Funny you should mention that....I was in the 767-200ER SIM at CYVR.....the graphics were about FS200 level.

I remember thinking my FSX graphics are much better than this.  :smile:

 

FaxCap

 

Don't know what you mean by the graphics. If you mean eye candy, airline pilots in training couldn't care less about eye candy, dancing girls on the runway, auto traffic, boats, and all the other things that PC simmers seem to think they need in order to fly an aircraft. What these sims do have is flight dynamics exactly like the real aircraft, smooth frame rates, and without any hint of stutters and visual glitches and crashes to desk top.  :wink:

Funny you should mention that....I was in the 767-200ER SIM at CYVR.....the graphics were about FS200 level.

I remember thinking my FSX graphics are much better than this. 

 

It's true, but casual flight simmers rely on an abundance of visual cues in order to immerse themselves in the experience while the purpose of professional sims is entirely different, so require only basic visual cues.  I still think sitting on a full scale simulator with FS2000 graphics will be so much more immersive than a visually jam packed 40' monitor.  The experience is very subjective.

flight dynamics exactly like the real aircraft

Well... within limits, sure. But if you command the aircraft outside the sim's known parameters (and it's possible to do so) the entire sim crashes or locks up.

Well... within limits, sure. But if you command the aircraft outside the sim's known parameters (and it's possible to do so) the entire sim crashes or locks up.

 

Absolutely not true, and i have spent two full days touring   the CAE factory  and spoken at length with one of the managers there, as well as one of the sim test pilots. That data that is programmed into the computers in the CAE simulators is from Boeing directly, if it is a Boeing aircraft.  When they do the test flights of the aircraft at Boeing , say a 777, they record all the data from sensors all over the aircraft, as they put it through every conceivable maneuver possible. They then look at that data and compare it to data sets  from other 777s, and find what they consider to be an optimal data set to represent how that particular aircraft model  behaves in the air. That becomes the data set that is finally used in the sim. The goal is to make the sim behave "exactly" like the real aircraft in every way, from the aircraft data, to the motion platform, to the tactile feel of the switches in the cockpit, the response of the avionics, everything.... After they deliver the sim to the Airline, it has to go through check flights by the Airline folks and the FAA. If either one  detects something is not quite right, it fails the check ride and cannot be used for pilot training and CAE does not get paid. The reason for this is obvious, all the training that the pilot gets on an aircraft before he flies it with passengers in the rear, is done on the sim, therefore the sim  cannot differ from the real aircraft's behavior in any way.  

Don't know what you mean by the graphics. If you mean eye candy, airline pilots in training couldn't care less about eye candy, dancing girls on the runway, auto traffic, boats, and all the other things that PC simmers seem to think they need in order to fly an aircraft. What these sims do have is flight dynamics exactly like the real aircraft, smooth frame rates, and without any hint of stutters and visual glitches and crashes to desk top.  :wink:

My point was at 30+ mill a pop the visuals outside the cockpit were VERY basic.  It's all about realism and these guys do hand fly these aircraft often.

I just watched a video of a KLM 747-400F being hand flown and landed by the co-pilot. He was using visual points making his turns. If your points

stood then 787 sims would still have FS2000 visuals.  They don't....they are much more real now.

I think a lot of changes in the current sims are, in part, due to the realization that many of the newly trained pilots really do not know how to fly the a/c. They are basically button pushers and if a button doesn't work they really don't know how to use needle, ball, airspeed.

 

before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, I realize it's an oversimplification BUT it is an unfortunate reality and several accidents in recent years had sadly shown. Does anyone here think the Asiana Airlines crash in San Francisco COULDN'T have been avoided if the pilots were actually flying the aircraft?

 

Automation is great but it's still no substitute for good flying skills, and in that end I believe the visuals outside the cockpit are becoming more important in the pro simulators.

 

Vic

I think a lot of changes in the current sims are, in part, due to the realization that many of the newly trained pilots really do not know how to fly the a/c. They are basically button pushers and if a button doesn't work they really don't know how to use needle, ball, airspeed.

 

You really think that an airline pilot doesn't know needle , ball and an airspeed indicator.  Totally ridiculous. 

I totally agree with you and flew it all the time, but when Microsoft bailed out on it too, I decided that was the end of that and got it off my hard drive. The flight dynamics in flight were very realistic, and it looked good, but all the FS9 and FSX fans on the different forums wanted it to be just like what they were used to, and trashed it every chance they got. So what happened, MS said "the heck with this" and pulled the plug. That is why I hate to see these LM bashing threads, because they could do the same thing in a heartbeat. 

 

To be fair... I don't think it was Flight itself that people were bashing. I believe it was the business plan.

Back in 96 I had the opportunity to experience watching a check ride on the DC 10 simulator at the Canadian Airlines hangar in YVR. While the day visuals were indeed basic, the night time visuals were very immersive. But even more so was the 4d effect. The feeling of motion and its effects on the body. The push you feel on takeoff. If you walked in blind not knowing it was a simulator and then just looked at the cockpit not seeing the computer sim controls, most people would not know it.   One of the procedures was a failed left main gear and after go arounds with attempting to put it down manually which of course did not work on purpose, they were forced to land. That landing felt so real, but even more so was the effects when the speed bled off and the aircraft tipped left with the left engine banging the runway and causing a fire. The pt of the exercise was the emergency and evacuation procedure. Thats what all the money is spent on. Immersion like that for training. So much so that Ive seen pilots come out of there sweating profusely. I imagine to this day the commercial simulators are even far better than at that time.

 

If we had $20,000 computers and P3D V8 or xplane V15 I doubt we would ever get close to sweating and huge adrenaline rush despite the visuals and effects. Motion plays a huge part of being realisitic.

So the question becomes what is acceptable for a static PC based simulator.

I can make licensed pilots sweat in a non-moving Redbird AATD. Did it at AirVenture last month.

I can make licensed pilots sweat in a non-moving Redbird AATD. Did it at AirVenture last month.

You put a Hot water bottle under the Seat??

 

 steve :smile:

Back in 96 I had the opportunity to experience watching a check ride on the DC 10 simulator at the Canadian Airlines hangar in YVR.

 

I remember the first time I flew a full motion 767 sim, the instructor pilot told me to make sure that I had my seat harness securely fastened, because if we had an RTO on the takeoff run, it would throw me against the panel if I didn't.  By the way, pilots sweat all the time on their check rides in the sim, that they do every 6 months.  

Edited August 25, 201510 yr by n4gix
You don't need to quote the whole post!

As for simulators for real pilot training ,I'm pretty sure they have Nil Flight time ones where they can go straight from the simulator into the real aircraft without having to spend anytime in the real one.could be wrong ,but seem to remember reading that somewhere.

 

 steve

You put a Hot water bottle under the Seat??

 

 steve :smile:

Ha...

 

Mindstar Aviation worked with EAA and SAFE to develop training missions that create situations which tend to get GA pilots into hot water. It was interesting to watch the pilots reactions to the immersion and attention to detail that was used for each mission.

We always expect too much while waiting for each new release.

 

We expect too much because Dev's keep everything a secret.

 

Dev's Keep everything secret because they know we are going to complain no matter what.

 

Which came first.... The chicken or the egg!!