Real world simulators, anyone had a go?

[Guest]

Hi all :-)Has any simmer in these forums had a go in the 'real'thing, if so how did you get on going from our 'desktop' world into that enviroment?Steve EGMC UK

[Guest]

Steve, I had the unique opportunity to have a Falcon 20 Full size motion sim across the street from the Turbine engine repair shop where I worked in the early 90's. I went over about 2 times a month late at night for 4 years and got to play with it. At the time I was flying FS 4.0. I got to go back and fly it once last summer and do an IMC ILS at night and it was a blast! Trying to go from memory and compare it with FS2002 is tough but I'll give it a go.Controls are obviously better in the real sim but with a yoke and pedals and seperate throttle placed on a pedestal FS2K2 can be pretty darn close minus the active control feedback.Flight models in FS are a bit to "Hyperactive" compared to the real thing. No matter how much I play with sensitivities in FS the aircraft pitch and yaw seem to "Twitchy" and overly sensitive.(Except for a few Payware planes that seem to have it right)Visual sensations in the Real sim are miles ahead due to the 7 monitors mounted over top of the window panels with mirrors reflecting the images down into the windowless window panels. The fluidity of motion and sense of movement by visuals alone (even without the hydraulics on) cannot be duplicated with a home computer setup even with multiple monitors.Instrumentation and instrument response. In FS2002 the instrument response is too slow to update IMO. It has a slight lag compared to the real sim (and real plane) Obviously all the real guages are in the real sim but in FS2002 some 3rd party developers have done an awesome job of recreating panels with most of the flight related instrumentation. They are lacking in systems switchology (Hydraulics and electrical and fuel system controls) and aircraft systems monitoring ability. Finally Graphics. Fs2002 is WAY ahead of the real sim I flew as far as the outside world. The real sim I flew was only night time and basically only had stacks of lights on the ground to give you representations of buildings and rows of lights for roads and such. The airports were not as well detailed as FS2002 but the runway itself was much better.The best thing I can say about going from a desktop sim to a real world full size sim is you will be overwhelmed and have sensory overload at first. Then once you get the thing up and running (Startup and taxi out take a LOT longer) and figure out where most of the controls are and actually get it up in the air you will find flying easier. The landing is where you will once again be humbled. Trying to line up on centerline and judge the descent and flair in the real sim is a lot tougher than in FS2002. If you are a serious home simmer and try to use real world techniques at home then you should have no real trouble with the Big real world sim. Of course this is only my opinion based on the 100 hours or so that I have in the Falcon 20 sim and the 15 years of home computer sims. Hope this answers your question without going into too much detail. Happy Flying!http://members.shaw.ca/madamo/Avsim_sig_KP.jpg

[Guest P3_Super_Bee]

I have "flown" in a P-3 Sim. Though was some time ago. Was beforeI took up desktop flying. Had to make comparisions as I don't fly P-3's in MSFS. No panel even close to real thing out there and the P-3 Models aren't much better. Was a real fun experience. They were trying to get me to become a Flight Engineer at the time. So got to do enigne starts from the centerseat. Then hopped in the left seat to tour the Islands of Hawaii.:-bluegrabhttp://publish.hometown.aol.com/p3superb/images/675-2n.jpg

[Guest]

Hi Ken & Jeff,Great replys ;-) thanks, it must have been awesome fun, fs is funand educational when trying to apply 'real operation' technicsfor me its far better than a 'blood en guts' shoot-em-up and I havetried a few over the years and all have ended in the 'attic' nowI dont bother any more.I got a video recently, which prompted this post about the A320simulator (SAS flight academy) this complexity of the ' kit ' torun it was unreal, but as you say the 'graphics' were basic, butthen I guess the whole reason is to train crews to perfection on their a/c type so the 'outside ' world does not have to be very detailed, having said that there was a programme on tv recently which showed 'building' of a simulator, everything including a team working on 'visuals' and these were outstanding, just like FS2002, boy what I'd give to have one of those :-cool I think the electricity bill would bankrupt me in one month :-lol maybe one day I'll get me hands'dirty' on a real sim, in the mean time FS2002 will do, I justhave someone 'shake the hell' out of me in the sim chair to replicateturbulence :-lolHappy simming guys's, all the best ;-)Steve EGMC UK

[Guest]

I won a gift certificate in an auction last year to Pan Am in Miami,FL for an hour of level D sim time. The only sim availible was the 747-200 :-). It was interesting simply because of the feel. The ground bumps and rattles and the weight of the controls were totally differnt from the biggest plane iv'e fflown before that (Piper Seminole). Overall it was a cool experience and I got the sim instrucur to tag my logbook. Oh I split the hour with two of my friends I rode as flight engineer while they flew. We each got .3 and a couple ils approaches and takeoffs. Ths display was good showing all major landmarks and great detail at the airport..down to the docking system.

[wsieffert 0]

I had the privilege of working the past twenty years for the U.S. Navy's Simulation Acquisition Activity until my retirement in Jan '01. I saw great improvements in simulation reality because of advancements in computational capabilities.The U.S. Navy started using FS98 when it became available to improve crew coordination skills. Each flight student can receive an addon CD that provides additional Navy specific training aircraft, updated scenery for their bases, and additional functioning NAVAIDs. A new version is due out shortly or has been released.During my twenty years, I flew the T-34C, T-2C, TA-4J, TH-57C, T-44A, SH-3(Series), F-14A, F-14B, and F-14D flight simulators. I was also privileged to ride in several submarine simulators, and watch damage control personnel perform in a damage control simulator (believe me, I wouldn't have wanted to be in their shoes, trying to fix leaks pouring into the simulated submarine hull with the water rising quickly - it was exhausting just watching).Simulators, whether desktop or accurately modelled, have a place in the training cycle.

[JimD737 0]

Steve,Have a look. For going nowhere, WHAT A TRIP!!! :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/jpdonlin/atop.htmRegards

[Guest]

Hi SteveA few years ago I was lucky enough to have a go on a modern 757/767simulator used by a major British airline. It was setup for the 757 at the time and I asked to have a go at Kai Tak. Up to this moment I was a FS98 user and had only practised with the default 737-400 at Kai Tak and have a few hours on a real Cessna 152. Sure enough I managed to fly a near perfect approach and nice landing at one of the worlds most tricky airports. I then landed and took off at East Midlands (UK) EGNX and did a low flypast of Luton. It was a superb experience and one I will never forget.I have also previously flown an old Vickers Vanguard simulator. Since this simulator experience I have sat in on pilot training exercises in a 737 and A320 simulator, including emergencies such as main landing gear failures and engine fires! I hope to get my hands on the controls of the A320 simulator soon as this aircraft I would love to fly the most.Strangely I found the real simulator easier to fly that FS98 but FS2002 is a lot more realistic now and I think it is very realistic similar indeed. I hope that as many FS fans get the chance that I did as it is a wonderful experience.regardsRoss