Flight Sims are they really as real as actually flying?

syscom3 said:

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

Click to expand...

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".

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!

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.

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....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

syscom3 said:

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

Click to expand...

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."

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?

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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.....

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

syscom3 said:

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

Click to expand...

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....

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