Alright fellas,
I thought I’d do my FA duty and initiate the thread!
I admit, I partake in the internet porn equivilent to the real thing!
Obviously not going to get real world simulation sitting with the laptop and joystick. To me as a flyer of metal, petroleum, rubber, and humans (albeit 3 at a time), I find FS good for the fact that I don’t get to fly as often as I would like. I use FS to practice procedures. I’ll program it to be a peice of Q#$#@# and have it throw an engine out or something at me just to practice runnning through the checklist and make sure I’m doing it the way I need to if god forbid anything were to happen in the real thing. I also find it good to practice instrument approaches and other instrument procedures. I’ve even heard of some guys using it to go over a route that they intend on flying soon (although I don’t know that if the scenery would make it much of an advantage)
I know the pro’s that frequent this board obviously get enough experience with their professional careers that FS wouldn’t be of benefit to their instrument or emergency skills, and again it’s procedures that it’s good for.
I don’t even have the rudder pedals so I have to fly auto coordinated so obviously it’s not a complete simulation, just a procedural one, and in that I think it’s very beneficial.
Other than that though it’s a video game! it’s wicked fun to fly the F-15 and do an airshow for your hometown airport.
I’ve actually found FlightGear to be more ‘fun’ than FS even though it is nowhere near as pretty and has a different feature set - and it’s free to boot.
I think its greatest benefit to real world pilots lies in the instrument navigation aspect of the program. Any private pilot upgrading to the instrument rating will save big bucks in their training by learning and practicing intstrument flying with it. I know, you CANNOT log hours from time using MSFS, but you can still use it to learn the concepts and gain proficiency in the various aspects of instrument flying.
Case in point: getting my private certificate and going through simulated instrument training. When my instructor put me under the hood, he remarked that I was “a f***ing natural” - that most students get all retarded when they go through that phase of training. When doing unusual attitudes, he’d have me turn my head to one side and look down while he maneuvered the plane through various gyrations. I was unflappable at righting the plane. He kept asking me, “are you SURE you’re not looking out the window?” No, I wasn’t. And I know that that skill came from the countless hours I’d spent practicing instrument navigation on Flight Simulator.
So I took my son to the USAF Museum in DAY last Monday. We also visited the Wright Bros. Memorial which is right between the Museum side and the Patterson AFB side located atop a large hill.
They have a simulator, graphicswise a little less than the newer MSFS, but it is a sit down sim of the 1910 Wright flyer. The lever on the left controls pitch, the lever on the right controls wing roll/bank. The throttle is automatically set to full power. It only allows for a takeoff and 3 minute flight, but was pretty interesting in the way the controls felt. Controlling altitude on the left and and heading on the right was weird.
Nano, I’m terribly sorry I didn’t check to see if this was something that would bore you before I posted it, next time I’ll make sure I come up with something that you find interesting, until then though,
do us all a favor and quit being a pud.
you’re exactly what the word needs now, another jerk off!
I was being serious. Since no-one there has ever flown it, I wanted to know if they actually tried to make it realistic, performance wise and handling wise to what one would expect from an unrefined, basic airplane or just used the performance of something like a Cessna 120 and passed it off as realistic. Also was it outside view or cockpit?
NANO If that is the case I sincerely apologize for being a di!k.
I interpreted it as being sarcasm, I read that wrong and I am sorry.
I mean we’re talking simulators here, and as much as I “play” on the PC sim, it can be taken to a level of serious geekdom, and then when you throw in a just above amish aircraft at very slow speeds it seems like it would make for a very boring video game so I guess I thought that was where you were going with that.
JHEM and Deef, there’s a free one for you I’ll take the ballbusters for that one,
I am dissapointed though,
I never knew Deef was bald, and JHEM used stock emoticons?
I thought that sorta blow up would’ve prompted some new ones in the caliber of the popcorn guy!!
NANO again I apologize for interpreting your post incorrectly.
About the Wright sim,
it was a seat on a metal sort of frame. The levers were metal and on either side, I beleive the 1910 flyer was a sitdown (as opposed to lying down) cockpit and the controls were on each side of the seat The screen in front was huge maybe 8 or 10 feet wide. It did seem to simulate the original speeds. When you start out, it has you take off from the field right by what became Patterson AFB. There is an interurban line that went by the field and into downtown Dayton, and when you take off there is an interurban on the line. The ranger said that people try to race the interurban but it would always be faster (70mph).
The speed is displayed at the top of the screen, and the highest I saw was like 45mph, I inadvertantly started a climb and it bled off quick, seemed to start a stall around 25 or 30. The weird thing was roll. The right lever was roll so to roll right you pulled back on the lever, and left was forward. It was real easy to get into an accidental climb, decent, or bank. Pitchwise it was very unstable which according to some of the history there is correct. The said they extended the elevator assembly to 7 ft long from 3ft long because at 3 feet the aircraft porpoised and would not hold altitude. Obviously without control of the power it wasn’t completely realistic, but I think they did a pretty good job of simulation. Another guy who was also a pilot tried it right before I did and he also stalled and nearly nosed it in but was able to regain level flight, due to the controls set up the way they were. Viewwise, you couldn’t see any part of the airplane, but it was a “cockpit view”. I guess you should’ve been able to see the elevators in front of you but beyond that it was a cockpit view.
Yeah it’s just a museum peice but if you visit the area, epsecially the USAF museum stop at the Wright Memorial. It’s just blocks from the AF museum and there is alot of good wright/aviation history there. There is also a real nice overlook of the Patterson side of the WPAFB, and right to the right of the approach, so if you’re lucky you’ll get a great view of stuff coming in . I saw several C-130’s and C-5s there that day.
well, to give some insight to the picture, I can say that feet DO taste different without socks! I can tell you from similar past experience that black and brown and blue dress socks can also taste different than white socks atheltic socks, in fact even the color stripes make a difference, but there’s no mistaking a good old plain unsocked foot in the mouth…I should know!
I was being serious. Since no-one there has ever flown it, I wanted to know if they actually tried to make it realistic, performance wise and handling wise to what one would expect from an unrefined, basic airplane or just used the performance of something like a Cessna 120 and passed it off as realistic. Also was it outside view or cockpit?
I’ll take the ballbusters for that one,