PC flight simulators

Subject: PC flight simulators
From: "Scet"
Date: 11/17/03 10:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: 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" am
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

"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: 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

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

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

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

Subject: 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

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

Subject: 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

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