Change the name to trainers.

[ArtKramr]

Flight Simulators as used on PC's should not be called simulators because they
simulate too damned little. Call them flight trainers. That is a far more
accurate description by far. Except the ones that are just games. Call them
flight games. After all else has failed, always resort to reality no matter
how much it hurts.


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

[Dave Holford]

ArtKramr wrote:
>
> Flight Simulators as used on PC's should not be called simulators because
> they simulate too damned little. Call them flight trainers.


Like Link Trainers - fine for practicing instrument procedures, but you
can't see or feel the flak bursts.

Dave

[Jarg]

Well I'm glad to see you giving a little on this one Art.

Jarg

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> Flight Simulators as used on PC's should not be called simulators because
they
> simulate too damned little. Call them flight trainers. That is a far more
> accurate description by far. Except the ones that are just games. Call
them
> flight games. After all else has failed, always resort to reality no
matter
> how much it hurts.
>
>
> 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]

>Subject: Re: Change the name to trainers.
>From: "Jarg"
>Date: 11/21/03 3:24 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Well I'm glad to see you giving a little on this one Art.
>
>Jarg
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> Flight Simulators as used on PC's should not be called simulators because
>they
>> simulate too damned little. Call them flight trainers. That is a far more
>> accurate description by far. Except the ones that are just games. Call
>them
>> flight games. After all else has failed, always resort to reality no
>matter
>> how much it hurts.
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, .
Just a little. Very little.(grin)

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

[Simon Robbins]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> Flight Simulators as used on PC's should not be called simulators because
they
> simulate too damned little. Call them flight trainers. That is a far more
> accurate description by far. Except the ones that are just games. Call
them
> flight games. After all else has failed, always resort to reality no
matter
> how much it hurts.

You could argue the word "simulator" is way over used in computer
entertainment software as a whole: Sports simulators, driving/racing
simulators, as well as flight simulators. I think it all comes down to the
definition of the word simulator. Flight Simulator implies replicating the
dynamics of the science behind the process, which is plainly modelled only
very simply in a "game." Perhaps a better definition is Flight Emulator.
(The dictionary definition being "to strive to imitate.") Or maybe just
Flight Imitator.

Si

[Corey C. Jordan]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 23:23:07 -0000, "Simon Robbins"
> wrote:

>Flight Simulator implies replicating the
>dynamics of the science behind the process, which is plainly modelled only
>very simply in a "game."

Please define for me what is specifically modeled "very simply" in Aces High
or MSFS.

Do you think it's flight modeling?

My regards,

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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Change the name to trainers.
>From: "Simon Robbins"
>Date: 11/22/03 3:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> Flight Simulators as used on PC's should not be called simulators because
>they
>> simulate too damned little. Call them flight trainers. That is a far more
>> accurate description by far. Except the ones that are just games. Call
>them
>> flight games. After all else has failed, always resort to reality no
>matter
>> how much it hurts.
>
>You could argue the word "simulator" is way over used in computer
>entertainment software as a whole: Sports simulators, driving/racing
>simulators, as well as flight simulators. I think it all comes down to the
>definition of the word simulator. Flight Simulator implies replicating the
>dynamics of the science behind the process, which is plainly modelled only
>very simply in a "game." Perhaps a better definition is Flight Emulator.
>(The dictionary definition being "to strive to imitate.") Or maybe just
>Flight Imitator.
>
>Si
>
>
Not a bad idea. (grin)

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

[Ron]

>>You could argue the word "simulator" is way over used in computer
>>entertainment software as a whole: Sports simulators, driving/racing
>>simulators, as well as flight simulators. I think it all comes down to the
>>definition of the word simulator. Flight Simulator implies replicating the
>>dynamics of the science behind the process, which is plainly modelled only
>>very simply in a "game." Perhaps a better definition is Flight Emulator.
>>(The dictionary definition being "to strive to imitate.") Or maybe just
>>Flight Imitator.
>>
>>Si
>>
>>
>Not a bad idea. (grin)
>
>Regards,
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

Coming in 2006....

Microsoft Flight Approximator!!!


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[Mary Shafer]

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:26:55 GMT,
(Corey C. Jordan) wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 23:23:07 -0000, "Simon Robbins"
> > wrote:
>
> >Flight Simulator implies replicating the
> >dynamics of the science behind the process, which is plainly modelled only
> >very simply in a "game."
>
> Please define for me what is specifically modeled "very simply" in Aces High
> or MSFS.

The dynamics of the airframe. Frequency, damping, poles, zeros,
transfer functions, the stability and control coefficients of the six
equations of motion, the atmosphere, the actuators, controller
dynamics, mass characteristics, that kind of stuff. As well as the
flight control system.

The mathematical model of the vehicle, in other words. That which
makes each airplane fly like that kind of airplane.

I spent a lot of my career determining this stuff so it could be put
into engineering simulations. Read Iliff & Shafer on the estimation
of S&C derivatives for the Space Shuttle to see how we determine such
numbers and put them into the mathematical model used in the
simulation. You'll find it on www.dfrc.nasa.gov, in the technical
reports section.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[user]

Wow

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:10:26 -0800, Mary Shafer >
wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:26:55 GMT,
(Corey C. Jordan) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 23:23:07 -0000, "Simon Robbins"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Flight Simulator implies replicating the
>> >dynamics of the science behind the process, which is plainly modelled only
>> >very simply in a "game."
>>
>> Please define for me what is specifically modeled "very simply" in Aces High
>> or MSFS.
>
>The dynamics of the airframe. Frequency, damping, poles, zeros,
>transfer functions, the stability and control coefficients of the six
>equations of motion, the atmosphere, the actuators, controller
>dynamics, mass characteristics, that kind of stuff. As well as the
>flight control system.
>
>The mathematical model of the vehicle, in other words. That which
>makes each airplane fly like that kind of airplane.
>
>I spent a lot of my career determining this stuff so it could be put
>into engineering simulations. Read Iliff & Shafer on the estimation
>of S&C derivatives for the Space Shuttle to see how we determine such
>numbers and put them into the mathematical model used in the
>simulation. You'll find it on www.dfrc.nasa.gov, in the technical
>reports section.
>
>Mary

[Corey C. Jordan]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:10:26 -0800, Mary Shafer > wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:26:55 GMT,
(Corey C. Jordan) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 23:23:07 -0000, "Simon Robbins"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Flight Simulator implies replicating the
>> >dynamics of the science behind the process, which is plainly modelled only
>> >very simply in a "game."
>>
>> Please define for me what is specifically modeled "very simply" in Aces High
>> or MSFS.
>
>The dynamics of the airframe. Frequency, damping, poles, zeros,
>transfer functions, the stability and control coefficients of the six
>equations of motion, the atmosphere, the actuators, controller
>dynamics, mass characteristics, that kind of stuff. As well as the
>flight control system.
>
>The mathematical model of the vehicle, in other words. That which
>makes each airplane fly like that kind of airplane.
>
>I spent a lot of my career determining this stuff so it could be put
>into engineering simulations. Read Iliff & Shafer on the estimation
>of S&C derivatives for the Space Shuttle to see how we determine such
>numbers and put them into the mathematical model used in the
>simulation. You'll find it on www.dfrc.nasa.gov, in the technical
>reports section.

That's very interesting and extremely impressive work.

However, can anyone tell me what data is used to generate the mathmatical
model coded for the previously mentioned simulators?

My regards,

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

[Simon Robbins]

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

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

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

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

Si

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Change the name to trainers.
>From: "Simon Robbins"
>Date: 11/23/03 4:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"Corey C. Jordan" > wrote in message
.. .
>> However, can anyone tell me what data is used to generate the mathmatical
>> model coded for the previously mentioned simulators?
>
>No, but the procedure for simulation is approached from a different angle.
>For example, a "true" simulation of an aircraft will model the atmosphere
>and airframe so that the resultant parameters determine its performance,
>i.e. the exit parameters will cause (for example) a Spitfire to roll at say
>45 degrees a second, whereas a PC simulator will use a previously defined
>input parameter to dictate the aircraft rolls at that rate. It's not a
>simulation of the airframe, but of its known performance. Not the same
>thing. You're not going to be able to design an aircraft and predict it's
>flight envelope using MS-FS because you have to start by knowing the
>performance envelope you're wanting to simulate. A militray simulator will
>take the design of the aircraft and inform you of its likely real-world
>envelope.
>
>Obviously there's varying different methods and levels of fidelity. I'm not
>trying to denegrate PC sims, I love 'em and it's the main reason why I spend
>a fortune at regular intervals upgrading my PC. But I'm not under the
>illusion that they compare in method or fidelity to the "real" thing.
>(Favourites being Falcon 4 SP3, EAW and FS2002.)
>
>A good example is at (generally) how badly departed flight is modelled. They
>generally model the instability of the aircraft and its predicted behaviour
>outside the envelope, rather than the extremely complicated chaotic dynamics
>which go into causing that behaviour. Anyone who's performed spins and
>stalls in a Cessna and then tried the same thing in MS-FS or any WW2 prop
>sim will likely agree.
>
>Si
>
>

And of course no one has ever said that MSFS or any other home PC simulator
program was a military simulator. But hope springs eternal. (:->))

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

[Mary Shafer]

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 12:35:11 -0000, "Simon Robbins"
> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's usually because we don't have data for post-stall flight.
Aircraft are not necessary unstable in that region, either. Stall and
spin don't imply instability.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Kirk Stant]

> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Flight Simulators as used on PC's should not be called simulators because
> they
> >> simulate too damned little. Call them flight trainers. That is a far more
> >> accurate description by far. Except the ones that are just games. Call
> them
> >> flight games. After all else has failed, always resort to reality no
> matter
> >> how much it hurts.

I've been following this (and the related thread) and cannot believe
the bull**** you have been saying. First, a little background and
some definitions: I'm a retired AF WSO, flew F-4s, have time in
several other fighters, lots of small plane PIC, and currently fly
about 200 hrs a year in competition sailplanes. I also did a tour
running the Air Force SIMCERT program, which certified all fighter
"simulators" and training devices. Since retiring, I have spent the
last 9 years as an F-15C/E Subject Matter Expert, and probably have
more time in the F-15E WST than anyone alive.

Now, first of all, a "Simulator" is a very specific beast, according
to the FAA. There are several levels of fidelity, but the highest (as
used by the airlines and - rarely - by the military) can be used in
place of actual flight time (requires full visuals, motion, etc).
Everything else is considered a "training device". And all of you who
think military fighter "sims" are so high tech would be in for a
surprise - the majority are pretty basic, with the emphasis on cockpit
fidelity and flight dynamics. Visuals are way behind what is available
in the PC game field, and motion is not used. So to say that PC
"simulators" are not sims but fighter "simulators" are is bogus -
neither is!

On the other hand, only a bonehead would even think to equate a PC sim
with no cockpit and only a small monitor with a real "simulator" - but
on the other hand that little PC device can be used as a really nice
training device; the key is to define what is being trained. And
guess what, the military (and airlines) use a lot of lower fidelity
devices to teach various tasks - systems, emergencies, etc.

So, Art, get off your high horse - a PC-based "flight simulator" can
be a game, or a training device, or a way to pretend to be flying, or
just a fun way to spend some time. And it is a "simulation", just not
a "Simulator" per the FAA definition. And I think only you seem to
care about what it is called. The accepted convention is to call the
PC software "simulations" to differentiate them from arcade-style
games, and in the military you get scheduled to go to the "sim" even
though it is technically an Weapons System Traner. But actually only
Airline pilots get to really fly a "simulator".

As far as training value of PC simulations; I firmly believe that they
can be useful, as long as the task to be trained is precisely defined
and the sim (and hardware) is carefully matched to that training need
- which is what the Navy does with MS FS for it's students at
Pensacola. The more experienced your are, you actually need less
overall fidelity as long as there is high fidelity in the task you are
training - you basically ignore the rest and can concentrate on
solving the specific task at hand.

Finally, your description of the B-26 trainer is fascinating - but by
current definitions (and yours in slamming PCs) was not a Simulator at
all (after all, the pilots didn't really have to fly it, they were
just going through the motions) - it was a training device! And so was
the Link Blue box no-one ever claimed it was a realistic simulation of
flying!

Bottom line, Art, qwitchubitchin and just let the young kids (and
older kids like me) enjoy our PC sims (IL2- FB is awesome). And the
next time you get on a commercial jet, or talk to a young military
pilot, ask them if they ever play on a PC sim- you might be surprised!

BTW, B-26s are cool, but A-26s rule!

Kirk

[Ron W]

"Kirk Stant" > wrote in message
om...
> > >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> Flight Simulators as used on PC's should not be called simulators
because
> > they
> > >> simulate too damned little. Call them flight trainers. That is a far
more
> > >> accurate description by far. Except the ones that are just games.
Call
> > them
> > >> flight games. After all else has failed, always resort to reality no
> > matter
> > >> how much it hurts.

Some deleted

> Bottom line, Art, qwitchubitchin and just let the young kids (and
> older kids like me) enjoy our PC sims (IL2- FB is awesome). And the
> next time you get on a commercial jet, or talk to a young military
> pilot, ask them if they ever play on a PC sim- you might be surprised!

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

[Simon Robbins]

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

Ok, I take your correction. But my point was essentially that pc sims
generally concentrate on the back end of the simulation process, i.e. what
is represented to the operator, rather than the front end, the inputs to the
process. i.e. accurate descriptions of the airframe qualities and
environmental modelling.

Si

[Corey C. Jordan]

On 23 Nov 2003 09:41:38 -0800, (Kirk Stant) wrote:

>
>As far as training value of PC simulations; I firmly believe that they
>can be useful, as long as the task to be trained is precisely defined
>and the sim (and hardware) is carefully matched to that training need
>- which is what the Navy does with MS FS for it's students at
>Pensacola. The more experienced your are, you actually need less
>overall fidelity as long as there is high fidelity in the task you are
>training - you basically ignore the rest and can concentrate on
>solving the specific task at hand.

Kirk is exactly on target.

There are more than a few who find the online combat sims to be fabulous tools
for teaching Situational Awareness and ACM. Because the aircraft are simple
(we are talking WWII aircraft with minimal systems to manage), and with the
systems themselves being simplified even further, the emphasis is placed upon
the specific function of air combat. Even the USAF Academy has used Aces High as
training tool and to my understanding, maintains several active accounts for its
cadets.

As I stated in the other related thread; "Think of Aces High as a simulator
within a game.... Art is right to some degree, but the simulator fans are also
right in some respects. Understanding this allows one to place these sims/games
in their proper perspective. Just because a guy is a terrific sim pilot doesn't
mean he'd display the same talent flying real aircraft. Possibly not. However,
as a combat pilot trainee the sim player will have a significant advantage in
SA, ACM and tactics knowledge over someone with no sim experience at the outset
of training. Therein lies the value beyond simple entertainment."

Perhaps, some do not believe this to be true. Well, the proof is in the pudding
as the say. Which is why I always invite everyone to try Aces High or even the
earlier Warbirds (both developed by the same engineering and software team).
There are active duty fighter jocks who participate. I know of several airline
pilots who enjoy flying these sims as well.

Many partcipate because they enjoy the competition of battling real people
rather than artificial intelligence. Other's join in because they enjoy the
genre and sense of history it creates. Others simply love anything related to
flying. And, there are those who simply enjoy the gaming aspect.

The reason these combat sims are so successful is that they appeal to many
different people, with many differing expectations of what "fun" is. Seriously,
if it was not entertaining to some degree, who would bother?

Yet, the military has nothing that comes even remotely close to the immersion
and intensity of these combat sims. Furthermore, you don't need massively
complex flight models to accomplish the learning of SA and ACM.

A final point. On any given night, especially weekend evenings (around 9 PM east
coast time US), there are more fighters flying in Aces High than the Luftwaffe
had available for the Battle of Britain. Like I said, it's extremely immersive
and intense.

My regards,

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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Change the name to trainers.
>From: (Kirk Stant)
>Date: 11/23/03 9:41 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >

>But actually only
>Airline pilots get to really fly a "simulator".

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

>BTW, B-26s are cool, but A-26s rule!
>
>Kirk
>

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

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

[ArtKramr]

>ubject: Re: Change the name to trainers.
>From: Mary Shafer
>Date: 11/23/03 9:02 AM Pacific

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

TADAAAAH !!!


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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 12:35:11 -0000, "Simon Robbins"
> > wrote:
>
> > "Corey C. Jordan" > wrote in
message
> > .. .
> > > However, can anyone tell me what data is used to generate the
mathmatical
> > > model coded for the previously mentioned simulators?
> >
> > No, but the procedure for simulation is approached from a different
angle.
> > For example, a "true" simulation of an aircraft will model the
atmosphere
> > and airframe so that the resultant parameters determine its performance,
> > i.e. the exit parameters will cause (for example) a Spitfire to roll at
say
> > 45 degrees a second, whereas a PC simulator will use a previously
defined
> > input parameter to dictate the aircraft rolls at that rate. It's not a
> > simulation of the airframe, but of its known performance. Not the same
> > thing. You're not going to be able to design an aircraft and predict
it's
> > flight envelope using MS-FS because you have to start by knowing the
> > performance envelope you're wanting to simulate. A militray simulator
will
> > take the design of the aircraft and inform you of its likely real-world
> > envelope.
>
> No, no, no. Only at the very beginning do we use predictions based on
> the design. Those predictions come from the wind tunnel, CFD, and
> prior experience. The instant we get such data from flight we update
> the simulation with the actual, not the predicted, numbers.

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

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

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

> Read the paper I mentioned. You'll find a very complete explanation
> of how the actual data is used.
>
> The PC games use a very generic model, not a detailed model of the
> specific vehicle. They're not predicting anything, either.

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

[Kirk Stant]

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

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

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

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


Check six, and keep the faith!

Kirk

[machf]

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

>Excellent post Kirk. With Art's years at Madison Avenue, he knows, much
>more than the rest of us, that the originator is the one that names his
>product.
>"Simulator" is a for more sellable name than "trainer". Our Art, the
>group's
>lovable WWII veteran curmudgeon has been acting as a troll. I'm sure he
>knows
>that Bill Gates will certainly rename MS Flight Simulator to MS Flight
>Trainer
>now that he has seen the error of his ways! ;>}
>
But wouldn't that get him into trouble with Electronic Arts for their old
"Chuck Yeager's Advanced Flight Trainer" series?
;-)

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

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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Change the name to trainers.
>From: machf
>Date: 11/25/03 10:10 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:21:53 GMT, "Ron W" > wrote:
>
>>Excellent post Kirk. With Art's years at Madison Avenue, he knows, much
>>more than the rest of us, that the originator is the one that names his
>>product.
>>"Simulator" is a for more sellable name than "trainer". Our Art, the
>>group's
>>lovable WWII veteran curmudgeon has been acting as a troll. I'm sure he
>>knows
>>that Bill Gates will certainly rename MS Flight Simulator to MS Flight
>>Trainer
>>now that he has seen the error of his ways! ;>}
>>
>But wouldn't that get him into trouble with Electronic Arts for their old
>"Chuck Yeager's Advanced Flight Trainer" series?


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

Regards,

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

[Ron W]

"machf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:21:53 GMT, "Ron W" > wrote:
>
> But wouldn't that get him into trouble with Electronic Arts for their old
> "Chuck Yeager's Advanced Flight Trainer" series?
> ;-)
>
Naw, Bill Gates wouldn't sweat "small potatoes"! By the time I had a system
that
would run the above, I couldn't find the program! I did hear that it was an
excellent
Sim tho. :>}

Ron