Change the name to trainers.

Subject: 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

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

"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

"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! ;}

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

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

Subject: 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) 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