# Flight Sims are they really as real as actually flying?



## syscom3 (Oct 29, 2005)

An airplanes performance in the air is just a set of equations. For simulators, it can be made as accurate as the S/W writer wants it to be.

Of course theres always the problem of needing more and more CPU performance to simulate that last 1% of accuracy that really doesnt effect the fidelity of the aircraft simulation.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> The planes performance in the air is just a set of equations. It can be made as accurate as the S/W writer wants it to be.
> 
> Of course theres always the problem of needing more and more CPU performance to simulate that last 1% of accuracy that really doesnt effect the fidelity of the aircraft simulation.



You forgot one thing - the environmental aspects; The feel of the aircraft, the smells, temperature, G loading, all are part of the equation - and those equations you speak about are not finite - they change with temperature, density altitude etc., I know all programmable, but still not the real thing.

PC sims, no matter how good they are give a basis, they are excellent if you're flying "by numbers" or you're doing instrument training but unless you're in a real full motion sim (and even those have limitations) you're never going to grasp or understand the real feel of an aircraft unless you fly the real thing - and I could prove that by the amount of puke bags I had to give to some of my students who were heavy "PC Sim drivers."


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> the first time I put em in a stall they Sh*t....



I know I did.  



syscom3 said:


> An airplanes performance in the air is just a set of equations. For simulators, it can be made as accurate as the S/W writer wants it to be.
> 
> Of course theres always the problem of needing more and more CPU performance to simulate that last 1% of accuracy that really doesnt effect the fidelity of the aircraft simulation.



And you still will never get the real thing. Sorry arm chair pilot its not the same, I know you all like to think it is and proudly walk around with your microsoft liscense and your microsoft wings but it is not the same. Get out and fly a real plane. Its better and more "real".


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > the first time I put em in a stall they Sh*t....
> ...






DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And you still will never get the real thing. Sorry arm chair pilot its not the same, I know you all like to think it is and proudly walk around with your microsoft liscense and your microsoft wings but it is not the same.



It's like screwing a blow up doll! GOD DID I JUST SAY THAT?!?!  I mean like, I wouldn't know about those things!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

LOL that is just too funny. I have a bad mental image though now. I am scared for life, my wife will be sueing you!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> LOL that is just too funny. I have a bad mental image though now.



Me too!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

Now thats bad, when you get an image of yourself!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Now thats bad, when you get an image of yourself!



Yea! (think good toughts,think good toughts,think good toughts,think good toughts


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

I cant think good thoughts.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2005)

I'm trying!


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 29, 2005)

Anthing the plane does in the air can be modeled into the SW.

However, even if a pilot is puking and sweating and going blind from a hard gee turn, it still irrelevant to what the airplanes "state" is. It doesnt care about the pilot, only what position the flight controls are in.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Anthing the plane does in the air can be modeled into the SW.
> 
> However, even if a pilot is puking and sweating and going blind from a hard gee turn, it still irrelevant to what the airplanes "state" is. It doesnt care about the pilot, only what position the flight controls are in.



But who puts it in that position? A pilot! And some of those positions you may casually simulate with your little joy stick while sitting at the PC enjoying a Coke will result in sweat, puke, unconsciousness or even worse when done in the real vehicle, but the main point here is sometimes due to the physical state of the pilot because of previous maneuvers, they can't even accomplish the most basic maneuvers proficiently like so many die-hard PC sim drivers will do continually as they snack on a Snickers bar. Like the commercial goes, "There's nothing like the real thing." Although the sim may paint a very realistic picture of a situation, that picture is painted in what I call "Perfect World," and with that it's you'll never totaly evaluate the real world unless you're there...

Don't kid yourself on sims, you could be the best PC sim pilot in the world, you go fly a real airplane without real time training you'll probably sweat, puke, and sh*t before you role the thing into a big aluminum ball!


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 29, 2005)

Like I said, an airplane in flight is nothing but a set of equations that can be modeled for any accuracy an end user desires. An airplane doesnt care if a pilot is uncomfortable, scared or dead. All that matters is the position of the controls.

You can take any simulation to the nth degree for accuracy. But for most PC sims, being 95% accurate is acceptable for most people.

Just by flying around on a sim can give you a pretty good idea of what the plane is capable of. Its only when you get to the extremes of its flying envelope is when questions arise on how closely the software follows the real thing.

Just as the old saying about racing goes...."how much money you have tells me how fast you will go" also applies to simulators. More money = better software modeling = more accurate simulation.

By the way, I dont pretend I could fly a WW2 airplane, except straight and level and maybe gentle turns.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Like I said, an airplane in flight is nothing but a set of equations that can be modeled for any accuracy an end user desires. An airplane doesnt care if a pilot is uncomfortable, scared or dead. All that matters is the position of the controls.


And you'll never get a full perspective of what the aircraft can and can't do


syscom3 said:


> You can take any simulation to the nth degree for accuracy. But for most PC sims, being 95% accurate is acceptable for most people.


If you want to get a simple picture of operation - you'll never get a full perspective of real world perfomance becuase that still involves many variables that will result in a 25% degradation based on the 5% you mention. 


syscom3 said:


> Just by flying around on a sim can give you a pretty good idea of what the plane is capable of. Its only when you get to the extremes of its flying envelope is when questions arise on how closely the software follows the real thing.


Now there I agree and that's what I make my above statements on...


syscom3 said:


> Just as the old saying about racing goes...."how much money you have tells me how fast you will go" also applies to simulators. More money = better software modeling = more accurate simulation.



Agree - 



syscom3 said:


> By the way, I dont pretend I could fly a WW2 airplane, except straight and level and maybe gentle turns.


That's a good thing!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Like I said, an airplane in flight is nothing but a set of equations that can be modeled for any accuracy an end user desires. An airplane doesnt care if a pilot is uncomfortable, scared or dead. All that matters is the position of the controls.
> 
> You can take any simulation to the nth degree for accuracy. But for most PC sims, being 95% accurate is acceptable for most people.
> 
> ...



And still is nothing like the real thing. A simulation is a simulation and flying is flying. Sorry not the same my friend.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 29, 2005)

We have had this debate before. Sims do not give the feel of flying. I don't care what anyone says, I have flown sims and the real thing. They are different, plain and simple. You don't feel a descent in a sim, you don't have the freedom to move your head around to see what is around you. A sim will not allow you to feel the heaviness of the controls. Fly an SNJ in a sim and an AN-2 Colt in a sim, the stick forces are exactly the same. The response to stick inputs _should_ be correct if the sim is good, but it definitely feels different in real life.

You also don't get certain sounds and smells. How do you trim the engines out in a twin? You listen and hear the vibration become one, like tuning a guitar. In almost every airplane I have flown in, during warm up, you can tell when it is done as you can actually smell the oil get warm.

There are nuances to flying that sims just don't get. I don't give a damn how good they are, there is _nothing_ like the real thing. In a sim, you are much more willing to push the envelope because if you screw up and get into a bad spot, you just restart the game. I can guarantee that unless you have a death wish, you won;t push it like that in the real world.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

Said very well evan but as you know these "Arm Chair Pilots" will not believe you. They are flying....


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 29, 2005)

If I had a billion dollars, Id make a flight simultor that provided lots of noises, vibrations and could freeze or bake me. Id even build a cockpit that faithfully reproduces the plane I am "flying".

Id also have multiple hi res monitors driven by super computers to give me something neat to look at.

And while Im at it, I'd have another supercomputer simulate the physics of the aircraft so its 99.9999999999% accurate.

That way, I can have a fun simulation experience without actually getting killed. Of course some people will argue that its still .001 mph inaccurate, but then of course, all the manufacturing tolerances inherint in the real thing would fall within the margin of error.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 29, 2005)

With a billion dollars, you could hire the best CFI and buy some really cool planes and do the real thing. 

The point is, sims will not give you everything. It's like the difference between sex and masturbation. Masturbation is fun and you get your rocks off, but it's nothing like the real thing.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

LOL that is one way to put it evan!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2005)

Yea, that better my doll statement, SH*T! DID I JUST SAY THAT!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

LOL you guys trip me up sometimes.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 29, 2005)

Eric!


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Oct 30, 2005)

You guys are funny to read sometimes... The emotion!!! 
DerAdlerIstGelandet: Do not put words in my mouth, and thanks for trying not to mention me by name... But no, I don't think 14,000 aircraft were in the air at once, I never said that. What I did say still stand by, is that a country does not produce 40,593 aircraft (German aircraft production 1944) cause they look good. We don't have the gas or pilots to fly them, yet we CAN build them... Just what were we thinking? I would grant you some credit if you were to say, hey look, at least half went west, but to call me naive, that just tells me you have nothing to offer lending weight to your point other than school games.

The aircraft were built to hopefully reverse the trend, or simply defend themselves, and after they were built, Germany found itself in the predicament of not being able to field them... Why? Relevant to this forum; because enough bombers got through to do some serious damage. Why? Relevant to this forum the point I was making; because the fighter aircraft of Germany were not able to effectively stop them (...they almost did, almost). You all may make claim that the Allies overwhelmed Germany by 'sheer' volume. That's a fact, to be sure (96,318 US aircraft production 1944). But I'll counter that numerical superiority is a result of production (I’m not being bombed, why?) survival (the machines I build are not being destroyed as fast as I can replace them, why?). Meaning enough bombers, fighters, their crews made it back to fight again alongside the 'newly' produced aircraft pilots fresh from the factories, and flight training centers. The Brits managed to hold back superior numbers of aircraft during the BoB, with, primarily Hurricanes. They had problems with fuel and pilots, granted not the extent of Germany during it's final hours, but I'll argue that it never got that way for the Brits because they caused Germany and her Allies losses they could not, or did not want to sustain, while facing, at the time, the largest, longest aerial bombardment in history.

As for the 'Sim' thing: Your analogies were/are very good, but they are flawed. Women flying machines still exist to be compared to the sim. A flyable A6M does not; 1944 has past; there is no reality to compare the sim against. True, some 'simmers' believe the sim is real, and that they would be able to be the Ace of Aces if... But in everything there are some who 'abuse'. Used intelligently, Sims can open eyes, however the CFS series, IL-2 series of sim GAMES are that, just games. They can insightful, but both require a very large degree of modification before they should be considered a REALISTIC simulation of actual events. The gaming sims do allow the average person, interested in this 'stuff' to immerse themselves to a very much higher degree of 'reality' than if they did not exist. Most modern air forces and pilot schools use them (sims, not CFS-2/3; IL2). All pilots benefit from them; they gain 'experience' to better respond to situations too dangerous to properly experience in reality. Those who believe that sims are useless in their ability to reproduce reality are as hopelessly lost in their dream as Jon J Goldberg Ace of Aces, flying his moded (to be as close as these sims allow) P-51s, and Mc205Vs, in CFS-2/3 (Like I really think I could be a fighter pilot, especially a carrier pilot, because I fly in CFS2/3 well). PS >> If your stick forces were the same in two different aircraft while using a flight sim I would conclude that either or all was happening; the game can not run 'force feedback'; your stick and pedals are not 'force feedback' compatible; the 'force feedback' feature was turned off; the 'force feedback' models you were using are very bad.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 30, 2005)

i'm suprised no one's mentioned this yet, how can you experience G in a sim?? unless you get some special suit or, as someone mentioned, your brother's fat girlfriend, you can't feel G like you would in a real plane........


----------



## plan_D (Oct 30, 2005)

I think someone has mentioned it. The bottom line is, if you want to compare the aircrafts ability against another aircraft then a sim, even Il-2 can be pretty good to get the basic idea. Understanding the placement of instruments and flying by numbers can be partially learnt by using flight sims. Understanding what flying is really like cannot be done with a flight sim. 

I believe syscom mentioned the aircraft doesn't take into account what the pilot is feeling. Which means in a sim the aircraft can be pushed to it's limit, in real life the plane can only be pushed to the pilot's limit.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 30, 2005)

and also in a sim the aircraft can be adjusted to exactly what the pilot wants.........


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 30, 2005)

Jon, I agree on most content of yor post but I believe you have oversimplified some:



JonJGoldberg said:


> But I'll counter that numerical superiority is a result of production (I’m not being bombed, why?) survival (the machines I build are not being destroyed as fast as I can replace them, why?).



You are not being bombed and could replace loss of machines and pilots because you (US) could afford the luxury to have the war 5000 miles away from your homeland, factories and training centers, and the luxury to have England as logistic base to deploy your stuff in useful range to hit the enemy. 
1 - Had you been in 'continental' range your factories would had been hit (remember that USSR had to redeploy all the war production in the eastern part of territory, losing about a year of output) and you could had not run safely the mass production of pilots, planes and other material. Building a Mustang in California in a big and safe facility was much easier and faster than building subassemblies of a FW in small factories and assembling them at night. And of course it was cheaper and faster to build than a Me109, NA had no constraints in the industrialization of the production flow!
Try to put together the parts of a P51 in a cave, transport them at night to the assembly place, bolt the pieces together when you are not interrupted by the alarm siren and you'll see how much the production rate goes down and the cost per unit goes up!


2 - Had UK not been available as 'air carrier', the nazi would had simply been out of practical range, like Boeing plants were for them.

The capability of maintaining numerical superiority has nothing to do with the quality of US fighters, had you produced CR42's or P35 instead of P47 and P51 you could probably have still been able to maintain numerical superiority in spite of the likely higher loss rate.



JonJGoldberg said:


> The Brits managed to hold back superior numbers of aircraft during the BoB, with, primarily Hurricanes. They had problems with fuel and pilots, granted not the extent of Germany during it's final hours, but I'll argue that it never got that way for the Brits because they caused Germany and her Allies losses they could not, or did not want to sustain, while facing, at the time, the largest, longest aerial bombardment in history.



It is a completely different and non comparable dimension: Germany in BoB could deploy a max of about hundred of medium bombers per mission (and very rarely they had this numbers) and UK had the full RAF force available for defense, the Allied deployed 10 times more of heavy bombers (and on almost routine basis) and faced half of the Luftwaffe (the other half being busy with Russians).

Germany could had NEVER crippled UK production with a bomber offensive (and less than less defeat UK with that), not even without a single Hurri or Spit in the air, simply because they never had enough destruction power to deploy.
Had they won the BoB, the maximum they could had hoped was to force UK to cease hostilities and accept the current (1940) political status in Europe.
UK never had real strategic fuel problems, all that was in short supply was shipped via 'lend-lease'.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 30, 2005)

Parmigiano said:


> Jon, I agree on most content of yor post but I believe you have oversimplified some:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Good post Parmigano.

I just have to quibble with one point ( I can't help it, I'm a pedant by nature)

Germany was more than able to send over 100 bombers in any one mission. The night blitz on London is the prime example. Each night, for 66 straight nights, 200 or more German bombers flew sorties against the Greater London area. There were multiple 200+ bomber raids during the Battle of Britain.

Germany could of slowed Spitfire and Hurricane production to a trickle, if only for a while, before mid-1940, if they had concentrated effectively on only the aircraft industry. Bombing the Merlin plants at Crew and Derby, the Spitfire factories at Southhampton and Castle Bromwich and the Hurricane factory in Kingstone would have had serious effects on the availability of replacement airframes.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 30, 2005)

The RAF situation during the Battle of Britain is easily comparable to the Luftwaffe's situation of 1944. It really was the same but on a smaller scale. The RAF were often out-numbered by anything up to 10:1 and managed to secure victory against a far numerically advanced opponent. 

Also, the U.S lend-lease act did not materalise until 1941 some months after the Battle of Britain was over. The supplies that Britain was receiving during the Battle of Britain came from the Commonwealth or were bought from other nations.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 30, 2005)

JonJGoldberg said:


> As for the 'Sim' thing: Your analogies were/are very good, but they are flawed. Women flying machines still exist to be compared to the sim. A flyable A6M does not; 1944 has past; there is no reality to compare the sim against.



Ummm...No flyable A6M? Would you care to wager some money on that?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2005)

JonJGoldberg said:


> You guys are funny to read sometimes... The emotion!!!
> DerAdlerIstGelandet: Do not put words in my mouth, and thanks for trying not to mention me by name... But no, I don't think 14,000 aircraft were in the air at once, I never said that. What I did say still stand by, is that a country does not produce 40,593 aircraft (German aircraft production 1944) cause they look good. We don't have the gas or pilots to fly them, yet we CAN build them... Just what were we thinking? I would grant you some credit if you were to say, hey look, at least half went west, but to call me naive, that just tells me you have nothing to offer lending weight to your point other than school games.



School Games? You are not even worth my time. Go play your flight sim.


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 30, 2005)

No Plan,

'the same on a smaller scale', when the 'scale' is so big is not a correct assessment!
And Luftwaffe was constantly outnumbered 10:1 and more considering only fighter vs fighter in the day, plus there were day bombers.
If you add up P51,P47,P38,B17,B24 vs 109 and 190 you easily reach 20-30 and more to 1 in many missions.
If Spits and hurries were always outnumbered 10:1 by 109 there would have been no way for them to stop the bombers, like happened to 109 and 190 in 44-45. Maybe they could had managed it one or two times, but in a 6 months war they would had been annihilated.

Another matter is the fact that, in any case, German bombers were not enough in number and bombload to seriously cripple UK economy.
Even if Germans had optimally managed the bombing, UK could had easily survived until the arrival of the 'Liberty' ships and the Packard Merlins.
The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that without the US the war in 1941 would had been a big stall, with subsequent acceptance of the status-quo. Pending developments on the eastern front, of course.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2005)

That I believe too.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 30, 2005)

At times during the Battle of Britain the RAF interceptors could be out-numbered up to 20:1 also. Small flights of four aircraft would often rise to an opponent tens, even hundreds in size. 

The RAF didn't stop the bombing raids against Britain. They caused a sustained increase in damage while production increased. This then out-stripped the German production of it's own aircraft thus creating a balance that was tipping favour of Britain by september 1940. The increasing losses for little strategic or operational value is what led to the cease of grand aerial offensives over Britain rather the massive loss in comparison to the strength of the Luftwaffe. 

I disagree that the Luftwaffe lacked the hitting power for a quick hard punch against the RAF and the aerial industry had the RAF been smaller, or less well equipped. The Luftwaffe lacked the strength for a sustained strategic campaign against an increasing RAF strength. 

One reason for the RAF success was the German forces were acting on a pinpoint assault. As with land attacks, no matter how large the force if the area of attack is small the enemy can react with equal or larger numbers at the point of the attack - on a whole. As it were, it took the RAF a few weeks to realise it's advantages.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2005)

I believe it owes just as much success to the German Polotical blunders.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 30, 2005)

JonJGoldberg said:


> Most modern air forces and pilot schools use them (sims, not CFS-2/3; IL2). All pilots benefit from them; they gain 'experience' to better respond to situations too dangerous to properly experience in reality. Those who believe that sims are useless in their ability to reproduce reality are as hopelessly lost in their dream as Jon J Goldberg Ace of Aces, flying his moded (to be as close as these sims allow) P-51s, and Mc205Vs, in CFS-2/3 (Like I really think I could be a fighter pilot, especially a carrier pilot, because I fly in CFS2/3 well).



Never said they were useless - they will never reproduce 100% reality, even in full motion sims (which I have flown). I've seen a student with no formal flight training follow a PC sim PTS for a private pilot - when he got into a real airplane he did well but we had to work on an induced fear of "real world stimuli" (like not putting enough right rudder in during a power on stall, that imput varies from aircraft to aircraft, no sim designer could ever replicate that). Once he got the real world training he did fine and dismissed many false assumptions that the sim induced upon him. I know of a Pensacola Student who had a very expensive T-34C sim and he used it a s supplement to become one of the top grads from his flight training class; but for every 2 or 3 hors at his sim, he still had at least 1 hour in the real thing. Even myself - I used a PC sim for my Instrument Ticket training - I finished in the minimum time required by the FAA - it was a help, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it...

Take 100 hours in your best sim, program something simple like a Cessna 172 and come out and fly with me - I'll let you do the first landing. I'll wear a crash helmet, you make sure the aircraft insurance is paid up.

Sims (whether its a modern full motion sim or your top of the line home sim with all types of WW2 aircraft programed into it) will give you a basis for that aircraft, but you're not going to be able to intellegently compare notes with someone who actually flew the real thing unless you're there yourself.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 30, 2005)

I think sometimes we read to much into some of the posts. When I say a "realistic simulator", I referr solely to the flight dynamics modeling. If a three axis simultor can be hooked into the computer modeling, so much the better.

But lets not think that just because someone says that a simulator cant model human emotions to the events, its not accurate.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 30, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> I think sometimes we read to much into some of the posts. When I say a "realistic simulator", I referr solely to the flight dynamics modeling. If a three axis simultor can be hooked into the computer modeling, so much the better.
> 
> But lets not think that just because someone says that a simulator cant model human emotions to the events, its not accurate.



Well taken - there are also little variances from aircraft to aircraft of the same type that can't be replicated as well...


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Oct 30, 2005)

I really wasn't trying to oversimplify, I also wasn't trying to point out nuances, I wanted to express what I did...

Yes there is 5,000 mi between the US and Europe. With WW2 tech. a very difficult undertaking... Had the Germans been successful in Britain, maybe the Argentines would have openly supported them with bases in the Americas from which expansion would have been possible... Oh but they couldn't produce enough to supply themselves for the BoB. The BoB was, until the Allied bombings on Germany, the largest aerial assault the world had seen, regardless of the actual number, and easily comparable to Germany's experience at the end of WW2. If I accept your arguments that since the scale of the Allied bombings dwarf that of the German bombings of England, how do you explain the fact that Germany fell under such conditions. After all...

Total U.S. bomb tonnage dropped during:
World War II = 2,057,244 tons
Vietnam War = 7,078,032 tons (3-1/2 times WWII
tonnage)

Bomb tonnage dropped during the Vietnam War amounted to
1,000 lbs. for every man, woman and child in Vietnam (about 14 million at the time).

...the Germans got away easy, relative to the Vietnamese, right? Given this fact, how can you say that the Germans lost due to superior Allied numbers, on the one hand, technical impossibilities on the other, yet the Vietnamese were victorious with nothing? Fascinating! Unless, humm, let me see... Oh, the Vietnamese had no production base to destroy, so the Americans wasted their bombs digging holes nobody wanted, had they done this during WW2, Germany would have had a different fate. You see, to me this would be like playing checkers with an eight year old, who changes the rules, upon discovery of impending doom. After all, the Americans should have killed every Vietnamese person with a 1,000lb present for each, yet that didn't happen. The American bombing strategy in Vietnam was as big of a failure, politics scandal aside, as Germany's was during BoB. My opinion.

...You're right, there are, or two flyable A6Ms, one near you (evangilder, in Chino CA) I believe, but the point was made...
Sorry guys, I got caught up myself I guess with the sim thing, and swung the pendulum too far to the other side. Didn't mean to over-stress the reality thing. I think we largely agree about the serious limitations usefulness of sims vs reality, and upon re-reading our posts seem to be bantering about the line.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> But lets not think that just because someone says that a simulator cant model human emotions to the events, its not accurate.



No it can be an accurate representation or model but no where even close to the real thing. You have to actually feel the rudder forces, feel the wind trying to push your aircraft, the turbulance, the updrafts and downdrafts. A sim can never fully reproduce this. That is why I say it is not accurate.

Basically what I am saying is flight sims are not bad. They are fun and give a good representation. What I dont like is the people that base there whole knowledge off of flight sims. And when told that is highly unlikely they are like "I did it in Il-2!, so it has to be true".


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Oct 30, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet:
"Basically what I am saying is flight sims are not bad. They are fun and give a good representation. What I dont like is the people that base there whole knowledge off of flight sims. And when told that is highly unlikely they are like "I did it in Il-2!, so it has to be true". 

Remind them that you can fly F-16 during WW2 in a sim, or you can fly an X-Wing fighter, or a helicopter upside down... 

For sure we agree on this sim thing!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2005)

Atleast we agree on something! LOL

To be honest though a helicopter can be flown upside down. Well not all of them but Apaches, Lynx, Gazelles, and even my Blackhawk can be flown upside down. Most modern helicopters can do it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 30, 2005)

One last thing on this sim thing as it seems we're rolling into agreement - I see folks fly all types of aircraft, play out all types of scenarios, but at the end of the day do they ever program their sim to induce 30 to 45 knot winds, a 400 foot ceiling and a 1/2 mile visibility when they are returing to base? And if they do, do they fly the published instrument approach procedure?!?! That's one aspect of "real world stimuli" I am talking about....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2005)

You are correct FBJ. Another thing howmany actually set all there settings to real world settings? I bet not even half. Most even play those games on "weakling" level. Not that even the hardest difficutly can reproduce the real thing.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 30, 2005)

That is something that can be modeled into the SW. However, the programmers are targetting an audience that wants to dogfight or drop bombs. Rarely do they want to have the weather modeled in.

Everything you mentioned can be simulated. Nothing complicated about it. Its still just another set of equations.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2005)

But is it the same? NO Can you actually feel it? NO Are the forces really effecting you, because can you feel it? NO

Sorry it is not the same.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 30, 2005)

It is close enough. Tell me what is so hard about simulating the effects of cross winds? Its basic trigonomeytry. And if you want to lower visibility, then the graphics can generate that too.

This is done everyday at the thousands of simulators used around the world. There is absolutley nothing complicated about it. In fact its very easy to simulate. If you want vibration, it can be modeled. If you want turbulence, it can be modeled. If you want an engine out in 500 foot visibilty with a hail storm and wind shear, it can be modeled.

For a home PC, If a novice wants to know what its like to fly a FW190A8 with drop tanks and 30% fuel load at 27,000 feet at 400 knots and put it into a hard bank, just to see if it would stall, or what the stall recovery would be like, then its going to be so close to the real thing, theres nothing to argue about. You dont need a stick shaker, cold air and be strapped into a flightsuit, cause its irrelevent.

The only question you should be asking is how sophisticated is the simulator. A typical simulator for the home is not sophisticated enough "for everything". A simulator at one of the big airlines that is 3 axis and more, is getting pretty close to the real thing. It wont ever approach the real thing, but its getting very close to it.

Only a fool would say its the equivelent to the real thing. But a smart man knows this and will settle for 99% accuracy.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2005)

No it is not close eneogh. When you are sitting in at your house in front of you PC you are not getting eneogh. When you are sitting in front of you PC you are not getting the effects of cross winds. You are getting maybe 50% accuracy not 99% as you say.

A real simulator that you sit in that is 99% and that is a real sim and gives you the real feeling. I know I have flown in a real simulator.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 30, 2005)

Do you have any evidence that a correctly programmed simulator is incapable of simulating crosswinds? Is there something really really weird about some very well understood aeronautical equationss that all of a sudden dont apply?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2005)

You are purpossly trying not to understand what I am saying. 

I will put it in plane english for you okay.

How the hell are you actually feeling the forces? How the hell are you feeling the strain on your muscles? 

Jesus Christ this conversation is over, I feel like I am talking to a damn rock.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 30, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Do you have any evidence that a correctly programmed simulator is incapable of simulating crosswinds?



YES! I've got about 4.5 hours in the full motion sim located at the United Airlines "TK" training center in Denver. I also have had the opportunity to fly B737-800s (in the right seat) out of one of the most squirly airports (wind and turbulent wise) in the US - Mojave Ca. Although the sim at TK is extremely accurate (the sim model was actually a B737-500) it can no way totally copy what you would experience out of Mojave - continual cross winds and mountain rotor mixed with continual rising thermals from the surface - the conditions are almost unpredictable. This is the real world events that no sim can ever accurately copy and is exactly what Adler and I are talking about...

As a matter of fact it's a common expression of airline drivers who fly into "Squirly" airports to say (when they encounter some unusual turbulence) "God, I never seen that in the sim."


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 30, 2005)

If the sim is correctly programmed, then the winds are accounted for.
Its a no brainer. Or, maybe the pilot using the sim thinks he doesnt feel it. If its unpredictable, then its a random moment that the sim is accounting for.

Did you ever ask the guys running the sim to throw in some thermals?


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 31, 2005)

Jon, it's not me playing the kid and changing the rules.
In your previous post you asked two questions and I posted my view of the answer.
In this post you did not reply to my opinions (1) but started some new topic instead.

Now I try to reply to the new concepts you expressed in your last post.

-The scenario of Germany overtake UK and attack USA via Argentina is science fiction, and a misconceived one because the miles to cover would still be too many for the 1945 airplanes.

- yes, Germans did not produced enough material to wreck England.
That was because
1 - FACT - Germans NEVER produced a single strategic bomber (until the HE177, that was ALMOST a strategic bomber). Or, in other words, they never had a concept or a plan to use strategic bombing to win the war.
The fact that they pretended to start BoB with inadeguate material has to be explained in depth by historians, to me it just seems a grossly stupid mistake but for sure reality is more complex to understand.

2 - PERSONAL OPINION - In any case, was impossible for Germany alone to produce enough strenght for an effective strategic bombing campaign.

Strategic bombing is expensive stuff, only the cooperation of 3 powers (USA, UK and Russia) could put together enough resources to have an effective CONTRIBUTE in defeating a 4th power. And it took them two years of continuous effort.

Each of the 3 powers would have been defeated (in the air war over Germany, not in the whole WW2) if they had to run the strategic bombing campaign alone, without the support of the other 2. 

So, since there is no reason to believe that UK defenses would have been less tough and motivated than German ones, it seems to me impossible that Germany could have won a SB campaign over England, even if they had built the 'right' airplanes.

Well, maybe with the 8th air force on their side and Packard building and shipping hurdles of DB605 instead of Merlins, and Russians keeping half of RAF blocked in the East.... Just a paradox, but gives an idea of the proportions involved.

- About VIETNAM and bomb-per-ass ratios, the point is that strategic bombing wil never WIN the war alone (excluding chemical or nuclear annihilation).
It CONTRIBUTE a lot to weaken the defenses, see WW2, but to win the war you still have to do it the old way, that is bring your troops to take control of the territory.
This is what Allied and Russians did with Germany and US did not in Vietnam. Again, why US Army did not proceed to invade the Vietnamese territory is Historians matter, I personally have not enough knowledge to express a public opinion.


(1) I am the first to accept the concept that opinions are like as****les, everyone has his own.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 31, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> If the sim is correctly programmed, then the winds are accounted for.
> Its a no brainer. Or, maybe the pilot using the sim thinks he doesnt feel it. If its unpredictable, then its a random moment that the sim is accounting for.
> 
> Did you ever ask the guys running the sim to throw in some thermals?



Conditions like Mojave cannot be programmed into the sim, at least not simultaneously as you describe - I know the sim operator well, he my father in law.

Having the opportunity to fly a 737 in a sim and then in real life, I maintain, the sim is close, very close, but it is not going to mirror many real world conditions, and now we're not talking home PCs, we're talking multi-million dollar full movement sims.

The airlines allow sim training for periodic re-currency. The only reason why this is allowed is because even the most junior guys have several thousands hours flying time. Mot of the training in these sims involve instrument work and emergency procedures (engine out on take off). 

Several years ago a US Air 737 had a rudder lock up which resulted in the death of everyone on the aircraft outside of Pittsburgh Pa. That condition could not be duplicated into sim because the computer that runs the sim basically said "the aircraft cant do that." All 737 operators went back and modified that flaw and began training for that scenario - one of many situations where the sim cannot pick up a "real world" event.....


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 31, 2005)

Well, its a classic example where the software wasnt programmed to account for a scenario like that. Once it was programmed, then that situation was taken care of.

And if the Mojave conditions cannot be programmed into the simulator, then there are software issues that must be resolved.

Its all a matter of equations.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 31, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> And if the Mojave conditions cannot be programmed into the simulator, then there are software issues that must be resolved.
> 
> Its all a matter of equations.



Yes - the equasion is "Hands on, real time in the cockpit training."


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 31, 2005)

No, thermals and winds and turbulance. All easily modeled. A well understood phenomena.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 31, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> No, thermals and winds and turbulance. All easily modeled. A well understood phenomena.



Not when they can't be predicted as to direction, intensity and timing - go fly up to Mojave Airport - you'll never do two landings the same, and it doesn't matter if you're in a Cessna -150 or a 747...

Obviously you never heard of the Techapi Wave....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 31, 2005)

one more argurment quite a simple one, you can die flying a real plane, how many sims actually kill you if you crash?


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 31, 2005)

Even when its unpredictable, there are still wind speeds, directions and up/down drafts that can easily be modeled.

Just because a simulator doesnt model this airport correctly doesnt mean it can be simulated.

The whole idea of a simulator is to give you the illusion of flying. The more money you have to simulate it, the greater the illusion. And you can practise dangerous maneuvers in a sim that would kill you in the real world.

As I said before, only a fool would think a simulator is the real thing. It cant simulate human emotions in emergencies when their lives are close to ending.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 31, 2005)

Unless you wire up some kind of special pain chair that runs with the game...now THATS a sim...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 31, 2005)

> And you can practise dangerous maneuvers in a sim that would kill you in the real world



then it's not accurate, we're arguing about how accurate they are.......


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 31, 2005)

I dont have an answer for you on that. In fact, I have no clue what you are getting at. Are you saying all simulators are inaccurate cause they cant give you the simulatation of actually getting killed?

If so, Im writting to the FAA and tell them to no longer allow any training on simulators as it is not a truthfull simulation of flight. They are doing the public a disservice because the pilots have been fooled into thinking they learned something on the sims.

Im really glad you brought this point up.

Cheddar....... a chair of pain...... hahahahaha, now thats a good idea to reinforce what you have learned.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 31, 2005)

I have the blueprints, sketches, everything! government wont give me backing though


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 31, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> They are doing the public a disservice because the pilots have been fooled into thinking they learned something on the sims.


 - The sim is real good for intrument and nav work and most inflight emergencies - and we're talking the the big airline full movement sims - the only reason why those guys really get something of of them for their type of operation is because they already got several thousands hours...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 31, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> I dont have an answer for you on that. In fact, I have no clue what you are getting at. Are you saying all simulators are inaccurate cause they cant give you the simulatation of actually getting killed?
> 
> If so, Im writting to the FAA and tell them to no longer allow any training on simulators as it is not a truthfull simulation of flight. They are doing the public a disservice because the pilots have been fooled into thinking they learned something on the sims.
> 
> ...



no it's simply that some people were arguing that simulators are incredibly accurate and true to life, they think it's just like flying the real thing, i'm trying to say it's not, i never said they weren't useful..........


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 31, 2005)

So the sims cant correctly model the aircraft in flight, takeoff or landing?

If so, all the equations of flight that have been generated for the past century are incorrect.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 31, 2005)

stop trying to put words into my mouth, words i've never said, it is simply a case that some poeple are arguing that sims are exactly the same as flying the real thing, which they're not........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> So the sims cant correctly model the aircraft in flight, takeoff or landing?
> 
> If so, all the equations of flight that have been generated for the past century are incorrect.



Forget the equasions, talk stick and rudder....




the lancaster kicks ass said:


> stop trying to put words into my mouth, words i've never said, it is simply a case that some poeple are arguing that sims are exactly the same as flying the real thing, which they're not........



Lanc, you're a very perceptive young man, you will go far!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 1, 2005)

damn i wish i knew what you meant by that


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2005)

It means you understand there is a difference between a sim and a real airplane.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 1, 2005)

ah ok........


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 1, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It means you understand there is a difference between a sim and a real airplane.....


I thought that much was obvious? Yes you can model all the physics of flying into a game but it will never beat the real thing or be able to model everything accurately. There are some things computers can't do that you can in real life. Probably the most important is the feel and the sensation of flying, you are never going to be able to replicate that in a sim. Yes they maybe 90+% accurate, who cares? There is no comparison to the real thing, sims only give you a vague idea of how it would be like. Not that I don't enjoy flying sims, at the moment they are as close as I can get to flying and probably as close as I will ever get to flying a warbird (one can still hope though!). As long as you realise that they are a game and so you can do things you can't do in real life then it is fine, but they cannot and probably will not be able to model everything that can happen in real life into a sim.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 1, 2005)

Name me one thing having to do with the physics of flight that cant be modeled.

Human emotions cant be simulated, so dont mention it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2005)

Gnomey said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > It means you understand there is a difference between a sim and a real airplane.....
> ...



My Point!  



syscom3 said:


> Name me one thing having to do with the physics of flight that cant be modeled.



The production variances between two different aircraft of the same type that make each aircraft fly a little different.....for starters...


----------



## evangilder (Nov 1, 2005)

You also can not simulate the effect of a 3g turn on an individual. Some will blow chunks, some will get light headed, some will feel it, but otherwise be unaffected. The big very expensive simulators can give the g load effect, but a PC based sim cannot do that. It has nothing to do with emotion, as it is a physiological response.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2005)

You could also have an aircraft with control cable tension tolerance - take two aircraft and adjust control cable tension on one side of the tolerance and they may fly differently....


----------



## evangilder (Nov 1, 2005)

I would think an airplane that has a few thousand hours on it might fly differently than a brand new one as well. Or a prop that is chipped and worn, or out of balance.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2005)

evangilder said:


> I would think an airplane that has a few thousand hours on it might fly differently than a brand new one as well. Or a prop that is chipped and worn, or out of balance.



Yep - no sim is randomly is going to simulate that


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> No, thermals and winds and turbulance. All easily modeled. A well understood phenomena.



No it is not. Are you feeling the wind forces and fighting them back with the stick. An aircraft just does not simply cut through the wind. It is pushed off course and thrown up and down. You feel that and fight against it with the stick. When you are flying you PC sim are you actually feeling that? No. So how is that modeled and accurate, it is not. Atleast with a full motion sim you feel that. You however do not with your Microsoft flight sim. Dont take me wrong flight sims are fun and I dont think they are terrible. I am just saying you are not flying a plane.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > No, thermals and winds and turbulance. All easily modeled. A well understood phenomena.
> ...



Especially when you have continual mountain wave co-mingled with thermals. In the full motion "big Buck" sims, the crosswind feel on the yoke or rudders, no matter what is put in by the sim operator, feels artifical when compared to the real thing.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 4, 2005)

Yes it does. I have no where near as much actual stick time as you (actually yoke time since I have never actually flown a helicopter I just crew them) but I can tell you the same thing.


----------



## wmaxt (Nov 4, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > syscom3 said:
> ...



Sims will never be able to duplicate a thermal or wind shear jogging an aircraft several hundred feet or a tip vortice flipping you over without warning - I'm sure you'd hit the ceiling first.  

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 4, 2005)

Its just a mathmatical equation. Nothing sophisticated to program for.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Its just a mathmatical equation. Nothing sophisticated to program for.



A mathematical equation for continual mountain wave would be infinite because they are never ending, always changing and never the same - with that, attempt to plug that into a full motion sim with pistons and actuators and you'll never have even close to the real thing. The feel will always be "artificial."

You continue to believe what you want, there are those of us who been in both places.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 4, 2005)

Sounds like a random event that can be programed with no problem. Of course the simulation for this unique wave can only be simulated once, but subsequent waves can be generated for different velocities, accelrations, etc. They (in the end) all fall within clearly defined parameters.

If a person has enough money, the mechanical simulation of turbulence can be simulated too.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Sounds like a random event that can be programed with no problem. Of course the simulation for this unique wave can only be simulated once, but subsequent waves can be generated for different velocities, accelrations, etc. They (in the end) all fall within clearly defined parameters.
> 
> If a person has enough money, the mechanical simulation of turbulence can be simulated too.



Sure, so could random sunspots on the sun  

I could tell you in the most advanced sim, these imputs feel artifical - but not only my opinion....


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 4, 2005)

Sunspots could interrupt communications. It could be modeled in if desired.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Sunspots could interrupt communications. It could be modeled in if desired.



You must be an ailen


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 4, 2005)

Sunspot activity has long been known to be an indicator of solar activity.

The more the solar activity, the higher the probablity of comm outages/interference.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2005)




----------



## Glider (Nov 4, 2005)

If its any help I have never found a simulation that comes remotely close to flying a glider. If there is any form of flight that is more natural or instinctive then I haven't found it.
Its a number of things such as the effect of the wind, trying to find the right spot if you are lucky enough to find lift, feeling the effect on the glider of the various forces when centreing on a thermal, using sound to gauge your speed or identifying a source of lift from the ground or a forming cloud for lift. Plus of course the feeling of gravity or negative G.
No simulator comes close.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 4, 2005)

You just havent been flying a top of the line simulator.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 4, 2005)

> No simulator comes close.


I chewed on some leafy substance in Guatemala back in 1994 that came prrreeetttyy damn close....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> You just havent been flying a top of the line simulator.


Does a 1.2 million dollar CAE B737-500 full movement count?


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 4, 2005)

Uummmmm.....

Yep.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 4, 2005)

I was thinking of something more substantial.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> I was thinking of something more substantial.



Like what?!? the Shuttle Sim your your spaceship


----------



## Glider (Nov 5, 2005)

Syscom, Have you ever flown at the controls of a plane?


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 5, 2005)

Yes ive flown at the controls of an airplane. Even done aerobatics in one.

I never did get the hang of a split S though. I need a lot more practise at it. Surprisingly, I did some hammerhead stalls pretty good.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Yes ive flown at the controls of an airplane. Even done aerobatics in one.
> 
> I never did get the hang of a split S though. I need a lot more practise at it. Surprisingly, I did some hammerhead stalls pretty good.



In what type of aircraft?


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 5, 2005)

It was a Citabria I believe.

Its an purpose built aerobatics plane, mono wing design mounted high. And it hold 2 people.

Its built in Europe? One thing I thought was cool was the metal framework in the wing. Hollow tubes filled with inert gas under pressure. If the wings are stressed to a dangerous level, some "fuse" plugs will fail and allow the gas to leak out. Theres a gauge in the cockpit that shows the pressure, and if it is going down, the pilot knows to land quickly.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> It was a Citabria I believe.
> 
> Its an purpose built aerobatics plane, mono wing design mounted high. And it hold 2 people.
> 
> Its built in Europe? One thing I thought was cool was the metal framework in the wing. Hollow tubes filled with inert gas under pressure. If the wings are stressed to a dangerous level, some "fuse" plugs will fail and allow the gas to leak out. Theres a gauge in the cockpit that shows the pressure, and if it is going down, the pilot knows to land quickly.



I know it well; flew and fixed several of them. Citabrias are "All American" originally built by Aeronca then Ballancia, now they are built in Wyoming by Aviat who also builds Pitts. They used to have wood wings, but went to metal a few years ago. They are a basic aerobatic aircraft and a good tailwheel traininer. Fly that in a cross wind and then look what it flys like in a top of the line sim - it's not even close, and I could speak from experience...

Oh by the way, spell "Citabria' backwards....


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 5, 2005)

Citabria = Airbatic pretty cool

Spell Racecar backwards......

Racecar = Racecar WTF???


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> Citabria = Airbatic pretty cool
> 
> Spell Racecar backwards......
> 
> Racecar = Racecar WTF???



8)


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 5, 2005)

Aside from the gee forces, I knew what to do because of my simulator time flying Ki-84's..... hehehehehe


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 5, 2005)

And just when I thought the situation couldnt possibly get any worse:


> I knew what to do because of my simulator time flying Ki-84's..... hehehehehe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Aside from the gee forces



With no disrespect to my British freinds - IF THE QUEEN HAD BALLS SHED' BE KING!


----------



## plan_D (Nov 5, 2005)

There was this pilot that had only been trained on F.3 Lightnings ...and by some complete screw up he managed to have flight time in a F.6 ...cutting a long story short, he had to eject over the Med because he didn't have a clue about how the F.6 flew or felt. 

So ...this trained pilot gets stuck in a plane of the same type but different mark ...is screwed. Remember, a trained pilot! ...how do you expect a simulator to make up for no flight experience?


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 5, 2005)

A flight sim of the F6 model would have helped this guy tremendously.

Hey, if it worked for me, it can work for anyone

)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> A flight sim of the F6 model would have helped this guy tremendously.
> 
> Hey, if it worked for me, it can work for anyone
> 
> )



Yea, now try landing that Citabria you flew (as you are KI-84 trained). I want to be there with a camera...


----------



## plan_D (Nov 5, 2005)

How would it? A pilot with experience at the feelings, sights and sounds of a high performance plane ...also has experience of nature's variants ...gets put in a plane that's of a different mark ...and crashes. A simulator has to be able to recreate every single natural variant known to man, and others that aren't known, while being completely random and at any time. The simulator has to be programmed to do everything ...and as human's are f*ck offs, they're always going to miss something. 

If a trained pilot fucks up when put in a new plane ...a sim ain't going to help his feelings when put in a new aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2005)

plan_D said:


> How would it? A pilot with experience at the feelings, sights and sounds of a high performance plane ...also has experience of nature's variants ...gets put in a plane that's of a different mark ...and crashes. A simulator has to be able to recreate every single natural variant known to man, and others that aren't known, while being completely random and at any time. The simulator has to be programmed to do everything ...and as human's are f*ck offs, they're always going to miss something.
> 
> If a trained pilot fucks up when put in a new plane ...a sim ain't going to help his feelings when put in a new aircraft.



THANK YOU D! =D> =D> =D>


----------



## plan_D (Nov 5, 2005)

If computers could recreate every single aspect that leads to aerodynamic design, then they'd never be a poor aircraft because they could design it on computer before even building a model. So, all modern aircraft are excellent? No. 

If a computer could recreate every aspect of flight there'd be no need for flight hours. A pilot would be capable at all aspects of flight and control before he's even seen an aircraft. Is that true? No. 

Just to make it even simpler, a simulator could never recreate driving experience. They'd never test people for their drivers license using computers. 

And the best thing that no computer will ever be able to recreate ...is human stupidity.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 5, 2005)

There isnt anything new about flight that hasnt been figured out. A well programmed simulator accounts for these. Its a fact the British simulators arent as advanced as the American ones..... hhehehehehehehe.

Once I find a Citabria sim thats 3 axis, I will practise my landings and show you how its done.

Another sim I used to great effect was the origional Microsoft flight sim from 1985. I practiced flying around in a Cessna. My buddy took me up in his Cessna and I flew it around the LA area. He said I did very good up to the time we were going to land, and I was aiming at one of the approach lights )


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2005)

plan_D said:


> And the best thing that no computer will ever be able to recreate ...is human stupidity.



"It could be modeled if desired."


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Once I find a Citabria sim thats 3 axis, I will practise my landings and show you how its done.



I hope at John Wayne airport - Sunny could add that to his clip collection!


syscom3 said:


> He said I did very good up to the time we were going to land, and I was aiming at one of the approach lights )


My point!


----------



## plan_D (Nov 5, 2005)

With every post, sys, you're getting further and further away from reality. It's even worse now you're saying a PC could recreate flight. 

Who else found the comment about the simulators funny? Please, for his sake, someone else find it funny...

By the way, how do you know everything about flight has been figured out? Shall we just go tell the NASA scientists that there's no point in carrying on their research, sys has it all figured out?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2005)

plan_D said:


> With every post, sys, you're getting further and further away from reality. It's even worse now you're saying a PC could recreate flight.
> 
> Who else found the comment about the simulators funny? Please, for his sake, someone else find it funny...
> 
> By the way, how do you know everything about flight has been figured out? Shall we just go tell the NASA scientists that there's no point in carrying on their research, sys has it all figured out?



I still think he's an Alien


----------



## Erich (Nov 5, 2005)

back to the topic thread...........best fighter..............look at my siggy 8)


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Nov 6, 2005)

...Been away for awhile on business. See you guys have been busy with the 'sim' thing. I'd like to make a few comments, then move on back to the topic, Best WW2 fighter, if possible.

Flight sims, with the best of current tech, can accurately represent to the eyes, ears, palm feet what will happen to an aircraft’s performance, including ‘wear’ such as metal fatigue, ‘G’s either positive or negative, or what ever else you may desire, such as ‘sample to sample differences’(load your desired aircrafts performance ‘averaged’ specs, then the ‘products variance’ or ‘actual measured performance’ of your targeted aircrafts…), a chipped prop, or piston failure to an ‘extremely high degree of probability’. No matter the physical complexity, geo-thermo source, or it’s time of occurrence in flight. Flight sims, with the best of current tech, can not accurately transmit to the other parts of our bodies, such as our heart, lungs, arms, legs or ‘skin’ sensations of what is happening within the aircraft’s environment to the user to a high degree of probably within the same apparatus. To do that requires a different kind of simulator usually specialized to a specific type of physical occurrence, whose apparatuses do not / can not at the same time render a specific aircraft’s flight characteristics, the effect under simulation, as it relates to an aircraft’s performance, as it’s focus is to view the outcome of these effects upon the pilot. Aside from computing power, the ability to transmit the physical effects of motion, environment upon the pilot are what defines some of the most advanced flight sims, stops the sim’s pilot from having that beer someone mentioned, while sim flying. To this extent, a flight simulator is flawed in it’s representation of what we generally call ‘reality’, or what I referred to as probability. This also clarifies why there may not be any ‘good’ ‘open cockpit’ glider sims; as an accurate representation of the environments physical effects upon the pilot senses, other than those perceived through the eyes, ears, palm, and feet, is needed in order to be a ‘reasonable’ simulation of the ‘flying’ experience in a ‘pure non-powered’ open cockpit glider; as the environments physical effects upon the pilot play such a commanding part of the pilots flight decisions, the outcome of which along with the pilots actual positioning effects the aircraft performance, to such a high degree, that at this time, it lies beyond flight sim technologies ability to be portrayed at the same time within the place with a high degree of probability. So at the moment of touchdown we apply a bit too much flap, or power, or too little, can not read thermals (not because they are not happening within the sim to a high degree of probabilty, but because they are not able to be transmitteded effectivly as I know of no simulator with wind effects, do you (if you do, please inform me)? I would aregue the member’s comments about take-offs landings, gliding by saying that I’ll do much, much better at any, on my 1st attempt with sim hours than without. Therefore the ‘reality’ of a flight sim armed with the best of today’s tech, is pretty darn close with enclosed powered aircraft, with arguably further drift from reality as you get closer to ‘pure non-powered flight’, or the moment before stall, the moment before touchdown, takeoff. The environmental factors that can not be properly transmitted to the user, and therefore not properly interpreted by the user, are not ‘critical’ to the overall reality of the flight except during those exact instants. With out a doubt, these are significant occurrences, so, simulators darken the screen, in average portrail of a pilot undergoing a blackout, some even tilting and or moving in other manners in attempt to help overcome technologies limits; which grow smaller every day; but overall they are accurate enough to be ‘real’ or close enough to real to be ‘PROBABLE’, as the sunrise tomorrow. 

Does anyone have any input for me concerning those tables? How can I refine them? Should I continue? Is there another way to conclude this topic? Will there be no way to conclude this topic?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2005)

Good info - just go with the flow.....


----------



## Glider (Nov 6, 2005)

Excellent posting Jon. I consider the topic to be closed and suggest that if anyone wants a further debate on Flight sims, they start a new thread


----------



## trackend (Nov 6, 2005)

Sounds good to me JJB.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 6, 2005)

Nice info Jon. A new thread would be the best if the discussion is to continue.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

Good idea. Maybe one should be started because of these sim pilots thinking they are really flying.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 6, 2005)

Agreed...Im going up in a Glider in January (hopefully) and I know im gonna be f*cking amazing because I play FS2004 and ive flown one on there! 

Someone start the new thread and then we can get back on topic in here.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

Okay it has been split.


----------



## Glider (Nov 6, 2005)

CC read Jon's posting and trust me, a flight sim for a glider is nothing like the reality. It will be for stright and level but when you try turning, flying heads up out of the cockpit its nothing like it.
About the only time you look at the instruments in a Glider is when you are taking off and landing to ensure that the speed stays on the nose. Everything else is normally done using your senses. 
This can save your life in an emergency and if your thermalling in a stack with other gliders its vital. Try flying your sim with no instruments that may and I mean may help you.
But most of all, enjoy it


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2005)

_


JonJGoldberg said:



... Flight sims, with the best of current tech, can not accurately transmit to the other parts of our bodies, such as our heart, lungs, arms, legs or ‘skin’ sensations of what is happening within the aircraft’s environment to the user to a high degree of probably within the same apparatus. To do that requires a different kind of simulator usually specialized to a specific type of physical occurrence, whose apparatuses do not / can not at the same time render a specific aircraft’s flight characteristics, the effect under simulation, as it relates to an aircraft’s performance, as it’s focus is to view the outcome of these effects upon the pilot. Aside from computing power, the ability to transmit the physical effects of motion, environment upon the pilot are what defines some of the most advanced flight sims, stops the sim’s pilot from having that beer someone mentioned, while sim flying. To this extent, a flight simulator is flawed in it’s representation of what we generally call ‘reality’, or what I referred to as probability.

Click to expand...

_
Ya know, I re-read your thread and I think you nailed it!

OK - Now I'm going flying for real!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

Yeap he did nail it and that is what I think these people who actually think they are flying an aircraft from there PC dont realize. Put them in a real aircraft and they will probably have to clean out there pants.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeap he did nail it and that is what I think these people who actually think they are flying an aircraft from there PC dont realize. Put them in a real aircraft and they will probably have to clean out there pants.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 6, 2005)

Glider said:


> CC read Jon's posting and trust me, a flight sim for a glider is nothing like the reality. It will be for stright and level but when you try turning, flying heads up out of the cockpit its nothing like it.
> About the only time you look at the instruments in a Glider is when you are taking off and landing to ensure that the speed stays on the nose. Everything else is normally done using your senses.
> This can save your life in an emergency and if your thermalling in a stack with other gliders its vital. Try flying your sim with no instruments that may and I mean may help you.
> But most of all, enjoy it



I know - I was actually being sarcastic when I made that post


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

He is sarcastic all the time, so you never know if he is serious or not. It is like the boy that cried Wolf!


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 6, 2005)




----------



## Glider (Nov 6, 2005)

I'm a man, I can blub in the corner with the best of you.

Teach me to be so serious!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

My comment was that CC was not serious.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2005)

Today I went flying and all over the Denver area there was moderate to severe turbulence. I went about 10 miles to the north of Jeffco Airport and started to get smacked pretty bad with winds mainly from the south and continued wind shear between 75 and 8000 feet. The way the prevailing winds and wind shear were hitting my plane, I began to think about this thread. There is no way any computer model could reproduce a turbulent cold front passing through an area followed by clear air turbulence and wind shear. It would be like predicting the way a goose down feather will float to the ground level from a height of 50 feet.

After 40 minutes of this I decided to head back, it took another 20 minutes to land because of departing traffic. Even on final I had wind shear that changed my airspeed +/- 10 knots, it was unpredictable in severity and location, but dissipated when I was 300' agl....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

Wind shear is some nasty stuff and I agree there is no way a sim could recreate this, especially the flight sims that these guys play on the computer.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 6, 2005)

Wind shear is easily modeled. Nothing sophisticated about it. 

Although, you do bring up an interesting point. In WW2, I wonder how many aircraft coming in for a landing in bad weather encountered wind shear, causing it to crash. The ground crews would have chalked up the crash to probable failure of the airframe due to damage or pilot injury.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Wind shear is easily modeled. Nothing sophisticated about it.
> 
> Although, you do bring up an interesting point. In WW2, I wonder how many aircraft coming in for a landing in bad weather encountered wind shear, causing it to crash. The ground crews would have chalked up the crash to probable failure of the airframe due to damage or pilot injury.



While you are right about wind shear killing pilots, how do you model something that cannot be predicted in location, intensity and duration???


----------



## evangilder (Nov 7, 2005)

Sounds like it was beating you up pretty bad up there, Joe!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Sounds like it was beating you up pretty bad up there, Joe!



Yep! The up and down drafts weren't too bad (about 100-200 fpm) it was the continual side-to-side pounding that sucked, a few times I had full yoke to the left to stay level, another time just about got turned 90 degrees.

On final I lost 10 knots, fell about 200 feet (I came in high to compensate for that) and had a hard time getting stabilized. Over the numbers everything settled down and landed uneventful, although one windsock showed about 25 knots, the other one at the far end of the field was limp!

Again, this scenario is dynamic and unless you fly in it you cannot understand that no sim could model all these elements. When you apply these conditions in a sim, they aren't close to the real thing.....


----------



## evangilder (Nov 7, 2005)

Geez, and I thought having a marine layer sucked.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 7, 2005)

The dynamics of wind shear and turbulence is understood well enough to be modeled. Its nothing but some equations. Whats still being learned is the conditions that create it.

But that means the flight simulator can be programmed to randomly select what parameters of turbulence and wind shear to simulate. All it needs to know is how much intensity and what duration you want to simulate. If you want it to be random, then no problem. Just another option to select on bootup.

Remember, the absence of a wind shear simulation on your PC is not proof that it cannot be simulated.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

Again how are you experiences Wind Shear. You are not.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 7, 2005)

Its just air flow over the airframe and through the engines.

Pushs the frame around a bit and changes the lift on the wings.

It could also change the amount of air going into the engines, thus changing thrust.

Again, nothing complicated about modeling. Just parameter selections.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

Again how are you experiencing it. You are completly scooting around the facts.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 7, 2005)

You can have a stick shaker to simulate turbulence.

A three axis sim can give you the accelerations in those axis's as detemrined by the computer.

And of course, the simulator has the lines of code to determine what these wind forces do to lift and stability so you know what the aircraft will do under any scenario.

You can even simulate the airplane flying through a tornado if you desire.
Nothing sophisticated to program. Just a series of equations.

Its just like how the nuke weapons scientists figure out what happens when a weapon is exploded. Just breakdown the events into trillionth of a second "slices" and watch the simulator model the detonation.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

Do you think that is all you feel is the stick shaking. What about the feeling in you gut when you lose alltitude? The yaw and the pitch?


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 7, 2005)

Thats why the best flight sim is hooked up to a 3 axis "cockpit" mockup.

You can also include movement in the vert and horizontal if required. 

Nothing complicated about it. Just simple mechanics.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

And it is still not the same.

Sorry syscom you are not flying a plane.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 7, 2005)

Youre not physically in the plane, but it can be simulated so dang close, it is like the real thing.

Thats why theyre used.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

Not PC computer flight sims, nope sorry.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 7, 2005)

If you have enough money, you can simulate anything.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 7, 2005)

Or you could buy a plane or two. I know what I'd do.


----------



## wmaxt (Nov 7, 2005)

Sys,

The very high end simulators (35million to 65million plus) are good and they simulate movement, shear, turbulance ect these items well enough to

A. Train pilots (fedex requires two weeks a year just for refreshing emergency procedures)
B. Scare the hell out of the pilot.
C. To recreate the cockpit experiance to a high degree

However according to a pilot I know (with Fedex), who should be finishing this years sim stint now, they still don't quite get it like it really is. The physical experiance flying adds so much and can't be recreated on any simulator completly, and certainly not on a PC.

I have a few hours flying time and the feel of the aircraft responding and letting you know just what is happening is a total experiance. It can't be recreated in a fixed chair or a feedback stick or anywhere your periferal vision might spot an inconsistency your brain and senses are so much better than that.

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 7, 2005)

As computing power increases, so does the simulation.

As with anything, 99% accuracy is good enough for nearly all people. The last 1% can be done, but at a high cost. So we just wait untill things get cheap enough so it can be done without going bankrupt.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

But you will never recreate it on your PC. Why dont you understand that.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> All it needs to know is how much intensity and what duration you want to simulate.


That the whole point, in the real world it can't be predicted - if you spent more time in an aircraft you would know that....

Syscom,

This whole time you left out the most important thing about flying into windshear, 

Any Gusses?!?


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 7, 2005)

What did I miss?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2005)

Because you can't predict the intensity and duration - you cannot predict the amount of airspeed that is going to be lost, this is extremely critical on final especially if you're about 100' AGL. +/- 10 knots might not mean much to a B737, but it may mean certain death to a Cessna 150 - at the same time you could have continued wind shear that would give you downdrafts of 200 FPM that suddenly go to 1000 FPM then dissipate.

When windshear is reported to ATC the first thing they ask for is airspeed gain/ loss....


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 7, 2005)

You can set up parameters for anything you want. Direcection of wind, the velocity, whether its an up or down draft, length of time, any turbulent flow thats in it, etc, etc.

Nothing that cant be modeled.

All you need to simulate it is have the proper software installed, and pick the variables.

Then that can be factored into the flight model of what plane youre flying.


----------



## Glider (Nov 7, 2005)

Syscom
If you cannot predict the intensity, the variables or the effect how can you design the software or pick the variables.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

You really dont get it do you Syscom?

Whatabout Updrafts and Downdrafts? Cant really model that to the real extent either.


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 7, 2005)

They are still good for having fun. Also in the real world of Airline Pilots large scale big buck simulators are used to simulate conditions pilots may hope never to encounter in real life but still need to encounter. They give the pilot the ability to test out different approaches to dealing with severe thunderstorms training on what to do when there are absolutely no engines etc. Useful knowledge which can then be applied in real life when there are 100s of passengers on the airliner in question. It is often said that a combination of theory and practice are the only ways to prepare for real life emergencies. Admittedly though, the PC based simulations are designed more for fun rather than realism, although some like that game Lock-On as well as Apache Longbow Anthology can get quite complex and realistic in the higher levels of difficulty.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

No one is argueing that they are not fun HealzDevo and we all know that the full motion sims are about as accurate as you are going to get. But the PC sims that syscom is talking about are just that: games and nothing more.

Apache Longbow Anthology is no where close to realistic. Trust me I know from experience.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> You can set up parameters for anything you want. Direcection of wind, the velocity, whether its an up or down draft, length of time, any turbulent flow thats in it, etc, etc.
> 
> Nothing that cant be modeled.
> 
> ...



I think you need to fly a few more times to understand what you are saying will never be accomplished synthetically - especially if you really fly through windshear




HealzDevo said:


> They are still good for having fun. Also in the real world of Airline Pilots large scale big buck simulators are used to simulate conditions pilots may hope never to encounter in real life but still need to encounter. They give the pilot the ability to test out different approaches to dealing with severe thunderstorms training on what to do when there are absolutely no engines etc. Useful knowledge which can then be applied in real life when there are 100s of passengers on the airliner in question. It is often said that a combination of theory and practice are the only ways to prepare for real life emergencies. Admittedly though, the PC based simulations are designed more for fun rather than realism, although some like that game Lock-On as well as Apache Longbow Anthology can get quite complex and realistic in the higher levels of difficulty.



Well put HealzDevo


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 7, 2005)

I know they are not accurate. With the corporate simulations like the ones from Boeing etc. while they may not totally recreate the dangerous situation at least they provide a basis for understanding dangerous situations and solutions to those problems. PC Flight-sims while not entirely accurate some of the better ones like FS2002/2004 might be able to be used for familarization of new pilots with the air routes they have to fly in terms of landmarks and visual navigation. Some of the add-on packs you can get make this use very probable in terms of giving rough visual navigation training for a particular air route. Of course this is no substitute for having someone who has flown that air route before and is experienced in the conditions expected along that air route go along with the pilot on their first flight. All I was saying was that at the higher levels some games come closer to simulating the experience of flying the helicopter or plane. I know that it would probably be very different actually flying the plane or helicopter itself, but that realism sometimes would scare people away from buying the simulation. Therefore a lot of PC Simulations are aiming for a balance between realism and fun. You can have a totally realistic flight simulator but then the question is how many people would actually find it fun. By the way anyone know of any ways of getting Longbow Anthology working under XP? I have been having problems where it gets to loading a mission and then it just quits. I have tried adjusting the settings, running it in compability mod, running it in the dos prompt, but I just haven't been able to get past the mission load screen. Any bright ideas? I really love that game, but haven't been able to play it in a while as my Windows 98 Laptop has a dead screen


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

PC simulations have come closer but they will never be close to the real thing and never get close to the realism.

As for Apache Longbow. Dont waste your time.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2005)

PC Flight sims are excellent for doing instrument work. My instrument rating was made a lot easier because of using a PC sim. The only down side I found was because of the sensitivity of the PC sim, the first few minutes "under the hood" in a real aircraft, I tended to be real "jerky" on the controls. After a few minutes I got used to flying "the real thing" and everything worked out perfectly. There you have a scenario where the PC is *more sensitive *than the real thing....


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 7, 2005)

Glider said:


> Syscom
> If you cannot predict the intensity, the variables or the effect how can you design the software or pick the variables.



All the variables can be modeled and fitted into an equation. This is not a part of science noone knows about and has never studied.

All turbulence and shear are winds. They can be quantified. You can make them random, or simulate it for different intensities.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 7, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You really dont get it do you Syscom?
> 
> Whatabout Updrafts and Downdrafts? Cant really model that to the real extent either.



Up and down drafts are easily modeled as they effect lift. Nothing complicated about it.


----------



## trackend (Nov 7, 2005)

Currently in the UK there are 2 ex training flight simulators that are open to the public for hire one is a Boeing 737-200 and the other is a F4 Phantom.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > You really dont get it do you Syscom?
> ...



Yeah and you little computer chair moves up and down to simulate that too right?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2005)

[quote="DerAdlerIstGelandet]
Yeah and you little computer chair moves up and down to simulate that too right? [/quote]

And swivel side to side


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

Well it would have to with the wind moving it like that.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 7, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> [quote="DerAdlerIstGelandet]
> Yeah and you little computer chair moves up and down to simulate that too right?



And swivel side to side [/quote]


Only when im playing with my joystick!

ummmm.................. I cant believe I said that


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 8, 2005)

As long as it's not heated and viabrates!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 8, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > [quote="DerAdlerIstGelandet]
> ...




Only when im playing with my joystick!

ummmm.................. I cant believe I said that

[/quote]

LOL


----------



## wmaxt (Nov 8, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > [quote="DerAdlerIstGelandet]
> ...




Only when im playing with my joystick!

ummmm.................. I cant believe I said that

[/quote]

I just want to be there when a wind shear drops you 200ft or a vortice flips you upside down and slams you into the runway.  

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 8, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > FLYBOYJ said:
> ...



I just want to be there when a wind shear drops you 200ft or a vortice flips you upside down and slams you into the runway.  

wmaxt[/quote]

The sim model will provide a tornado crashing into his house for that!


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 8, 2005)

Its all an equation that needs to be coded into the program.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 8, 2005)

I like ur new pic in the Member mugshot gallery syscom.... Pretty interesting.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 8, 2005)

Not as good as Hussars's though


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 8, 2005)

I agree...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 8, 2005)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 9, 2005)

OH man that was funny!


----------

