Erich
the old Sage
back to the topic thread...........best fighter..............look at my siggy 8)
Flight Sims are they really as real as actually flying?
- Thread starter syscom3
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
JonJGoldberg
Airman 1st Class
...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?
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
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Good info - just go with the flow.....
Glider
Captain
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
Chief Master Sergeant
Sounds good to me JJB.
Nice info Jon. A new thread would be the best if the discussion is to continue.
Good idea. Maybe one should be started because of these sim pilots thinking they are really flying.
cheddar cheese
Major General
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.
Someone start the new thread and then we can get back on topic in here.
Okay it has been split.
Glider
Captain
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
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
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
JonJGoldberg said:
Ya know, I re-read your thread and I think you nailed it!
OK - Now I'm going flying for real!
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
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
cheddar cheese
Major General
Glider said:
I know - I was actually being sarcastic when I made that post
He is sarcastic all the time, so you never know if he is serious or not. It is like the boy that cried Wolf!
Glider
Captain
I'm a man, I can blub in the corner with the best of you.
Teach me to be so serious!!!
Teach me to be so serious!!!
My comment was that CC was not serious.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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....
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....
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.
