Force feedback versus real piloting?

It's rare, but some people are absolutely clueless about flying the
sim. What's really odd is to watch people who interpret the motion of
a 104" screen BACKWARDS. They see the plane roll left, and turn the
yoke MORE left, resulting in rolling inverted.

My guess is that they are not "flying a plane", they are "riding a
bike" instead. They turn into the direction of bank to avoid
"falling".

Bartek

Proper Engineering Procedure

http://s154.photobucket.com/albums/s.../?action=view&...

I guess its kinda sad that I find this funny and understand the
equations all at the same time...

I guess that's why my wife playfully calls me an engi-nerd. An M.E.
friend of mine says it takes an E.E. to spell gE.E.k, but clearly
that's just jealousy on his part. Besides, he's so self-centered that
its "always about M.E." with him.

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

One thing I've noticed about sim/airplane talent over the years is there
is no correlation whatsoever between a good sim pilot and a good pilot
in the aircraft frm a handling point of view.

Of course, most modern airliners are never (or almost never) "handled," so
even if this were true, it would not be very important.

I can't land even the best sims worth a damn no matter how often I try.

You depend too much on physical sensations or other unsimulated clues,
perhaps.

Jay Honeck writes:

Since you're flying heavy metal, I don't know why landing would be
difficult. One thing I've learned is that computer processing speed
(along with a top-notch vido card) are absolutely necessary to ensure
a fast enough screen frame rate. Although I presume any professional
3-axis simulator has up-to-the-minute computers installed, perhaps
not?

On a PC running a simulator, most of the horsepower goes to generating the
visuals. The actual flight simulation is well within an average PC's
capabilities. If you could dedicate one or more PCs to the display and
another one to they flight dynamics, you could get very good results.

As it is, it's true that high frame rates will improve the simulation. Beyond
30 fps or so, you can't see the difference unless things are moving very
rapidly across the screen, but you can sense the difference in the way the
simulated aircraft handles.

If this were the case, you would experience a slight, nearly
imperceptible lag behind your control input and reaction on the
screen(s). I've flown sims with this problem, and landing them is
damn near impossible without doing as little movement as possible --
just like you describe.

In worst case scenarios, such as 1-2 fps, nobody can land successfully in
anything other than dead calm and a 25-mile final.

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

No , I don't think so, it's because they're more accustomed to actually
flying the aiplane raher than driving it around. It goes to what I was
saying earlier. Because they're trying to fly an airplane, rather than
operate a box of tricks, it all goes wrong because the box doesn't
understand what they're doing, they don't undrstand what the box is doing
and there's just no loop at all.

So why are simulators so popular and so useful?

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

Yes, but you kep watching.

No, I actually skipped most of the movie, as it wasn't worth the motion
sickness, and it was pretty boring, anyway--not at all scary, and laced with
profanity.

"Jay Honeck" wrote ..

In our Kiwi flight simulator, it is tail-dragger pilots that have had
the most difficulty landing. I believe this is because of our
aforementioned lack of peripheral vision, despite having a 104"
projection screen. They simply don't have the visual cues they are
used to in the flare, and usually crash at first.

MSFS has the drawback that the airplane's nose is not visible, as the panel
blocks the view. This IMO makes judging the flare much more difficult than
in real life, especially in a taildragger.

Years ago I used to "fly" a WWII simulator called Warbirds, which had a
better view of the nose of the plane. After some practice, landings were
really no problem. Well, maybe "practice" is the key word anyway ;-)

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

One thing I've noticed about sim/airplane talent over the years is
there is no correlation whatsoever between a good sim pilot and a
good pilot in the aircraft frm a handling point of view.

Of course, most modern airliners are never (or almost never)
"handled," so even if this were true, it would not be very important.


Wrong again dip****.

We're actually encouraged to hand fly when it's practical so we remain
proficient.

Whihc just goes to show you know nothing.

I can't land even the best sims worth a damn no matter how often I
try.

You depend too much on physical sensations or other unsimulated clues,
perhaps.


Nope.


Bertie

"Jay Honeck" wrote

The problem usually first manifests itself on the *ground*, when the
newbie is learning to steer with their feet. No matter how I tell
them to "push left, turn left", they will keep pushing RIGHT. I've
even tried tapping the appropriate leg, thinking that perhaps they
didn't know "right" from "left", and that didn't help. They just end
up out in the weeds.

The very first time I flew (airplane or sim) was in a real airplane, and at
first, I could not understand that the rudder did not work like handlebars
on a bicycle. After I was told to think of old time airplanes having a
cable hooked up on the "rudder bar" and the same side of the rudder, it made
sense.
--
Jim in NC

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Jay Honeck writes:

Since you're flying heavy metal, I don't know why landing would be
difficult. One thing I've learned is that computer processing speed
(along with a top-notch vido card) are absolutely necessary to ensure
a fast enough screen frame rate. Although I presume any
professional 3-axis simulator has up-to-the-minute computers
installed, perhaps not?

On a PC running a simulator, most of the horsepower goes to generating
the visuals. The actual flight simulation is well within an average
PC's capabilities. If you could dedicate one or more PCs to the
display and another one to they flight dynamics, you could get very
good results.

As it is, it's true that high frame rates will improve the simulation.
Beyond 30 fps or so, you can't see the difference unless things are
moving very rapidly across the screen, but you can sense the
difference in the way the simulated aircraft handles.

If this were the case, you would experience a slight, nearly
imperceptible lag behind your control input and reaction on the
screen(s). I've flown sims with this problem, and landing them is
damn near impossible without doing as little movement as possible --
just like you describe.

In worst case scenarios, such as 1-2 fps, nobody can land successfully
in anything other than dead calm and a 25-mile final.



You're an idiot,. Nobody lands a som, fjukkwit

bertie