Change the name to trainers.

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 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

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

Subject: 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

"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

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

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

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

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

"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