PC flight simulators

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

Subject: 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

"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

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

362436 (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...

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

(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 =---

Maybe so but.....

http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computi...6/missile.idg/

Jarg

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

Subject: 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/computi...6/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