Recently I was at a local airport talking to some pilots. One of
them (obviously a real pilot) said that doing a simulator with a
force feedback joystick and then flying a plane made for a smooth
transition.
I’m not a pilot so I didn’t argue with that, but I was thinking
"huh?"
Isn’t the general consensus here that force feedback is unrealistic?
Maybe I’ve read the wrong threads or those comments were from non-
pilots?
Partly curious, thanks.
–
I also posted this to a different group. I realize the force
feedback part is not necessarily for piloting, but the piloting part
is.
John Doe <j…@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in news:jR0Oi.2629$y21.1720
@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Recently I was at a local airport talking to some pilots. One of
> them (obviously a real pilot) said that doing a simulator with a
> force feedback joystick and then flying a plane made for a smooth
> transition.
> I’m not a pilot so I didn’t argue with that, but I was thinking
> "huh?"
> Isn’t the general consensus here that force feedback is unrealistic?
> Maybe I’ve read the wrong threads or those comments were from non-
> pilots?
> Partly curious, thanks.
Even the best sims are a very very poosr substitute for a real airplane,
and learning to fly using a sim is not a good idea.
Bertie
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Bertie the Bunyip writes:
> Even the best sims are a very very poosr substitute for a real airplane,
> and learning to fly using a sim is not a good idea.
This is no longer true.
Mxsmanic <mxsma…@gmail.com> wrote in
news:2ihhg352tv685bhgp5pq5ll0eo80n6vj8s@4ax.com:
> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>> Even the best sims are a very very poosr substitute for a real
>> airplane, and learning to fly using a sim is not a good idea.
> This is no longer true.
Yes, it is fjukkwit.
I use state of the art sims the doorknobs of shich cost more than the
bankruptcy that broke you and they don’t even come close to the real thing.
Bertie
"Mxsmanic" <mxsma…@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2ihhg352tv685bhgp5pq5ll0eo80n6vj8s@4ax.com…
> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>> Even the best sims are a very very poosr substitute for a real airplane,
>> and learning to fly using a sim is not a good idea.
> This is no longer true.
.
We must distinguish between MSFS and commercial simulators
"The Old Bloke" <le0pard…@XgmailX.com> wrote in
news:kO3Oi.6639$H22.728@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
> "Mxsmanic" <mxsma…@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2ihhg352tv685bhgp5pq5ll0eo80n6vj8s@4ax.com…
>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>> Even the best sims are a very very poosr substitute for a real
>>> airplane, and learning to fly using a sim is not a good idea.
>> This is no longer true.
> .
> We must distinguish between MSFS and commercial simulators
You can distinguish all you like. Even commercial ones aren’t flying and
don’t even come close to duplicating flight. They’re good for practicing
procedures, emergencies etc, but none of them fly like an airplane.
Bertie
To all: Be advised that Anthony Atkielski is not a pilot, and only plays
MSFS on a computer. He has no basis for comparison between this game and
real flight.
> To all: Be advised that Anthony Atkielski is not a pilot, and only plays
> MSFS on a computer. He has no basis for comparison between this game and
> real flight.
If this is meant as a generic warning, it fails. A newbie here would
have no way of knowing who Anthony *is*, in this thread, without
further identification.
—
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
http://www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
> Isn’t the general consensus here that force feedback is unrealistic?
> Maybe I’ve read the wrong threads or those comments were from non-
> pilots?
I’ve taken the flight sim thing as far as money will allow (see our
Kiwi at:
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm ), and can tell you
that force-feedback sticks are cool, but not terribly helpful in a
flight sim — mostly because (to my knowledge) no one makes a force-
feedback yoke/rudder pedal combination.
I have used Force-feedback sticks in combat sims, and they are very
cool — but I don’t fly fighters, and our Kiwi is set up to replicate
GA flying. (It’s a prototype of sims we want to put in at the Iowa
Childrens Museum, as part of a major aviation exhibit…)
If someone were to come out with a Force-feedback yoke, I’d probably
buy it, though. The concept is a good one, but apparently it’s MUCH
harder to incorporate in a yoke.
As for whether flying a sim is "real" — our Kiwi is flown by real
pilots every day at our aviation theme-suite hotel. Pilots from all
over the world have checked it out, and — although it has obvious
limitations — it’s as real as you can get without leaving the
ground.
The main limitations are (in order of importance):
- No peripheral vision. Even with a 104" projection screen, it’s
still like flying a real plane whilst looking through 4" PVC pipes.
- No feedback. In a real plane, if you pull back on the yoke too hard
you know at once to release the back pressure because the G-forces
tell you. In the sim, newbie non-pilots routinely overstress the
planes, simply because they don’t know how hard to pull. (Real
pilots, of course, have a built-in sense of what not to do. They,
therefore, don’t ever run up against this limitation.)
- No motion. This is less important than you might believe, as your
brain substitutes for the lack of motion. That big screen has made
several people motion sick, without them ever moving an inch.
In the future I want to add a side window screen that will go a long
ways toward addressing the lack of peripheral vision. The other two
limitations are things that can’t be addressed for less than a million
bucks…
—
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
http://www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
Good point- Anthony Atkielski, aka mxsmanic, is not a pilot and never has
been one. His only frame of reference is through playing MSFS.
On Oct 7, 7:03 am, Bertie the Bunyip <S…@rt.1> wrote:
> "The Old Bloke" <le0pard…@XgmailX.com> wrote innews:kO3Oi.6639$H22.728@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
> > "Mxsmanic" <mxsma…@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:2ihhg352tv685bhgp5pq5ll0eo80n6vj8s@4ax.com…
> >> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
> You can distinguish all you like. Even commercial ones aren’t flying and
> don’t even come close to duplicating flight. They’re good for practicing
> procedures, emergencies etc, but none of them fly like an airplane.
> Bertie
State of the art, full motion sims do a credible job of replicating
flying. There are some things they can’t do very well like high g
maneuvering flight, but things like landing, takeoff, instrument
procedures, even air refueling. are done very realistically. The FAA
awards type certificates in certain airframes without any "real"
airframe time based on the quality of the simulation. I used to do
threat validation for Air Force aircrew training devices and I’ve seen
many different sims–some of them would give you the leans and motion
sickness just like an aircraft. I am a pilot and flew fighters.
150flivver <timothyw…@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1191770225.424168.12530@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Oct 7, 7:03 am, Bertie the Bunyip <S…@rt.1> wrote:
>> "The Old Bloke" <le0pard…@XgmailX.com> wrote
>> innews:kO3Oi.6639$H22.728@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
>> > "Mxsmanic" <mxsma…@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:2ihhg352tv685bhgp5pq5ll0eo80n6vj8s@4ax.com…
>> >> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>> You can distinguish all you like. Even commercial ones aren’t flying
>> and don’t even come close to duplicating flight. They’re good for
>> practicing procedures, emergencies etc, but none of them fly like an
>> airplane.
>> Bertie
> State of the art, full motion sims do a credible job of replicating
> flying. There are some things they can’t do very well like high g
> maneuvering flight, but things like landing, takeoff, instrument
> procedures, even air refueling. are done very realistically. The FAA
> awards type certificates in certain airframes without any "real"
> airframe time based on the quality of the simulation. I used to do
> threat validation for Air Force aircrew training devices and I’ve seen
> many different sims–some of them would give you the leans and motion
> sickness just like an aircraft. I am a pilot and flew fighters.
KI know all that and I’ e flown those sims. I disagree, I don’t think they
do a credible job. They do enough to get by, but that’s about it,.
Bertie
"150flivver" wrote:
> I’ve seen
> many different sims–some of them would give you the leans and motion
> sickness just like an aircraft.
I’ve gotten motion sickness at an IMAX. ;)
The full motion USCG sim I tried out was extremely cool, but it did not feel
like flying.
OTOH, I don’t have any real HU-25 time, so my testimony is somewhat suspect.
–
Dan
T-182T at BFM
Bertie the Bunyip writes:
> I use state of the art sims the doorknobs of shich cost more than the
> bankruptcy that broke you and they don’t even come close to the real thing.
You’re entitled to your opinion, but not everyone shares it.
The Old Bloke writes:
> We must distinguish between MSFS and commercial simulators
Yes, but he said "even the best sims" without further qualification, and the
best sims are not PC-based (unless one is only considering PC sims, of
course).
Bertie the Bunyip writes:
> Even commercial ones aren’t flying and
> don’t even come close to duplicating flight. They’re good for practicing
> procedures, emergencies etc, but none of them fly like an airplane.
List a few of the differences. Be specific.
Bertie the Bunyip writes:
> KI know all that and I’ e flown those sims. I disagree, I don’t think they
> do a credible job. They do enough to get by, but that’s about it,.
What part of the simulation leads you to this opinion?
My only data point on this is that when I was doing my instrument
training, I flew safety pilot with my CFII’s son. He’d done a huge
amount of simulator flying to learn the basics of insturment work, and
I can tell you he was the smoothest insturment flier I’ve ever seen.
His corrections were almost unnoticable; the plane just stayed where
it was meant to be. I comment on this to his dad later, and we both
wondered if his sim training had giving him this skill…
Perhaps those who have experienced both actual and sim would be in a
better position to understand the differences. Experience counts more
than words.
On Oct 7, 12:40 pm, Mxsmanic <mxsma…@gmail.com> wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
> > Even commercial ones aren’t flying and
> > don’t even come close to duplicating flight. They’re good for practicing
> > procedures, emergencies etc, but none of them fly like an airplane.
> List a few of the differences. Be specific.
Jay Honeck writes:
> – No motion. This is less important than you might believe, as your
> brain substitutes for the lack of motion. That big screen has made
> several people motion sick, without them ever moving an inch.
I’ve had trouble with motion sickness in slew mode on the sim. Then again,
I’ve had the same trouble with some video games, such as Doom. Apparently it
is quite common. If the movements on the screen exceed those of real life,
motion sickness is quite a risk. It obviously could still make someone sick
if the sim is showing motion that would make someone sick in real life.
> In the future I want to add a side window screen that will go a long
> ways toward addressing the lack of peripheral vision. The other two
> limitations are things that can’t be addressed for less than a million
> bucks…
A million dollars is quite an exaggeration, but it would be very expensive,
perhaps more than it’s worth for this type of use.
Also, a motion base is important if you fly by feel in a small aircraft or a
high-performance aerobatic or military aircraft, but if you’re flying large
airliners, you don’t need it much for normal flight. Strong sensations on an
airliner are often an indication of a bad pilot.
Mxsmanic <mxsma…@gmail.com> wrote in
news:l03ig35adsb65k9vkfdtnkk342jqqe7s5u@4ax.com:
> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>> KI know all that and I’ e flown those sims. I disagree, I don’t think
>> they do a credible job. They do enough to get by, but that’s about
>> it,.
> What part of the simulation leads you to this opinion?
All of it, fukkwit.
Not that you will ever know.
Bertie
Mxsmanic <mxsma…@gmail.com> wrote in
news:0s2ig3dtbq564pe33lg2nsocbm7sdj8u7i@4ax.com:
> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>> I use state of the art sims the doorknobs of shich cost more than the
>> bankruptcy that broke you and they don’t even come close to the real
>> thing.
> You’re entitled to your opinion, but not everyone shares it.
You don’t get an opinion, fjukktard.
You don’t fly.
Bertie
Mxsmanic <mxsma…@gmail.com> wrote in
news:ps2ig31us01d15lm10n404bklokjg255tk@4ax.com:
> The Old Bloke writes:
>> We must distinguish between MSFS and commercial simulators
> Yes, but he said "even the best sims" without further qualification,
> and the best sims are not PC-based (unless one is only considering PC
> sims, of course).
PC sims are toys.
You’re as qualified from flying those as would be some kid running around
with a dinky toy making airplane noises.
Fjukkwit
Bertie
Mxsmanic <mxsma…@gmail.com> wrote in
news:7u2ig39uadu6u8pp33ksru10agnlvvbmko@4ax.com:
> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>> Even commercial ones aren’t flying and
>> don’t even come close to duplicating flight. They’re good for
>> practicing procedures, emergencies etc, but none of them fly like an
>> airplane.
> List a few of the differences. Be specific.
One is a box of tricks and the other is an airplane.
Bertie
Tina <tbaker27…@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1191775399.005321.306830@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
> Perhaps those who have experienced both actual and sim would be in a
> better position to understand the differences. Experience counts more
> than words.
Zachery.
Bertie