Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
FLYBOYJ said:the first time I put em in a stall they Sh*t....
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.
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
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.
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:LOL that is just too funny. I have a bad mental image though now.
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:Now thats bad, when you get an image of yourself!
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.
And you'll never get a full perspective of what the aircraft can and can't dosyscom3 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.
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:You can take any simulation to the nth degree for accuracy. But for most PC sims, being 95% accurate is acceptable for most people.
Now there I agree and that's what I make my above statements on...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.
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.
That's a good thing!syscom3 said:By the way, I dont pretend I could fly a WW2 airplane, except straight and level and maybe gentle turns.
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.
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.