, they
fly the check in two parts, once as copilot and once as PIC. This is
to evaluate CRM. The school has airline check captains give a good
portion of these checks as a quality control monitoring method, too.
FWIW I started that program at AIMS in 1987 as an Eastern rep, then
when EAL got sick I retired from them in 89 and stayed here in
Colorado rather than go back to Miami..
Walt BJ

"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
om...
> Number of answers here:
> If you were flying close formation you could barely hear the howl
> right around 89%. We used it on cross-countrys to let people know we
> were in town. We'd make a VFR letdown in close formation circling over
> town while Lead jockeyed his throttle around that magic 89%. Quite a
> few times I've walked away from my bird and there was a car waiting
> for me. On the ground it'd howl around 69% - handy to let your crew
> chief know you were back early. It was due to the interaction between
> the secondary and primary airflow in the nozzle. The J79-19 engine did
> not howl, alas, but it made up for that in performance. The Dash-19
> also gave a definite sideways motion to the fuselage when acclerated
> off idle - kind of like gunning a good hot rod back in the old days in
> SoCal.
> PACATD - They are being used to good effect in the Part 141 school
> (AIMS Community College, Greeley, Colorado) that I taught in and
> retired from in 1995. AIMS still works very closely with our local
> FADO. The school also uses two AST 300 digital twin trainers - they
> are excellent for instrument training. I might add the final sim check
> in the professional pilot program is an exact duplication of an ATP
> check and the students pass it at about 220 total hours. Also, they
> fly the check in two parts, once as copilot and once as PIC. This is
> to evaluate CRM. The school has airline check captains give a good
> portion of these checks as a quality control monitoring method, too.
> FWIW I started that program at AIMS in 1987 as an Eastern rep, then
> when EAL got sick I retired from them in 89 and stayed here in
> Colorado rather than go back to Miami..
> Walt BJ

I guess this was for me :-) Thanks!
Dudley
"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
om...
> Number of answers here:
> If you were flying close formation you could barely hear the howl
> right around 89%. We used it on cross-countrys to let people know we
> were in town. We'd make a VFR letdown in close formation circling over
> town while Lead jockeyed his throttle around that magic 89%. Quite a
> few times I've walked away from my bird and there was a car waiting
> for me. On the ground it'd howl around 69% - handy to let your crew
> chief know you were back early. It was due to the interaction between
> the secondary and primary airflow in the nozzle. The J79-19 engine did
> not howl, alas, but it made up for that in performance. The Dash-19
> also gave a definite sideways motion to the fuselage when acclerated
> off idle - kind of like gunning a good hot rod back in the old days in
> SoCal.
> PACATD - They are being used to good effect in the Part 141 school
> (AIMS Community College, Greeley, Colorado) that I taught in and
> retired from in 1995. AIMS still works very closely with our local
> FADO. The school also uses two AST 300 digital twin trainers - they
> are excellent for instrument training. I might add the final sim check
> in the professional pilot program is an exact duplication of an ATP
> check and the students pass it at about 220 total hours. Also, they
> fly the check in two parts, once as copilot and once as PIC. This is
> to evaluate CRM. The school has airline check captains give a good
> portion of these checks as a quality control monitoring method, too.
> FWIW I started that program at AIMS in 1987 as an Eastern rep, then
> when EAL got sick I retired from them in 89 and stayed here in
> Colorado rather than go back to Miami..
> Walt BJ

This is your best post of the night, Dud.

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "WaltBJ" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Number of answers here:
> > If you were flying close formation you could barely hear the howl
> > right around 89%. We used it on cross-countrys to let people know we
> > were in town. We'd make a VFR letdown in close formation circling over
> > town while Lead jockeyed his throttle around that magic 89%. Quite a
> > few times I've walked away from my bird and there was a car waiting
> > for me. On the ground it'd howl around 69% - handy to let your crew
> > chief know you were back early. It was due to the interaction between
> > the secondary and primary airflow in the nozzle. The J79-19 engine did
> > not howl, alas, but it made up for that in performance. The Dash-19
> > also gave a definite sideways motion to the fuselage when acclerated
> > off idle - kind of like gunning a good hot rod back in the old days in
> > SoCal.
> > PACATD - They are being used to good effect in the Part 141 school
> > (AIMS Community College, Greeley, Colorado) that I taught in and
> > retired from in 1995. AIMS still works very closely with our local
> > FADO. The school also uses two AST 300 digital twin trainers - they
> > are excellent for instrument training. I might add the final sim check
> > in the professional pilot program is an exact duplication of an ATP
> > check and the students pass it at about 220 total hours. Also, they
> > fly the check in two parts, once as copilot and once as PIC. This is
> > to evaluate CRM. The school has airline check captains give a good
> > portion of these checks as a quality control monitoring method, too.
> > FWIW I started that program at AIMS in 1987 as an Eastern rep, then
> > when EAL got sick I retired from them in 89 and stayed here in
> > Colorado rather than go back to Miami..
> > Walt BJ
>
>

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
> >From: "Gord Beaman" )
> >Date: 11/16/03 5:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >
> >>>Subject: PC flight simulators
> >>>From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
> >>>Date: 11/16/03 3:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >>>Message-id: >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I was wondering if anyone in this NG play simulators?
> >>> If so, which one? What's the best out there, currently.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Regards...
> >>
> >>They are not really simulators. They are just computer games.
> >>Arthur Kramer
> >
> >
> >Pretty inconsiderate Art...just because you don't play with them
> >why denigerate someone elses fun?
> >
> >They do indeed simulate flight, so why do you make that stupid
> >statement?
> >--
> >
> >-Gord.
>
>
> I flew real simulators. And I have flown the crap they make for
computers.And
> anything that you can do on a computer isn't even close. If you want to
fly
> your computer for fun ok,bur remember it is just a toy. but don't confuse
it
> with real flying or flying a real simulator. I guess you have never flown
Air
> Force simulators. If you had you wouldn't be talking such patent nonsense.
Now
> be a good guy and just go away.
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Well Art, I fly military simulators on just about a daily basis, the Link
P3C OFT and the Thales AP3C AFS and use on a regular basis PC simulators,
apart from the fact that they can replicate aircraft systems with over 400
faults and have motion, I for the life of me, am having trouble
understanding what the major difference is between a home simulator and a
military simulator in terms of simulating the flight characteristics of an
aircraft.
I notice Art, that when I asked you if you had seen any of the current PC
flight simulators, you didn't comment, so I'm asking you again Art, have you
seen any of the current PC sims in use?

Scet
>

>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>From: "Scet"
>Date: 11/17/03 10:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>> >From: "Gord Beaman" )
>> >Date: 11/16/03 5:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>> >
>> >>>Subject: PC flight simulators
>> >>>From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
>> >>>Date: 11/16/03 3:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >>>Message-id: >
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I was wondering if anyone in this NG play simulators?
>> >>> If so, which one? What's the best out there, currently.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards...
>> >>
>> >>They are not really simulators. They are just computer games.
>> >>Arthur Kramer
>> >
>> >
>> >Pretty inconsiderate Art...just because you don't play with them
>> >why denigerate someone elses fun?
>> >
>> >They do indeed simulate flight, so why do you make that stupid
>> >statement?
>> >--
>> >
>> >-Gord.
>>
>>
>> I flew real simulators. And I have flown the crap they make for
>computers.And
>> anything that you can do on a computer isn't even close. If you want to
>fly
>> your computer for fun ok,bur remember it is just a toy. but don't confuse
>it
>> with real flying or flying a real simulator. I guess you have never flown
>Air
>> Force simulators. If you had you wouldn't be talking such patent nonsense.
>Now
>> be a good guy and just go away.
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
>Well Art, I fly military simulators on just about a daily basis, the Link
>P3C OFT and the Thales AP3C AFS and use on a regular basis PC simulators,
>apart from the fact that they can replicate aircraft systems with over 400
>faults and have motion, I for the life of me, am having trouble
>understanding what the major difference is between a home simulator and a
>military simulator in terms of simulating the flight characteristics of an
>aircraft.
>I notice Art, that when I asked you if you had seen any of the current PC
>flight simulators, you didn't comment, so I'm asking you again Art, have you
>seen any of the current PC sims in use?
>
>Scet
>>
>
>

Yeah. Flight Simulator. And it is just a computer game. I have only 1100
flying hours 250 of which are combat hours over Europe. Not a lot by any
standard. But comparing Flight Simulator with flying over the Ruhr Valley
compares only in someones wildest dreams, not in reality. But it goes over big
with toy lovers.

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

Aces High is the best online sim. WWII.
Many real pilots fly there.
It was also a real Lancaster pilot (Dresden) i dont know if he is still =
there.
15 dollars a month, but it worth it, even the double.
Stop to talk, come to fly and die ;)
check 6


On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:49:18 GMT, "Bj=F8rnar Bols=F8y" =
>
wrote:

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

Try it, 15 days free
http://www.hitechcreations.com/htcindex.html

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 06:58:21 GMT, (John) wrote:

>Aces High is the best online sim. WWII.
>Many real pilots fly there.
>It was also a real Lancaster pilot (Dresden) i dont know if he is still =
there.
>15 dollars a month, but it worth it, even the double.
>Stop to talk, come to fly and die ;)
>check 6
>
>
>On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:49:18 GMT, "Bj=F8rnar Bols=F8y" =
>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> I was wondering if anyone in this NG play simulators?
>> If so, which one? What's the best out there, currently.
>>
>>
>> Regards...

>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>From: "Tex Houston"
>Date: 11/16/03 6:24 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> Get a room for chrissakes...
>> --
>>
>> -Gord.
>
>I've always been polite to you even with a disagreement. Why are you all of
>a sudden getting ****y with Art Kramer and me?
>
>Bewildered,
>
>Tex
>
>
>

Bad manners and the delusion that sitting at a computer paying with games is
the same as really flying.


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: Re: PC flight simulators
>From: "Jim Baker"
>Date: 11/16/03 8:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:

>AND, I play with the Microsoft Flight Sim sometimes just for the hell of it.

Play is right That's what I said in the first place.


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 >...

>Bad manners and the delusion that sitting at a computer paying with games is
>the same as really flying.

Art, I don't think anyone is honestly of the impression that flight sims on PCs are the same as real flight.

And nobody is even beginning to suggest that combat simulators offer anything more than a brief glimpse of what you and your
comrades and fellow airmen went through in the air over Europe in WW2.

They're good at aiding in instrument training, learning basic procedures (like entering the landing pattern at airports, learning
how to use ILS, tuning into the correct frequency for VORs and other NAVAIDS), and the very basic principles of powered flight.

Not even Microsoft will tell you that their simulation software is intended to be used off-the-shelf as an ultra-realistic and
precision-accurate representation of real world flight because it simply is not possible for it to be so.

The only computer based simulators that offer any degree of accuracy in terms of "look and feel" are the massive multi-million £/$
moving simulators with complete working flight deck and one-piece 180 degree wrap-around screen. That's why they cost millions and
FS2004 costs £50/$80.

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.

(Just my 2p / 2c)

Cheers
Graeme

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

Pooh Bear wrote:
> "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:
>
>> I was wondering if anyone in this NG play simulators?
>> If so, which one? What's the best out there, currently.
>
> Checked out any of the flight sim groups ?
>
> There's some awesome add-ons for MS Flight Simulator including
> multiple screen support. You'll need mutliple PCs and a server
> though. :-)

I don't know what sim it is but this setup looks impressive.
http://jameshart.mine.nu/ngs/flysim.jpg

--
James...
http://www.jameshart.co.uk/

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: PC flight simulators
> >From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
> >Date: 11/16/03 3:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> > I was wondering if anyone in this NG play simulators?
> > If so, which one? What's the best out there, currently.
> >
> >
> > Regards...
>
> They are not really simulators. They are just computer games.

An acquaintance of mine is a relief pilot for a regional airline. Rather
than fixed routes, he has to be ready to fly to every airport that the
company services. He uses MS Flight Sim to refresh his memory of airports
that he has not been to for a while. Add on scenery shows realistic airport
layout & hazards. As a passenger I am happy that he has played a game prior
to the real thing.

In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>Flying at night (in the US) does not require an IFR ticket.

Nor in the UK, but it does require an extra ticket: typically ~5 hours
(as opposed to at least 10hrs plus lots of maintenance for IFR - if it
was easy, everyone would do it)

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

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

>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.
>

Well IFR on a desktop sim, which many of them are far far better than many of
the older analog sims which are used for ifr training, is not something that is
going to build proficiency or comfort when going down to mins...

But it can be great for honing procedures and practicing approaches, which can
make you a better IFR pilot.


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

On 18 Nov 2003 18:16:49 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>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.

Is there any reference to this simulator available?

How was the view system done to get the Norden training? How were the
instruments in the cockpit powered? How was force-feedback of the
control column performed?


Questions over questions by someone who thought that the first
full-motion simulator was made for the Boeing 727....





Bye
Andreas

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 20:27:30 -0000, "James Hart"
> wrote:


>I don't know what sim it is but this setup looks impressive.
>http://jameshart.mine.nu/ngs/flysim.jpg

Check that....
http://www.projectmagenta.com/

based (as your link) on FS2002.


Bye
Andreas

(ArtKramr) wrote in
:

>>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>>From: "Jim Baker"
>>Date: 11/16/03 8:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id:
>
>>AND, I play with the Microsoft Flight Sim sometimes just for the
>>hell of it.
>
> Play is right That's what I said in the first place.

If you look carefully, the person that you were responding to said it too
(he specificlly said "play simulators"), you just decided to make an
issue of it. Would someone who was hopeing to use a simulator to learn
how to fly would describe it as "play"?

Your post seemed to me to be more about how cool you are, not anything
haveing to do with computer games.

You are missing something.
Yes if you take the <feeling> of the fly, a pc cant give you this =
feeling.
But there are other things, especialy in online simulation.
Your enemy is real humans. They are clever, they learn day by day,
they do immelmans,hi yo-yos,low yo-yos,scissors,barrels, you need
SA to the limits when you are in the meadle of 15 enemy fighters,
you need to know ballistics to shoot angles (WWII sim) you learn
wingman tactics,squadron tactics,bombing ,dogfighting, with no real =
planes,
BUT very near to the real ones.(flying characteristics).
One thing is real at the online sims. The feaver of the battle with your =
human
enemies. Real pilots use real tactics there with near to real planes.
Especialy in WWII sim's you dont fight with buttons. You fight with REAL
Energy Management tactics, all props are underpowered,Real T&B tactics,
and in general you need to Know Real Combat Manuvers and flying theory
to survive.And ofcourse you need to know your plane and your enemy plane.
And more than everything you need to know how to shoot this devil infrond
of you at 400y who never stay steady.
We miss the real feeling of the flight witch a pc cant give you. Yet.


On 18 Nov 2003 17:02:33 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>>From: "Anonymous" =20
>>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 =A3/$ 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

Pooh Bear > wrote in
:
> "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:
>
>> I was wondering if anyone in this NG play simulators?
>> If so, which one? What's the best out there, currently.
>
> Checked out any of the flight sim groups ?
>
> There's some awesome add-ons for MS Flight Simulator including
> multiple screen support. You'll need mutliple PCs and a server
> though. :-)

Hm.. Just an update, seems MSFS2004 has multimonitor support
both through a single videocard with dual-screen capability,
or using multiple videocards. :)


http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulator/fs2004
_multimonitor.asp



Regards...

(ArtKramr) wrote:

>>
>>I've always been polite to you even with a disagreement. Why are you all of
>>a sudden getting ****y with Art Kramer and me?
>>
>>Bewildered,
>>
>>Tex
>>
>
>Bad manners and the delusion that sitting at a computer paying with games is
>the same as really flying.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

Gee Kramer, didn't get enough bang for your buck so you thought
that you'd do some trolling eh?.

This portion of the thread was over TWO DAYS AGO. I already
apologized to Tex nearly two days ago and you saw no more
comments from anyone so you thought you'd stir the pot some did
you?.
--

-Gord.

I think US Air Force Academy knows better ;)

Utilizing the Internet-driven combat simulation known as Aces High, the =
U.S.
Air Force Academy cadets in the SMD, or Wargaming, club were offered the
opportunity to take command of air and naval forces in a virtual combat
environment. Aces High is a distributed, Internet simulator that allows
hundreds of people from around the world to fly, drive, and sail =
simulated
World War II combat vehicles in a real-time virtual environment. This =
scenario,
dubbed "Operation Hostile Shores," took place over the course of four, =
two-hour
sessions or "frames;" frames were approximately one week apart. The =
cadets
formed a Joint Forces Air Operations Center (JFAOC), with individual =
cadets
taking on the roles of Joint Forces Air Component Commander, J-2, J-3, as=
well
as air group commanders for fighter, fighter-bomber, and bomber groups.=20

more here..... http://www.wargamer.com/articles/hostile_shores_main.asp



On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:03:02 GMT, (John) wrote:

>Try it, 15 days free
>http://www.hitechcreations.com/htcindex.html
>
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 06:58:21 GMT, (John) wrote:
>
>>Aces High is the best online sim. WWII.
>>Many real pilots fly there.
>>It was also a real Lancaster pilot (Dresden) i dont know if he is still=
there.
>>15 dollars a month, but it worth it, even the double.
>>Stop to talk, come to fly and die ;)
>>check 6
>>
>>
>>On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:49:18 GMT, "Bj=F8rnar Bols=F8y" =
>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I was wondering if anyone in this NG play simulators?
>>> If so, which one? What's the best out there, currently.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards...

I think US Air Force Academy knows better ;)

Utilizing the Internet-driven combat simulation known as Aces High, the =
U.S.
Air Force Academy cadets in the SMD, or Wargaming, club were offered the
opportunity to take command of air and naval forces in a virtual combat
environment. Aces High is a distributed, Internet simulator that allows
hundreds of people from around the world to fly, drive, and sail =
simulated
World War II combat vehicles in a real-time virtual environment. This =
scenario,
dubbed "Operation Hostile Shores," took place over the course of four, =
two-hour
sessions or "frames;" frames were approximately one week apart. The =
cadets
formed a Joint Forces Air Operations Center (JFAOC), with individual =
cadets
taking on the roles of Joint Forces Air Component Commander, J-2, J-3, as=
well
as air group commanders for fighter, fighter-bomber, and bomber groups.=20

more here..... http://www.wargamer.com/articles/hostile_shores_main.asp



On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:03:02 GMT, (John) wrote:

>Try it, 15 days free
>http://www.hitechcreations.com/htcindex.html
>
> On Tu

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 02:13:42 GMT, (John) wrote:

>You are missing something.
>Yes if you take the <feeling> of the fly, a pc cant give you this =
feeling.
>But there are other things, especialy in online simulation.
>Your enemy is real humans. They are clever, they learn day by day,
>they do immelmans,hi yo-yos,low yo-yos,scissors,barrels, you need
>SA to the limits when you are in the meadle of 15 enemy fighters,
>you need to know ballistics to shoot angles (WWII sim) you learn
>wingman tactics,squadron tactics,bombing ,dogfighting, with no real =
planes,
>BUT very near to the real ones.(flying characteristics).
>One thing is real at the online sims. The feaver of the battle with your=
human
>enemies. Real pilots use real tactics there with near to real planes.
>Especialy in WWII sim's you dont fight with buttons. You fight with REAL
>Energy Management tactics, all props are underpowered,Real T&B tactics,
>and in general you need to Know Real Combat Manuvers and flying theory
>to survive.And ofcourse you need to know your plane and your enemy =
plane.
>And more than everything you need to know how to shoot this devil =
infrond
>of you at 400y who never stay steady.
>We miss the real feeling of the flight witch a pc cant give you. Yet.
>
>
>On 18 Nov 2003 17:02:33 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>>>From: "Anonymous" =20
>>>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 =A3/$ 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.

First, nobody was implying that the computer programs in question were to be
used for flight training.

Second, the term "simulator" covers a very broad base--not just the
extremely-high-fidelity equipment that can be used for flight checks and
training. The distinction lies in the fidelity of the simulation.

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
> >From: "Scet"
> >Date: 11/17/03 10:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
> >> >From: "Gord Beaman" )
> >> >Date: 11/16/03 5:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: >
> >> >
> >> (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>>Subject: PC flight simulators
> >> >>>From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
> >> >>>Date: 11/16/03 3:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >>>Message-id: >
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I was wondering if anyone in this NG play simulators?
> >> >>> If so, which one? What's the best out there, currently.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Regards...
> >> >>
> >> >>They are not really simulators. They are just computer games.
> >> >>Arthur Kramer
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Pretty inconsiderate Art...just because you don't play with them
> >> >why denigerate someone elses fun?
> >> >
> >> >They do indeed simulate flight, so why do you make that stupid
> >> >statement?
> >> >--
> >> >
> >> >-Gord.
> >>
> >>
> >> I flew real simulators. And I have flown the crap they make for
> >computers.And
> >> anything that you can do on a computer isn't even close. If you want to
> >fly
> >> your computer for fun ok,bur remember it is just a toy. but don't
confuse
> >it
> >> with real flying or flying a real simulator. I guess you have never
flown
> >Air
> >> Force simulators. If you had you wouldn't be talking such patent
nonsense.
> >Now
> >> be a good guy and just go away.
> >>
> >> Arthur Kramer
> >> 344th BG 494th BS
> >> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> >> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> >> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
> >
> >Well Art, I fly military simulators on just about a daily basis, the Link
> >P3C OFT and the Thales AP3C AFS and use on a regular basis PC simulators,
> >apart from the fact that they can replicate aircraft systems with over
400
> >faults and have motion, I for the life of me, am having trouble
> >understanding what the major difference is between a home simulator and a
> >military simulator in terms of simulating the flight characteristics of
an
> >aircraft.
> >I notice Art, that when I asked you if you had seen any of the current PC
> >flight simulators, you didn't comment, so I'm asking you again Art, have
you
> >seen any of the current PC sims in use?
> >
> >Scet
> >>
> >
> >
>
> Yeah. Flight Simulator. And it is just a computer game. I have only 1100
> flying hours 250 of which are combat hours over Europe. Not a lot by any
> standard. But comparing Flight Simulator with flying over the Ruhr Valley
> compares only in someones wildest dreams, not in reality. But it goes
over big
> with toy lovers.
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

No Art, if you bothered to read my post correctly and got down off your high
and mighty perch, you would of noticed that I said "Link
P3C OFT and the Thales AP3C AFS" These are not "games" as you call them, but
allow Military aircrew to actually log flight time. They are fully
functional Military flight simulators, which I'm sure that if you were to
see the new generation simulators, you would stand open mouthed with awe.
Art, the Military just don't go letting aircrew acrue flying hours on a
"game".

Can't help but notice Art that you still didn't answer my question "Have you
seen any of the current PC sims in use?"
And also can't help but ask " Have you seen a new generation AFS that has
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.


>

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: Re: 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

>Subject: Re: 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: Re: 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
>

>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>From: Glenfiddich
>Date: 11/19/03 5:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>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?
>
>
>That said, even if PC sims are not "real", they should certainly
>be counted as valid training aids.
>

A valid training aid yes. But a very limited one that is never a substitute for
actually flying. White knuckles? Never. But I think that many here have never
experienced white knuckles or anything close.White knuckles is what you get
10,000 feet over the Ruhr valley with a sky full of 88's. Not 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

>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>From:
>Date: 11/19/03 5:19 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:

>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.........

I don;t know much. Just a few lessons learned over the Rhine Valley in 1944 and
1945. BTW, I didn't see you there so maybe you are the one who doesn't know
much about the reality of flying for sure. That is why you are confused about
MSFS and real flying.


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 >...

>A valid training aid yes. But a very limited one that is never a substitute for
>actually flying. White knuckles? Never. But I think that many here have never
>experienced white knuckles or anything close.White knuckles is what you get
>10,000 feet over the Ruhr valley with a sky full of 88's. Not on a PC.

I can't say whether that would give me white knuckles or not, but it'd probably
give me brown underwear...

I enjoy a WWII sim called "Forgotten Battles"

They have modeled most of the Russian, American, British and German combat
aircraft.

They left out the B-26. ;-)

Check out http://www.il2sturmovik.com/

and the comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim newsgroup.



"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...

>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>From: "Anonymous"
>Date: 11/19/03 5:42 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>ArtKramr wrote in message >...
>
>>A valid training aid yes. But a very limited one that is never a substitute
>for
>>actually flying. White knuckles? Never. But I think that many here have
>never
>>experienced white knuckles or anything close.White knuckles is what you get
>>10,000 feet over the Ruhr valley with a sky full of 88's. Not on a PC.
>
>I can't say whether that would give me white knuckles or not, but it'd
>probably
>give me brown underwear...
>
>

I would say plenty of both. And never to be forgotten memories. That was
flying. PC's don't quite cut it in those terms..


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: Re: PC flight simulators
>From: "Dave"
>Date: 11/19/03 5:48 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>I enjoy a WWII sim called "Forgotten Battles"
>
>They have modeled most of the Russian, American, British and German combat
>aircraft.
>
>They left out the B-26. ;-)
>
>Check out http://www.il2sturmovik.com/
>
>and the comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim newsgroup.
>
>
>
>"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...
>
>
>

Only REAL MEN flew the B-26. And only the B-26 could scare the **** out of the
elephant.(grin)


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: Re: PC flight simulators
>From: Glenfiddich
>Date: 11/19/03 6:03 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 19 Nov 2003 13:30:52 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>>>From: Glenfiddich
>>>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?
>>>
>>>
>>>That said, even if PC sims are not "real", they should certainly
>>>be counted as valid training aids.
>
>>A valid training aid yes.
>>But a very limited one that is never a substitute for actually flying.
>
>Of course.
>
>> White knuckles? Never.
>
>I've seen them in a military flight sim.
>
>It all depends on how realistic the sim is - and it didn't hurt
>that the particular situation in the sim was close to the real-life
>one which had got that pilot assigned to sim duty.

But you are not talking about MSFS on a PCare you?

>Part of the value of sims is to safely train experienced pilots for
>those rare dire events that would risk the aircraft if tried in
>flight.

Yeah, but not on a home PC.
>
>>But I think that many here have never
>>experienced white knuckles or anything close.
>
>A competent and properly trained peace-time pilot should
>never get into any such situations. <g>
>
>>White knuckles is what you get
>>10,000 feet over the Ruhr valley with a sky full of 88's. Not on a PC.
>
>I'd imagine that, in that situation, white knuckles would be
>the least of your symptoms...


Truer words were never spoken.

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: Re: 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.

Seraphim > wrote:

(ArtKramr) wrote in
:
>
>>>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>>>From: "Jim Baker"
>>>Date: 11/16/03 8:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id:
>>
>>>AND, I play with the Microsoft Flight Sim sometimes just for the
>>>hell of it.
>>
>> Play is right That's what I said in the first place.
>
>If you look carefully, the person that you were responding to said it too
>(he specificlly said "play simulators"), you just decided to make an
>issue of it. Would someone who was hopeing to use a simulator to learn
>how to fly would describe it as "play"?
>
>Your post seemed to me to be more about how cool you are, not anything
>haveing to do with computer games.

Nah...he's just trolling again...trying to get a rise out of
someone so he can 'slap that puppy down'...act your age Art,
everyone's watching...
--

-Gord.

(ArtKramr) wrote:

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

"Real simulators"?...good one Art...

--

-Gord.

(ArtKramr) wrote:

>
>I don;t know much. Just a few lessons learned over the Rhine Valley in 1944 and
>1945. BTW, I didn't see you there so maybe you are the one who doesn't know
>much about the reality of flying for sure. That is why you are confused about
>MSFS and real flying.
>
>

You should be ashamed of yourself...

--

-Gord.

> (Ron) wrote:
(ArtKramr) wrote:

>>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.

>Well IFR on a desktop sim, which many of them are far far better than many of
>the older analog sims which are used for ifr training, is not something that is
>going to build proficiency or comfort when going down to mins...

>But it can be great for honing procedures and practicing approaches, which can
>make you a better IFR pilot.

Re-read what you just wrote, Ron. If desktop sims are good for
practicing approaches which can make you a "better" IFR pilot,
then it simply follows that to a limited degree desktop sims can
also help make you feel more "comfortable" when going down
to mins.

For example, when dispatched to a strange airport (esp. at night
in bad WX) from time to time me and my fellow charter jockeys
would fire up MS FlightSim 98 on our desktops, drag out the
applicable approach plates and practice a few approaches at
that strange airport before leaving for work.

But don't expect someone as insanely irrational and illogical as
Kramer to admit that he's more full of **** than a sperm whale with
NO ass! Remember that Kramer is not even a PILOT (much less
instrument rated) therefore he has no clue what it's like to routinely
shoot precision or non-precision approaches in Can't-See-****
conditions down to minimums as *PIC* (just for Kramer....PIC means
Pilot In Command).

The fact of the matter is that Kramer couldn't even successfully pass
a BASIC private pilot IFR written and/or oral exam, not to mention a
checkride in actual IMC conditions!

-Mike Marron
CFI-Instrument & former Commercial single-pilot IFR
(single & multi engine) pilot.

Glenfiddich > wrote:

>Part of the value of sims is to safely train experienced pilots for
>those rare dire events that would risk the aircraft if tried in
>flight.
>

IMO this is one (as you say) of the most valuable points of
simulators. Another, of course is basic switchology.

I don't mean that only literally but include all the basic
'moves' inherent in commercial piloting so as to make them
habitual and a natural part of the job rather than something that
takes conscious thought and therefore 'mental processing time'.

This leaves more capacity for 'getting ahead of the aircraft',
which is usually a good place to be...
--

-Gord.

"James Hart" > wrote:

>
>I don't know what sim it is but this setup looks impressive.
>http://jameshart.mine.nu/ngs/flysim.jpg

I'd sure as hell hate to prang *that* one!...it'd probably kill
you!
--

-Gord.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 16:51:44 GMT, Gord wrote:

> You should be ashamed of yourself...

As should you. You've taken your dislike of Art to such a level that
you're showing your own ass. Do yourself a favor and stop looking to flame
his every post.

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
(ArtKramr) wrote:

>>I don;t know much. Just a few lessons learned over the Rhine Valley in 1944 and
>>1945. BTW, I didn't see you there so maybe you are the one who doesn't know
>>much about the reality of flying for sure. That is why you are confused about
>>MSFS and real flying.

>You should be ashamed of yourself...

After he was caught responding to his own posts from his anonymous
"Autocollimator" account and "agreeing" with himself, he should also
be absolutely MORTIFIED beyond words. Hard to believe that he even
has the balls to show his chicken****, lying face on this NG after
that outrageous stunt!

>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>From: Yeff
>Date: 11/19/03 9:16 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 16:51:44 GMT, Gord wrote:
>
>> You should be ashamed of yourself...
>
>As should you. You've taken your dislike of Art to such a level that
>you're showing your own ass. Do yourself a favor and stop looking to flame
>his every post.
>
>-Jeff B.
>yeff at erols dot com


Doesn't matter Jeff.I plonked him a long while ago so I never see anything he
posts except when others quote it. But since he rarely has ever said much of
interest anyway, why waste the time?


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

Yeff > wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 16:51:44 GMT, Gord wrote:
>
>> You should be ashamed of yourself...
>
>As should you. You've taken your dislike of Art to such a level that
>you're showing your own ass. Do yourself a favor and stop looking to flame
>his every post.
>
>-Jeff B.
>yeff at erols dot com

Ok Jeff, thanks, I'll certainly give it consideration...
--

-Gord.

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 MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

wrote:

> Yeff > wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 16:51:44 GMT, Gord wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You should be ashamed of yourself...
>>
>>As should you. You've taken your dislike of Art to such a level that
>>you're showing your own ass. Do yourself a favor and stop looking to flame
>>his every post.
>>
>>-Jeff B.
>>yeff at erols dot com
>
>
> Ok Jeff, thanks, I'll certainly give it consideration...
> --
>
> -Gord.

Yeah Gord, do what I did, I killfiled him a year ago along with several
other PITB's. Now if everyone would quit replying to those folks I would
never even hear of them. <VBG>

George

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 18:03:34 -0600, "Gene Storey" > wrote:

>http://www.x-plane.com/
>
>There's some simulator companies that use this for FAA certification.
>It's pretty complex, as you can have 10 computers running and all
>networked together for the different views and gauges, etc.

I believe Scaled Composites uses/has used X-Plane for some simulation work.
But of course, what would they know? They're only building sub-orbital
vehicles, thats all. :-)


This made me laugh:

>In 1943 I flew a simulator that was the cockpit and nose of a
>B-26 complete with full reality sounds and feeling to the controls plus rough
>air effects..My pilot was in the cockpit and we flew the simulator as a crew. I
>did bombruns over Berlin that unrolled under us with accurate engine sounds and
>flak impacts. It was as close as you could get to actual flying in combat
>bombing and navigating. In fact we often got lost in the trainer procedure and
>actually felt we were in the air on bomb runs,

Welcome to 2003! Home-built motion cockpits + PC based flight sims have been
achieving far more than this for years!

>Comparing that to a PC is just total a stretch beyond all reason.

Indeed. A PC sim would blow it out the water!

1943!! ROFLMAO!!

And yes, I have flown real aircraft. Seems a lot of you guys have only
experienced sims from way back. More modern ones aren't that bad. In fact PC
sims are often more difficult because of the lack of SA and 'feel' of the
aircraft. But they still simulate flight to a degree. Just because you don't
have to be some super-hero, God-like, all knowing fighter pilot, to use them
doesn't mean they're crap.

:-)

--
Steve.

>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>From: Steve
>Date: 11/19/03 2:22 PM Pacific Standard Time

>1943!! ROFLMAO!!

If you were with us (The 344th Bomb Group) in 1943 I don't think you would
have found much to laugh about. We sure didn't. There was a lot going on, but
none of it was very funny.

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

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
> >>I don;t know much. Just a few lessons learned over the Rhine Valley in
1944 and
> >>1945. BTW, I didn't see you there so maybe you are the one who doesn't
know
> >>much about the reality of flying for sure. That is why you are confused
about
> >>MSFS and real flying.
>
> >You should be ashamed of yourself...
>
> After he was caught responding to his own posts

Accused (by one person), never verified.

Pete

> from his anonymous
> "Autocollimator" account and "agreeing" with himself, he should also
> be absolutely MORTIFIED beyond words. Hard to believe that he even
> has the balls to show his chicken****, lying face on this NG after
> that outrageous stunt!
>
>

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 02:13:42 GMT, (John) wrote:

>You are missing something.
>Yes if you take the <feeling> of the fly, a pc cant give you this =
>feeling.
>But there are other things, especialy in online simulation.
>Your enemy is real humans. They are clever, they learn day by day,
>they do immelmans,hi yo-yos,low yo-yos,scissors,barrels, you need
>SA to the limits when you are in the meadle of 15 enemy fighters,
>you need to know ballistics to shoot angles (WWII sim) you learn
>wingman tactics,squadron tactics,bombing ,dogfighting, with no real =
>planes,
>BUT very near to the real ones.(flying characteristics).
>One thing is real at the online sims. The feaver of the battle with your =
>human
>enemies. Real pilots use real tactics there with near to real planes.
>Especialy in WWII sim's you dont fight with buttons. You fight with REAL
>Energy Management tactics, all props are underpowered,Real T&B tactics,
>and in general you need to Know Real Combat Manuvers and flying theory
>to survive.And ofcourse you need to know your plane and your enemy plane.
>And more than everything you need to know how to shoot this devil infrond
>of you at 400y who never stay steady.
>We miss the real feeling of the flight witch a pc cant give you. Yet.

Well John, in simple terms, you are completely incorrect.

Ever here of Aces High? That's a real-time WWII combat simulator/game where
you fly with and against other human pilots. You even have radio voice coms.

More than a few military pilots have tried Aces High and came away horrified
at the ACM skill and tactical knowledge of the individual players/pilots. In
simple terms, they got their asses kicked.

I challenge anyone reading this to download the software (it's free) and set up
an online account (first two weeks are free) and try you hand at it. That goes
for you former fighter jocks too. However, be prepared for the extremely steep
learning curve and some extraordinaily talented people.

Go to http://www.hitechcreations.com

Yeah, it's a game, but it's also an accurate simulation inmany respects....

Come on guys, I won't abuse you too much. :)

My regards,

Widewing (C.C. Jordan)
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
http://www.cradleofaviation.org

On 19 Nov 2003 22:30:20 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>>From: Steve
>>Date: 11/19/03 2:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
>
>>1943!! ROFLMAO!!
>
>If you were with us (The 344th Bomb Group) in 1943 I don't think you would
>have found much to laugh about. We sure didn't. There was a lot going on, but
>none of it was very funny.

Could you tell more about that simulator, Art?
How were the visuals done? What computed the flight model?

Bye
Andreas

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 23:57:37 GMT, (Corey
C. Jordan) wrote:
Sorry John, I clicked on the wrong message to reply....
Stupid of me.

Anyway, John is CORRECT!!!!!

Come and try an online combat sim and find out how real it can be,
and indeed, how gamey it sometimes becomes.

But, if you want to learn basic ACM, understand the complex SA skills involved,
this is the place to go.... Sure it lacks the physical dynamics of motion and
G loading. But you can add to the realism by doing the following:

Drink two liters of water before you begin. You can use the empty bottle to
relieve yourself later.

Open all the windows, and turn off the heat.

Strip to you skivies and turn on any ceiling fans.

Finally, write a line of code that reformats your hard drive should you get
shot down or otherwise break you airplane.

Now you have all the prerequisites of a WWII fighter pilot experience,
you have to pee, you're freezing your ass off and you're terrified, all at the
same time. Now, go fly a sortie with a sky full of enemy aircraft all out to
kill you. Meanwhile, watch your six, and those you fly with. Know where all the
bad guys are, their altitude and energy state. Plan your route in and out,
avoiding flak concentrations and have two alternatives ready as nothing ever
goes as planned.

All of this and you haven't even engaged yet... Oh yeah, it's not easy....

Hell, rather than argue from a point of not knowing, try the damn thing and
then come back and tell us what you have discovered. Besides, it's FREE
for the first two weeks!

My regards,


>
>Well John, in simple terms, you are completely incorrect.

>My regards,
>
>Widewing (C.C. Jordan)
>http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
>http://www.cradleofaviation.org

Widewing (C.C. Jordan)
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
http://www.cradleofaviation.org

On 19 Nov 2003 13:57:30 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>Only REAL MEN flew the B-26. And only the B-26 could scare the **** out of the
>elephant.(grin)
>
>
>Arthur Kramer
>344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

Art, Aces High has the B-26, and a bombsight that requires calibration.
It has the A-20G too, solid nose, no bombsight, but it's a strafing monster,
and as agile as some of the fighters to boot, especially after you burn off some
fuel and drop your ordnance.

My regards,

Widewing (C.C. Jordan)
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
http://www.cradleofaviation.org

Ignoring the debate on wether its a game or simulator, but I will call
them simulators below (if you feel angry about this, count to 10 or
something).

I've flown these

A-10 Cuba!
X-Plane
Flanker 1.0-2.0
LO-MAC demo
Flight Unlimited
MS Flight Sim.

Ranked to the respect of how realistic/good the "feel of flight" is,
IMO, not on graphics or other bells and whistles. Granted, I've not
flown any of the aircraft in these simulators for real. But I took a
couple of lessons in a Cessna (oh, maybe I did fly one of these in
MSFS), been paragliding and is a vivid RC aircraft pilot!.

So, there. Thats what the orginal poster asked for.

>Hell, rather than argue from a point of not knowing, try the damn thing and
>then come back and tell us what you have discovered. Besides, it's FREE
>for the first two weeks!

I will concur, it is a lot of fun..
Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

Glenfiddich > wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:15:07 GMT, "Gord Beaman" wrote:
>
>>"James Hart" wrote:
>
>>>I don't know what sim it is but this setup looks impressive.
>>>http://jameshart.mine.nu/ngs/flysim.jpg
>
>>I'd sure as hell hate to prang *that* one!...it'd probably kill
>>you!
>
>Even if all goes well, as well as the yoke and rudder pedals
>you get to juggle FIVE mice, a trackball and two keyboards!
>
>Somehow, I doubt the realism of that sim.

Sure, it's likely 'too real', IOW it's probably 'harder' to fly
than the real deal. :)
--

-Gord.

>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>From: Andreas Maurer
>Date: 11/19/03 4:34 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 19 Nov 2003 22:30:20 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>>>From: Steve
>>>Date: 11/19/03 2:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>
>>>1943!! ROFLMAO!!
>>
>>If you were with us (The 344th Bomb Group) in 1943 I don't think you would
>>have found much to laugh about. We sure didn't. There was a lot going on,
>but
>>none of it was very funny.
>
>Could you tell more about that simulator, Art?
>How were the visuals done? What computed the flight model?
>
>Bye
>Andreas
..

Sure Andreas. Since you ask like a gentleman, I'll be glad to discuss it with
you. 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. When we climbed
into it the pilots went into the cockpit, and went through turning on all their
switches and starting and running up the engines as if for a real takeoff.
Everything lit up and came to life. I climbed into the nose, and switched on
everything activating the bombsight, watched the gyro stand up and come to
speed, watched the intervelometer light up and the bomb rack station indicator
show loaded bomb racks on each station. Now to the interesting stuff. My view
was a color photograph chart that rolled under me at groundspeed. But it was
a scrambled image, That is the target area might be a port that showed
Manhattan in the center, the China coast to the West and San Francisco to the
East. This was to prevent anyone rom being familiar with any area so you
couldn't say, "hey I lived there and know it well" You had to fly and navigate
since no one had a recognition advantage. We had been briefed before the
simulator drill as to the exact rarget are we were to hit and the route we were
to fly. Where we were to expect flak and fighters but we were never given any
indcation of the damage that we would sustain. On course we had extensive flak
that shook the simulator violently. We had an engine out that rolled us
violently into the dead engine but Paul and Bob caughtiit in time and we
connued on course on sungle engine. We were now losing about 300 feet /minute
and couldn't do a damned thing about it. We were jumped by fighterand returned
fire. Our cockpit and my nose filled with smoke and had a strong cordite
smell;; mixed with the odor of urine and vomit which was always present. I
opened the vent and a strong relative wind blew the nose clear of smoke. We
stopped losing altitiude and the target came into sight.I lined up the Norden
head with the target uncaged the gyro and called "on course" to Paul locking
in the Norden head to the base, Suddenly we got heavy Flak that rocked the
plane violently. "please don't tumble my gyro" I prayed. ****, The gyro
tumbled.I grabbed the gimble ring erector knobs, got the gyro up and caged it.
But it was too late. We would now have to do a go around through that ****ing
flak again. I had totally forgotten I was in a simulator. I was sweating ,
tense and upset about the go around as though it was real It was real to me at
that point. I got on the intercom and asked Paul to hold us steady through the
run.I forgot that the simulator was pre-programed and there were certain things
that were going to happen that was beyond our control. On the second run we hit
the target with good results. closed the bombay doors and we turned for home.
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.


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

<S> Widewing :) what i wright here was Exactly for Aces High.
Im in 2 years now ;) =20
What you say for a fight in DA between Fester and a Real Top Gun pilot ?
It would be interesting :)
In AH i am *HadesEE* <S>
check 6 :)

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 23:57:37 GMT, =
(Corey
C. Jordan) wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 02:13:42 GMT, (John) wrote:
>
>>You are missing something.
>>Yes if you take the <feeling> of the fly, a pc cant give you this =3D
>>feeling.
>>But there are other things, especialy in online simulation.
>>Your enemy is real humans. They are clever, they learn day by day,
>>they do immelmans,hi yo-yos,low yo-yos,scissors,barrels, you need
>>SA to the limits when you are in the meadle of 15 enemy fighters,
>>you need to know ballistics to shoot angles (WWII sim) you learn
>>wingman tactics,squadron tactics,bombing ,dogfighting, with no real =3D
>>planes,
>>BUT very near to the real ones.(flying characteristics).
>>One thing is real at the online sims. The feaver of the battle with =
your =3D
>>human
>>enemies. Real pilots use real tactics there with near to real planes.
>>Especialy in WWII sim's you dont fight with buttons. You fight with =
REAL
>>Energy Management tactics, all props are underpowered,Real T&B tactics,
>>and in general you need to Know Real Combat Manuvers and flying theory
>>to survive.And ofcourse you need to know your plane and your enemy =
plane.
>>And more than everything you need to know how to shoot this devil =
infrond
>>of you at 400y who never stay steady.
>>We miss the real feeling of the flight witch a pc cant give you. Yet.
>
>Well John, in simple terms, you are completely incorrect.
>
>Ever here of Aces High? That's a real-time WWII combat simulator/game =
where
>you fly with and against other human pilots. You even have radio voice =
coms.
>
>More than a few military pilots have tried Aces High and came away =
horrified
>at the ACM skill and tactical knowledge of the individual =
players/pilots. In
>simple terms, they got their asses kicked.
>
>I challenge anyone reading this to download the software (it's free) and=
set up
>an online account (first two weeks are free) and try you hand at it. =
That goes
>for you former fighter jocks too. However, be prepared for the extremely=
steep
>learning curve and some extraordinaily talented people.
>
>Go to http://www.hitechcreations.com
>
>Yeah, it's a game, but it's also an accurate simulation inmany =
respects....
>
>Come on guys, I won't abuse you too much. :)
>
>My regards,
>
>Widewing (C.C. Jordan)
>http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
>http://www.cradleofaviation.org

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 02:54:40 GMT, (John) wrote:

><S> Widewing :) what i wright here was Exactly for Aces High.
>Im in 2 years now ;) =20
>What you say for a fight in DA between Fester and a Real Top Gun pilot ?
>It would be interesting :)
>In AH i am *HadesEE* <S>
>check 6 :)

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.

Aces High can be a humbling experience for pilots and non-pilots alike. If they
stay around long enough to learn, they usually develop into excellent players.
Getting past the initial shock is the big hurdle. About 10% of the Aces High
community are actual pilots.

One more thing; this is not an arcade type flight sim. The flight physics are as
accurate as is possible. If you have no flying experience, or minimal simulator
experience, you'll be lucky to get off the ground, much less survive in a fight.
It takes time and patience just to master the basic skills to successfully
operate these virtual aircraft. Once you have some proficiency, then you can
begin to explore ACM and develop some skills. As to Navaids and general
navigation, you get a map and a compass. Fortunately, the map always shows your
location.. Otherwise you would have to navigate by landmarks.

My regards,

Widewing (C.C. Jordan)
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
http://www.cradleofaviation.org

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: 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

>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>From: "Scet"
>Date: 11/19/03 10:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: 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

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

Damned, I didn't know they did full motion simulators in WWII.
It must have been, you said "it behaved like a real plane in every sense."

> 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.

"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

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" > skrev i en meddelelse
...
>
> I was wondering if anyone in this NG play simulators?
> If so, which one? What's the best out there, currently.
>
>
> Regards...

Hi

I must admit that I havent bothered reading all the post in this thread, as
most of them seems too be about the realisem of simulatores, so sorry if
this one has been mentioned before.

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/soren_augustesen/index.html

On 20 Nov 2003 02:47:43 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>When we climbed
>into it the pilots went into the cockpit, and went through turning on all their
>switches and starting and running up the engines as if for a real takeoff.

Real engines or simulated ones?

> On course we had extensive flak
>that shook the simulator violently.

How was that simulated? Hydraulics? How were the visuals of exploding
flak shells simulated?

>We were jumped by fighterand returned
>fire.

Cool... how were the visuals of the fighters done? Did you use real
guns t return the fire (I'm sure yur gunners needed something to aim
at)?

> I
>opened the vent and a strong relative wind blew the nose clear of smoke.

Interesting.. so your sim was mounted in some kind of wind channel?

>I got on the intercom and asked Paul to hold us steady through the
>run.
How could he do that? Did he also have visuals or was he relying on
instruments only?

>I forgot that the simulator was pre-programed and there were certain things
>that were going to happen that was beyond our control.

I see... pre-programmed. So you were more or less sitting in a movie
theatre, correct?

Interesting stuff... you'd love to see one of the custom cockpits that
have been built for the "game" MS Flight Simulator. These days people
are using cut-off Boeing-737 noses.


Bye
Andreas

>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>From: Andreas Maurer
>Date: 11/20/03 7:24 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 20 Nov 2003 02:47:43 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>When we climbed
>>into it the pilots went into the cockpit, and went through turning on all
>their
>>switches and starting and running up the engines as if for a real takeoff.
>
>Real engines or simulated ones?

Simulated

>> On course we had extensive flak
>>that shook the simulator violently.
>
>How was that simulated? Hydraulics? How were the visuals of exploding
>flak shells simulated?
>
>

Hydraulics I think. We never saw wthe bursts only heard thenand felt the
concussion.


>We were jumped by fighterand returned
>>fire.
>
>Cool... how were the visuals of the fighters done? Did you use real
>guns t return the fire (I'm sure yur gunners needed something to aim
>at)?
>

Projected on a screen


>>opened the vent and a strong relative wind blew the nose clear of smoke.
>
>Interesting.. so your sim was mounted in some kind of wind channel?

No. It was just a blower motor that went on when the flap was opened.
>
>>I got on the intercom and asked Paul to hold us steady through the
>>run.

>How could he do that? Did he also have visuals or was he relying on
>instruments only?
>
He could't.But I forgot that in the excitement of the realism. We laughed about
it later.

>>I forgot that the simulator was pre-programed and there were certain things
>>that were going to happen that was beyond our control.
>
>I see... pre-programmed. So you were more or less sitting in a movie
>theatre, correct?

Well in a sense yes.But how we navigated and bombed was not pre programmed. The
results were real scores in real time.
>
>Interesting stuff... you'd love to see one of the custom cockpits that
>have been built for the "game" MS Flight Simulator. These days people
>are using cut-off Boeing-737 noses.
>

Yes I would. But it is not likely that I ever will.


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

>
>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
>
I would opine that the real value of MSFS for the neophyte would be the
ability to become familiar with navigation aids, switch ology, and general
characteristics. In particular, the navigation side is not too bad.

Al Minyard

>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/soren_augustesen/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: Re: 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: Re: PC flight simulators
> >From: "Scet"
> >Date: 11/19/03 10:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >Subject: Re: 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: Re: 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 MainBox<at>jrwlynch[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: Re: PC flight simulators
>From: "Paul J. Adam"
>Date: 11/21/03 6:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>>Subject: Re: 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: Re: 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

On 19 Nov 2003 22:30:20 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: PC flight simulators
>>From: Steve
>>Date: 11/19/03 2:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
>
>>1943!! ROFLMAO!!
>
>If you were with us (The 344th Bomb Group) in 1943 I don't think you would
>have found much to laugh about. We sure didn't. There was a lot going on, but
>none of it was very funny.

I waw refering to the simulator that you mentioned...that was way better
than todays flight sims.

>Only REAL MEN flew the B-26. And only the B-26 could scare the **** out of the
>elephant.(grin)

Now my great great great grandfather fought at Waterloo. He was on horseback
and fought with a sword. Not at 10,000ft, eye to eye. Now thats a REAL MAN.

;-) :-)

Just to add. No personal disrespect to you was intended of course.


--
Steve.

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

>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

Where PC based combat sims excel is at teaching Situational Awareness and basic
ACM, even advanced ACM.

I'm sure any combat pilot will tell that no other factor has a greater impact
upon survival than SA. I would venture to say that it is the single greatest
asset a combat pilot could possess. Moreover, it is, IMHO, the most difficult
skill to teach and learn.

There are factors in the simulation that actually make it more difficult than in
real life. You have a single portal through which you must view the world around
you. To scan the sky around you, an actual pilot merely turns his head. Flying a
PC sim, you must do this via a series of hand manipulated inputs either thru a
hat switch or specific keystrokes. Either way, it requires greater effort and
concentration to do this as deftly as one moves one's own head. Yet, this must
be done constantly, and you must learn to do it instinctively to boot. Just 10
seconds of inattentiveness is all it takes to get clobbered.

Cockpit workload is minimized to a degree by the absence of an electrical system
and simplified hydraulic controls. Reliability is completely removed as a factor
as only battle damaged systems can fail. However, if a system is damaged, you
still have to manage the aircraft and get it home if possible.

Some things still remain. Weapon selector switches, fuel selector, propeller
controls, trim tab adjustment, two channel radio (with hundreds of frequencies)
and so on. There are some tidbits to help inexperienced players such as "combat
trim", which constantly trims the airplane based upon its speed. However, this
can substantially cut into agility when you have to fight the auto-trim, so
experienced players simply trim the aircraft manually. This is done via
keystrokes or on the more sophisticated controllers, via thumbwheels on the
HOTAS.

Furthermore, things have evolved a very long way from the old days of
microswitch joysticks. A good controller system can easily set you back $200.
However, this includes a programmable stick and throttle, along with rudder
pedals with toe brakes. Systems programmable for hundreds of functions are
commonplace. Virtually every input to the simulator is adjustable. The big names
in flight controllers include CH Products, Saitek and Thrustmaster.

Then there are environmental issues, rain, cloud cover, wind and darkness (yes,
we have night time too, albeit abbreviated).

Some things are over simplified in my opinion. Starting engines is a matter of
pushing a single button. Going to full power on a cold engine does nothing to
harm it. There's no cooler doors and cowl flaps to manage. There's no collisions
between friendly aircraft (but there sure is with enemy aircraft). To prevent
misbehavior, you cannot shoot down a friendly as the apparent damage is assigned
to your aircraft. This is called "killshooter", and it is sometimes disabled in
the Combat Theater, but is always on in the Main Arena.

A word about the various arenas. Most of the action is in the Main Arena, also
known as the MA. There is one of many maps up, the larger ones covering areas
greater than 27,000 square miles. This arena is set up with three warring
nations, each fighting the other two. There are no restrictions as to what type
of aircraft (or vehicle) you wish to fly or operate, other than the higher
performance aircraft require perk points to be accumulated before you can fly
them. You earn perk points by killing the enemy or successfully destroying
ground targets. The number of points is dependent upon what you kill and what
you are flying. For example, you earn more points for killing an Fw 190D-9 with
a P-40E than vice versa. Should you lose the "perked" aircraft, you lose the
perk points as well. Peak perk point cost is determined by the number of pilots
flying for your country. Cost goes up or down with those numbers.

You may find yourself fighting against virtually any aircraft in the plane set.
Mustangs vs Spitfire, Bf 109G-6 vs Ki-61 and so on. Most players are members of
structured and well organized squadrons, some with traditions that go back to
the MSDOS days of Air Warrior. It sounds hokey, but it does allow for better
organization within a country. The objective is to reduce one the enemy
countries to a single base facility by capturing their territory. That is the
gamey part of the simulation/game, which I do not care for.

There is also the Combat Theater which is structured along historical lines and
consists of two countries. However, the same land grab objective is also in
place. Set-ups are changed weekly, so one week you can fly an F4F-4 defending
Guadalcanal and the next week fly a Yak in defense of Mother Russia or take on
the Luftwaffe's Bf 109s in a Commonwealth Kittyhawk over Tunisia.

There is also a Training Arena and a Dueling Arena, their titles being
self-explanatory.

Finally, there is Special Events Arena (SEA) where weekly events are held, such
as the Wednesday night Snapshots (two hour historical scenarios). There are also
large, multi-week historical events played in frames of 2-3 hours each Saturday
for three or four weeks.

What's a typical combat sortie like in Aces High? Here's a brief AAR of a recent
sortie.

Word was received of a large enemy gaggle of aircraft headed towards one of our
forward airfields. I immediately selected that airfield on the map and
double-click on the icon. That puts me in the control tower. A quick scan around
the field reveals more than a dozen Hawker Typhoons with P-51s for cover making
bomb and rocket runs on the airfield. Too late to get airborne, I man a 40mm
anti-aircraft gun. I score hits on two Typhoons, both going straight into the
ground. But, there are too many to deal with and my gun mount is disabled by a
strafing fighter-bomber. So I go to the nearest airfield to get a fighter.
Meanwhile, one of the guys that I had just shot down sends a message on the
general text buffer (you can write messages to anyone in the channel 1 text
buffer, everyone online sees this text unless you purposefully squelch the
channel). PilotX writes, "Widewing, was that you in the friggin ack?"

"You bet!", I replied.

PilotX then types, "Fly an airplane, you fukkin jerk!"
(note that people alter spelling deliberately to avoid the wrath of the
auto-censor)

Even while he typed his remark, I'm easing on power to a P-51D, fueled with just
half tanks, more than enough for this sortie. Speed and agility are required,
not range, the enemy being just 30 miles away.

You need a lot of rudder and aileron to counteract the torque of the growling
Merlin as speed begins to build. Tail is up now, speed building quickly, and at
140 mph I rotate the Mustang just enough to let her slip off the runway. In a
very shallow climb, I cycle the gear up, a quick glance shows me three good
flags. I ease the nose up, maintaining optimum speed for the best rate of climb.
At 12,000 feet I level off, rocketing along at full Military power. In minutes
I'm hustling towards the enemy at better than 400 mph.

Five miles out now, and I can see the swarming dots, all below my altitude.

At two miles, I can identify all the aircraft, several Typhoons, Mustangs and a
few La-7s and Spitfires are strafing and bombing the field.

Guns hot, I pull off throttle and split-s in on a pair of P-51s oblivious to my
presence. Side slipping to limit my speed, I dive beneath the heavily laden
Mustangs and rocket in on their low six. I pick the trailing plane to the left
and let his wingspan fill the gunsight. A short burst crashes into the P-51, and
the left wing tumbles off. Quick feet on the rudder and I skid behind the
second, still blissfully unaware of the danger. At 200 yards a one-second burst
sends this Mustang on its death plunge, smoke and fire trailing behind. I
immediately pull into a climbing left-hand spiral, clearing my own six and
giving a good view of the mayhem below. Lot's of enemy aircraft still beating up
the field. I spot a lone La-7 slightlybelow me on an opposite course.
Unloading, I throttle up and accelerate towards the speedy Russian fighter. I'm
about 1,000 feet above him and as I pass over he does what all Lavochkin pilots
do in this situation, he pulls up into an inverted zoom climb trying for a low
attack. The counter is simple, I pull into an oblique loop, deploying maneuver
flaps as I come over the top. This forces the La-7 to go pure vertical, and he
can't keep the nose high anywhere near long enough… As the Soviet fighter
stalls, it flips onto its back, the pilot fighting to avoid a spin. Before he
even realizes the danger, a concentration of .50 caliber API literally blows the
entire tail off of his Lavochkin. It flutters down like 3 ton leaf.

That was the last fighter above 5,000 feet. Everything else is below that.
That's means, it's PARTY TIME!

I spiral down assessing the situation. Seeing a Typhoon diving on a rocket run I
see another easy opportunity. Typically, these guys dive down, pickle off some
rockets, then zoom up, reverse at the top of the zoom and repeat. I race over to
meet him at the top of his zoom. Right on schedule, the big Tiffie looms up in
planform, I need very little lead. The entire burst slams into the wing root and
cockpit. A bright orange flash indicates that the Typhoon is no more. The
notification text buffer states that "you have shot down PilotX". LOLOLOL. I
blast through the debris and look for the next target.

To the southeast I see two dots moving low and slow about 1,000 feet above the
forest. I know what those are, C-47s packed with paratroops destined for the
base. Racing towards the transports I drop a notch of flaps, trim the elevators
a bit. Power to idle, split-s down on the transports. Once again, they don't see
me until it's too late. One burning Goony dives into the trees. The second
breaks hard to the left, but he has no chance and his fuel tanks explode on my
first gunnery run.

Well, the loss of both C-47s has seriously incensed the remaining enemy, and all
of them are trying to claw their way up to my upwardly spiraling Mustang.
Typhoons are poor climbers, but their four Hispano cannon make them very
dangerous. Yet none can get near me. However, a Fw 190D-9 "Dora" is coming on
strong. Again, I unload and throttle into WEP. Dragging the Dora away from his
friends, we race North at 4,000 feet. Once I have about 3,000 yards of
separation, I reverse and head straight at him. Typically, he tries for a
head-on shot, but I roll out of the way, chop throttle, drop maneuver flaps and
reverse again. The Dora executes the standard Fw 190 climbing reverse. I
expected that, which is why I dumped E rapidly to get the deflection shot as he
zooms past, searching for the P-51 that just disappeared. My nose up about 20
degrees, climbing on a track to intercept the Focke Wulf, the Dora claws around,
the pilot not seeing me below his left wing. At 350 yards I take the 80 degree
deflection shot, and see hit flashes forward near his prop. A steady stream of
fluid pours out. Coolant, the Dora is fatally injured. Rolling in on his tail
700 yards back, I send another short burst his way, a few hit strikes evident.
Rolling right, the Dora breaks hard. Dumb, very dumb. My Mustang easily cuts
across his turn and a half-second burst blows off the outer half of his right
wing. The pilot struggles to retain control, but the loss of lift combined with
torque corkscrews the Dora into an open field.

Having expended about two-thirds of my ammunition, I head back towards the hard
pressed airfield. Fuel is barely adequate with about 25% remaining, meaning that
I have about 10 minutes before it becomes a real issue.

Arriving over the field at 10,000 feet, I see that the enemy has departed the
immediate vicinity, but spot two low dots running on the deck towards the
southwest. Well, a clear field means fuel is not a factor now, so I begin a
shallow dive in pursuit of the fleeing enemy. Winding the Mustang up to 500 mph
TAS, I close rapidly on the tow contacts, now discernable as a Bf 109 and a
La-7.

Closing quickly I see the 109 is smoking heavily, black smoke indicating that
light tripleA had drilled either an oil line or the cooler itself. Once the oil
is gone, the engine will seize, so the 109 won't be a threat for very long. As I
roar in the split up, the 109 going left, the Lavochkin going right. I go after
the healthy La-7. Typical of the tactics used by La-7 and La-5 drivers, the La-7
progressively tightens his turn, hoping I'll do likewise and burn down my E. The
La-7 accelerates faster than the Mustang, and climbs much faster until about
8,000 feet where it evens out. I pull into a high yo-yo, throttle back and
deploying flaps to the maneuver setting. I won't kill my speed without some
altitude in my hip pocket. Besides, I'm still above him, squarely on his 6
o'clock. Initially, the Lavochkin driver doesn't realize that I'm above him and
reverses hoping for the overshoot that will not happen. That reverse gives me a
solid opportunity for a 45 degree deflection shot, but first a quick scan for
that 109. I see his dot receding into the haze. He's gittin gone while the
gittin is good. Tough break for the La-7... I pull the nose through the La-7 as
the pilot pulls hard having finally spotted me. Too late though, my guns stitch
the Russian fighter from nose to tail. Smoke pours out and the La-7 snap rolls
into the ground.

Fully cognizant of my tactical situation, I turn a full 360, clearing my tail.
Once again, I unload and pour on power heading towards the airfield, about 5
miles northeast.

I check the map and the airfield icon is flashing. That means that there is yet
another enemy within 15 miles of the base. I ease up to 3,000 ft and finally
spot him weaving around hills and knolls. Another C-47 is trying to sneak in. I
head directly for the Goony Bird, he sees me and turns hard right. I fire and
blast his left wing and #1 engine, which windmills uselessly. I line up again
and he breaks to the left this time, but the weakened wing gives way and the
C-47 cartwheels into the trees.

Fuel and ammo are getting critical now, so I once again head for the airfield,
but that damn map icon is STILL blinking!

As my speed edges above 300 mph, I spot an enemy Typhoon about 5,000 feet above
and behind me on the same heading.

Here he comes, claws out and hauling ass. Too fast to bring guns to bear when I
break. I jink right, vector roll and break left, immediately reversing to the
right. As the Typhoon blows by he pulls into a steep climb. Again, that was
expected. That's all the Tiffie drivers ever do, zoom up. Not a problem though,
as I'm very near the airfield parameter, meaning that the Typhoon will have to
brave the tripleA to try again. As Forrest Gump taught us, stupid is as stupid
does, and the Typhoon driver does something stupid. On his way back down he
decides to strafe one of the 20 mm guns plinking at him. That buys me about 5
seconds, and that's all I needed for a 90 degree snap shot as he blows by. I
take the shot and see some strikes. His left elevator control surface flutters
to the ground. That's very bad news for him. Tiffies aren't stellar turners as
it is, now it's little more than a fast whale. If he was a smart pilot, he would
bug out, using his E advantage to disengage. However, this isn't a smart pilot.
Instead, turns left, but the turn radius is huge. Once again with maneuver flaps
out, I turn towards the big Hawker, circling to the left, inside his circle,
slightly aft of him. I ease off and fire a distraction burst his way, just
missing in front. I notice that only two guns are firing now, that means there's
less than 200 rounds in the magazines. But that will be enough. Somewhat scared
now, the Typhoon pilot rolls right and reverses his turn. As was the case with
the Dora, this is a bad idea. The big Tiffie is a miserable roller, and my
reverse puts me just 500 yards behind. I fire two short bursts, the first of
which punctures his radiator. The second burst carries away his vertical
stabilizer and the Typhoon yaws with the torque and tumbles into the ground.

"You shot down PilotX"

LOLOLOLOL......

With my fuel down to less than 5%, I pull off power and dirty up for landing.
Coming to a stop on the runway, the engine quits for lack of gas and I exit the
Mustang.

"Widewing landed 10 victories in a P-51D of the =Ghosts="

Time to rub it in a bit. In the channel 1 text buffer I type, "So PilotX, I flew
an airplane, are you satisfied?"

No response.....

Sometimes it's the little things that bring the most satisfaction.. :

My regards,

Widewing (C.C. Jordan)
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
http://www.cradleofaviation.org

You seem to think the MS sims are etched in stone. New ones are release
every couple of years to take advantage of the newer and better technology.
While I'm sure they will never be as good as the state of the art stuff you
used in WW2, still they are getting pretty good. Buy a decent computer and
try out the latest, you might be surprised.

Jarg

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: 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
>

One note, the Track IR allows you to can in a simulator using your head,
adds a little more realism. Of course it works imperfectly in my
experience.

Jarg

"Corey C. Jordan" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 07:16:31 GMT, "Pete" > wrote:
>
> >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
>
> Where PC based combat sims excel is at teaching Situational Awareness and
basic
> ACM, even advanced ACM.
>
> I'm sure any combat pilot will tell that no other factor has a greater
impact
> upon survival than SA. I would venture to say that it is the single
greatest
> asset a combat pilot could possess. Moreover, it is, IMHO, the most
difficult
> skill to teach and learn.
>
> There are factors in the simulation that actually make it more difficult
than in
> real life. You have a single portal through which you must view the world
around
> you. To scan the sky around you, an actual pilot merely turns his head.
Flying a
> PC sim, you must do this via a series of hand manipulated inputs either
thru a
> hat switch or specific keystrokes. Either way, it requires greater effort
and
> concentration to do this as deftly as one moves one's own head. Yet, this
must
> be done constantly, and you must learn to do it instinctively to boot.
Just 10
> seconds of inattentiveness is all it takes to get clobbered.
>
> Cockpit workload is minimized to a degree by the absence of an electrical
system
> and simplified hydraulic controls. Reliability is completely removed as a
factor
> as only battle damaged systems can fail. However, if a system is damaged,
you
> still have to manage the aircraft and get it home if possible.
>
> Some things still remain. Weapon selector switches, fuel selector,
propeller
> controls, trim tab adjustment, two channel radio (with hundreds of
frequencies)
> and so on. There are some tidbits to help inexperienced players such as
"combat
> trim", which constantly trims the airplane based upon its speed. However,
this
> can substantially cut into agility when you have to fight the auto-trim,
so
> experienced players simply trim the aircraft manually. This is done via
> keystrokes or on the more sophisticated controllers, via thumbwheels on
the
> HOTAS.
>
> Furthermore, things have evolved a very long way from the old days of
> microswitch joysticks. A good controller system can easily set you back
$200.
> However, this includes a programmable stick and throttle, along with
rudder
> pedals with toe brakes. Systems programmable for hundreds of functions are
> commonplace. Virtually every input to the simulator is adjustable. The big
names
> in flight controllers include CH Products, Saitek and Thrustmaster.
>
> Then there are environmental issues, rain, cloud cover, wind and darkness
(yes,
> we have night time too, albeit abbreviated).
>
> Some things are over simplified in my opinion. Starting engines is a
matter of
> pushing a single button. Going to full power on a cold engine does nothing
to
> harm it. There's no cooler doors and cowl flaps to manage. There's no
collisions
> between friendly aircraft (but there sure is with enemy aircraft). To
prevent
> misbehavior, you cannot shoot down a friendly as the apparent damage is
assigned
> to your aircraft. This is called "killshooter", and it is sometimes
disabled in
> the Combat Theater, but is always on in the Main Arena.
>
> A word about the various arenas. Most of the action is in the Main Arena,
also
> known as the MA. There is one of many maps up, the larger ones covering
areas
> greater than 27,000 square miles. This arena is set up with three warring
> nations, each fighting the other two. There are no restrictions as to what
type
> of aircraft (or vehicle) you wish to fly or operate, other than the higher
> performance aircraft require perk points to be accumulated before you can
fly
> them. You earn perk points by killing the enemy or successfully destroying
> ground targets. The number of points is dependent upon what you kill and
what
> you are flying. For example, you earn more points for killing an Fw 190D-9
with
> a P-40E than vice versa. Should you lose the "perked" aircraft, you lose
the
> perk points as well. Peak perk point cost is determined by the number of
pilots
> flying for your country. Cost goes up or down with those numbers.
>
> You may find yourself fighting against virtually any aircraft in the plane
set.
> Mustangs vs Spitfire, Bf 109G-6 vs Ki-61 and so on. Most players are
members of
> structured and well organized squadrons, some with traditions that go back
to
> the MSDOS days of Air Warrior. It sounds hokey, but it does allow for
better
> organization within a country. The objective is to reduce one the enemy
> countries to a single base facility by capturing their territory. That is
the
> gamey part of the simulation/game, which I do not care for.
>
> There is also the Combat Theater which is structured along historical
lines and
> consists of two countries. However, the same land grab objective is also
in
> place. Set-ups are changed weekly, so one week you can fly an F4F-4
defending
> Guadalcanal and the next week fly a Yak in defense of Mother Russia or
take on
> the Luftwaffe's Bf 109s in a Commonwealth Kittyhawk over Tunisia.
>
> There is also a Training Arena and a Dueling Arena, their titles being
> self-explanatory.
>
> Finally, there is Special Events Arena (SEA) where weekly events are held,
such
> as the Wednesday night Snapshots (two hour historical scenarios). There
are also
> large, multi-week historical events played in frames of 2-3 hours each
Saturday
> for three or four weeks.
>
> What's a typical combat sortie like in Aces High? Here's a brief AAR of a
recent
> sortie.
>
> Word was received of a large enemy gaggle of aircraft headed towards one
of our
> forward airfields. I immediately selected that airfield on the map and
> double-click on the icon. That puts me in the control tower. A quick scan
around
> the field reveals more than a dozen Hawker Typhoons with P-51s for cover
making
> bomb and rocket runs on the airfield. Too late to get airborne, I man a
40mm
> anti-aircraft gun. I score hits on two Typhoons, both going straight into
the
> ground. But, there are too many to deal with and my gun mount is disabled
by a
> strafing fighter-bomber. So I go to the nearest airfield to get a fighter.
> Meanwhile, one of the guys that I had just shot down sends a message on
the
> general text buffer (you can write messages to anyone in the channel 1
text
> buffer, everyone online sees this text unless you purposefully squelch the
> channel). PilotX writes, "Widewing, was that you in the friggin ack?"
>
> "You bet!", I replied.
>
> PilotX then types, "Fly an airplane, you fukkin jerk!"
> (note that people alter spelling deliberately to avoid the wrath of the
> auto-censor)
>
> Even while he typed his remark, I'm easing on power to a P-51D, fueled
with just
> half tanks, more than enough for this sortie. Speed and agility are
required,
> not range, the enemy being just 30 miles away.
>
> You need a lot of rudder and aileron to counteract the torque of the
growling
> Merlin as speed begins to build. Tail is up now, speed building quickly,
and at
> 140 mph I rotate the Mustang just enough to let her slip off the runway.
In a
> very shallow climb, I cycle the gear up, a quick glance shows me three
good
> flags. I ease the nose up, maintaining optimum speed for the best rate of
climb.
> At 12,000 feet I level off, rocketing along at full Military power. In
minutes
> I'm hustling towards the enemy at better than 400 mph.
>
> Five miles out now, and I can see the swarming dots, all below my
altitude.
>
> At two miles, I can identify all the aircraft, several Typhoons, Mustangs
and a
> few La-7s and Spitfires are strafing and bombing the field.
>
> Guns hot, I pull off throttle and split-s in on a pair of P-51s oblivious
to my
> presence. Side slipping to limit my speed, I dive beneath the heavily
laden
> Mustangs and rocket in on their low six. I pick the trailing plane to the
left
> and let his wingspan fill the gunsight. A short burst crashes into the
P-51, and
> the left wing tumbles off. Quick feet on the rudder and I skid behind the
> second, still blissfully unaware of the danger. At 200 yards a one-second
burst
> sends this Mustang on its death plunge, smoke and fire trailing behind. I
> immediately pull into a climbing left-hand spiral, clearig my own six and
> giving a good view of the mayhem below. Lot's of enemy aircraft still
beating up
> the field. I spot a lone La-7 slightly below me on an opposite course.
> Unloading, I throttle up and accelerate towards the speedy Russian
fighter. I'm
> about 1,000 feet above him and as I pass over he does what all Lavochkin
pilots
> do in this situation, he pulls up into an inverted zoom climb trying for a
low
> attack. The counter is simple, I pull into an oblique loop, deploying
maneuver
> flaps as I come over the top. This forces the La-7 to go pure vertical,
and he
> can't keep the nose high anywhere near long enough. As the Soviet fighter
> stalls, it flips onto its back, the pilot fighting to avoid a spin. Before
he
> even realizes the danger, a concentration of .50 caliber API literally
blows the
> entire tail off of his Lavochkin. It flutters down like 3 ton leaf.
>
> That was the last fighter above 5,000 feet. Everything else is below that.
> That's means, it's PARTY TIME!
>
> I spiral down assessing the situation. Seeing a Typhoon diving on a rocket
run I
> see another easy opportunity. Typically, these guys dive down, pickle off
some
> rockets, then zoom up, reverse at the top of the zoom and repeat. I race
over to
> meet him at the top of his zoom. Right on schedule, the big Tiffie looms
up in
> planform, I need very little lead. The entire burst slams into the wing
root and
> cockpit. A bright orange flash indicates that the Typhoon is no more. The
> notification text buffer states that "you have shot down PilotX". LOLOLOL.
I
> blast through the debris and look for the next target.
>
> To the southeast I see two dots moving low and slow about 1,000 feet above
the
> forest. I know what those are, C-47s packed with paratroops destined for
the
> base. Racing towards the transports I drop a notch of flaps, trim the
elevators
> a bit. Power to idle, split-s down on the transports. Once again, they
don't see
> me until it's too late. One burning Goony dives into the trees. The second
> breaks hard to the left, but he has no chance and his fuel tanks explode
on my
> first gunnery run.
>
> Well, the loss of both C-47s has seriously incensed the remaining enemy,
and all
> of them are trying to claw their way up to my upwardly spiraling Mustang.
> Typhoons are poor climbers, but their four Hispano cannon make them very
> dangerous. Yet none can get near me. However, a Fw 190D-9 "Dora" is coming
on
> strong. Again, I unload and throttle into WEP. Dragging the Dora away from
his
> friends, we race North at 4,000 feet. Once I have about 3,000 yards of
> separation, I reverse and head straight at him. Typically, he tries for a
> head-on shot, but I roll out of the way, chop throttle, drop maneuver
flaps and
> reverse again. The Dora executes the standard Fw 190 climbing reverse. I
> expected that, which is why I dumped E rapidly to get the deflection shot
as he
> zooms past, searching for the P-51 that just disappeared. My nose up about
20
> degrees, climbing on a track to intercept the Focke Wulf, the Dora claws
around,
> the pilot not seeing me below his left wing. At 350 yards I take the 80
degree
> deflection shot, and see hit flashes forward near his prop. A steady
stream of
> fluid pours out. Coolant, the Dora is fatally injured. Rolling in on his
tail
> 700 yards back, I send another short burst his way, a few hit strikes
evident.
> Rolling right, the Dora breaks hard. Dumb, very dumb. My Mustang easily
cuts
> across his turn and a half-second burst blows off the outer half of his
right
> wing. The pilot struggles to retain control, but the loss of lift combined
with
> torque corkscrews the Dora into an open field.
>
> Having expended about two-thirds of my ammunition, I head back towards the
hard
> pressed airfield. Fuel is barely adequate with about 25% remaining,
meaning that
> I have about 10 minutes before it becomes a real issue.
>
> Arriving over the field at 10,000 feet, I see that the enemy has departed
the
> immediate vicinity, but spot two low dots running on the deck towards the
> southwest. Well, a clear field means fuel is not a factor now, so I begin
a
> shallow dive in pursuit of the fleeing enemy. Winding the Mustang up to
500 mph
> TAS, I close rapidly on the tow contacts, now discernable as a Bf 109 and
a
> La-7.
>
> Closing quickly I see the 109 is smoking heavily, black smoke indicating
that
> light tripleA had drilled either an oil line or the cooler itself. Once
the oil
> is gone, the engine will seize, so the 109 won't be a threat for very
long. As I
> roar in the split up, the 109 going left, the Lavochkin going right. I go
after
> the healthy La-7. Typical of the tactics used by La-7 and La-5 drivers,
the La-7
> progressively tightens his turn, hoping I'll do likewise and burn down my
E. The
> La-7 accelerates faster than the Mustang, and climbs much faster until
about
> 8,000 feet where it evens out. I pull into a high yo-yo, throttle back and
> deploying flaps to the maneuver setting. I won't kill my speed without
some
> altitude in my hip pocket. Besides, I'm still above him, squarely on his 6
> o'clock. Initially, the Lavochkin driver doesn't realize that I'm above
him and
> reverses hoping for the overshoot that will not happen. That reverse gives
me a
> solid opportunity for a 45 degree deflection shot, but first a quick scan
for
> that 109. I see his dot receding into the haze. He's gittin gone while the
> gittin is good. Tough break for the La-7... I pull the nose through the
La-7 as
> the pilot pulls hard having finally spotted me. Too late though, my guns
stitch
> the Russian fighter from nose to tail. Smoke pours out and the La-7 snap
rolls
> into the ground.
>
> Fully cognizant of my tactical situation, I turn a full 360, clearing my
tail.
> Once again, I unload and pour on power heading towards the airfield, about
5
> miles northeast.
>
> I check the map and the airfield icon is flashing. That means that there
is yet
> another enemy within 15 miles of the base. I ease up to 3,000 ft and
finally
> spot him weaving around hills and knolls. Another C-47 is trying to sneak
in. I
> head directly for the Goony Bird, he sees me and turns hard right. I fire
and
> blast his left wing and #1 engine, which windmills uselessly. I line up
again
> and he breaks to the left this time, but the weakened wing gives way and
the
> C-47 cartwheels into the trees.
>
> Fuel and ammo are getting critical now, so I once again head for the
airfield,
> but that damn map icon is STILL blinking!
>
> As my speed edges above 300 mph, I spot an enemy Typhoon about 5,000 feet
above
> and behind me on the same heading.
>
> Here he comes, claws out and hauling ass. Too fast to bring guns to bear
when I
> break. I jink right, vector roll and break left, immediately reversing to
the
> right. As the Typhoon blows by he pulls into a steep climb. Again, that
was
> expected. That's all the Tiffie drivers ever do, zoom up. Not a problem
though,
> as I'm very near the airfield parameter, meaning that the Typhoon will
have to
> brave the tripleA to try again. As Forrest Gump taught us, stupid is as
stupid
> does, and the Typhoon driver does something stupid. On his way back down
he
> decides to strafe one of the 20 mm guns plinking at him. That buys me
about 5
> seconds, and that's all I needed for a 90 degree snap shot as he blows by.
I
> take the shot and see some strikes. His left elevator control surface
flutters
> to the ground. That's very bad news for him. Tiffies aren't stellar
turners as
> it is, now it's little more than a fast whale. If he was a smart pilot, he
would
> bug out, using his E advantage to disengage. However, this isn't a smart
pilot.
> Instead, turns left, but the turn radius is huge. Once again with maneuver
flaps
> out, I turn towards the big Hawker, circling to the left, inside his
circle,
> slightly aft of him. I ease off and fire a distraction burst his way, just
> missing in front. I notice that only two guns are firing now, that means
there's
> less than 200 rounds in the magazines. But that will be enough. Somewhat
scared
> now, the Typhoon pilot rolls right and reverses his turn. As was the case
with
> the Dora, this is a bad idea. The big Tiffie is a miserable roller, and my
> reverse puts me just 500 yards behind. I fire two short bursts, the first
of
> which punctures his radiator. The second burst carries away his vertical
> stabilizer and the Typhoon yaws with the torque and tumbles into the
ground.
>
> "You shot down PilotX"
>
> LOLOLOLOL......
>
> With my fuel down to less than 5%, I pull off power and dirty up for
landing.
> Coming to a stop on the runway, the engine quits for lack of gas and I
exit the
> Mustang.
>
> "Widewing landed 10 victories in a P-51D of the =Ghosts="
>
> Time to rub it in a bit. In the channel 1 text buffer I type, "So PilotX,
I flew
> an airplane, are you satisfied?"
>
> No response.....
>
> Sometimes it's the little things that bring the most satisfaction.. :
>
> My regards,
>
> Widewing (C.C. Jordan)
> http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
> http://www.cradleofaviation.org
>