14 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

You must be confusing me for someone who doesn't believe in the training efficacy of simulators.

I'm quite the opposite, in fact.

What I'm taking you to task over is your original assertion that the difference in fatality rates can be attributed to the use of Level D simulators.

That is patently, historically untrue.

I don't think I meant to assert that. I stated that current flight PC sims are predominately  entertaining platforms disregarding whether they are  marketed as realistic trainers or not.  In my experience I had several students who were using sims before actual training ( FSX, X-plane, P3D, DCS). They neither had an advange in average flight hours  before certification, nor better flying skills comparing with student who didn't have any prior knowledge of sims. In fact, in one case, PC sim usage gave student (who obseusely was doing it on his own)  gave him some bad habits and incorrect knowledge. And so we had to work hard to get rid of them. One in particular bad habit was absolutely terrible "flat" approaches with wrong side picture with bad mechanization management . Oh boy LOL

Numbers  shows GA pilots who actively participating in safety activities such as seminars/webinars or enroll to current program such as WINGs do better with flying proficiency and safety. As PC sims mature and become much spread out there is no data to suggest that in any way they improve GA safety. At least last time I renew my CFI there was nothing about it; other than that any safety extra tools are better and  FAA gives AATD, BATD, FTD more approval.

10 hours ago, ha5mvo said:

That's atmospheric simulation, not to be confused with flight dynamics. 

So you're saying that atmospheric simulation is second to none? Strange as it seems to be the most frequent issue on the "to be fixed in 2024" list.

As somebody else already said, it's a part of the flight dynamics.

But if you disagree, then let's just say we agree to disagree.

In my case, only flying gliders IRL, simulators like Condorsoaring and Silent Wings were beneficial even starting using them many years after starting to fly for real, when desktop simulators weren't available at all...

The use someone who also "pilots for real" can get from even a desktop simulator is usually not on the "hands and feet"-on flying skills but rather on the procedures and techniques used to operate the aircraft IRL, navigation and air rules, soaring tactics in the case of gliders, etc... 

When it comes to airliners, a friend with extensive experience from piloting small business jets to L-1011, A310 and the modern buses, is also an avid P3d and now also Xp12 and MSFS 2020 user (although he still prefers P3d with FSLabs for training and proficiency).

In MSFS he particularly likes the realism of the scenery. In P3d the realism of the aircraft simulation, and in both as well as in Xp12 with Toliss he says he can practice rw procedures and use them to keep proficient although for failures his go-to is P3d+FSlabs (because IRL he's in the modern Airbus fleet).

Honestly, none of the simulators I've tried gliders, with some exception for Condor and SW [but still far from the real thing in aspects that are very important such as control load and the forces we apply to controls, and can differ significantly from aircraft to aircraft]  satisfy me "feel of flight" wise. I would never recommend using a desktop flight simulator to train real world hand & feet flying. It can nonetheless be useful to have an initial introduction to it.

I also believe that using modern hardware such as VR can make a difference. I have several friends who use it and say the sensation of "being there" changes dramatically and can in fact provide realistic experiences of "feel of flight"... but I never used VR 😕 and the closer I can get to it is through my EDTracker + Opentrack for a limited 3DOF experience...

This is why I seldom use GA aircraft or even less gliders in MSFS, and for helicopters I honestly only spend time playing DCS World.  I use MSFS and XP as well as P3D to fly airliners, mainly Airbus... Airbus in particular has the additional effect of looking a little bit easier to match to the real thing because of the FBW and the use of the sidestick... Well...

Regarding MSFS 2024, there are really nifty aspects of categories of flight being modeled, such as SAR, Agricultural, banners towing, etc...

I would really like to see at least the following addressed:

.) Proper / realistic visual range definition and representation for IMC operations;

.) better modelling of turbulence and shear effects, on ground and in the air;

.) much better helicopter flight dynamics modelling;

.) possibility to realistically model aircraft with special geometries or simply multiple wings / tail fins... 

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by jcomm

4 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

As PC sims mature and become much spread out there is no data to suggest that in any way they improve GA safety.

hhmmm, interesting.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has given its top-level approval to Embry‑Riddle's Flight Simulation and Training Devices.

Flight Simulation and Training Devices (FSTDs) include both Full Flight Simulators (FFSs) as well as Flight Training Devices (FTDs). Unlike Full-Flight Simulators, FTDs do not require a motion platform or a visual system.

https://daytonabeach.erau.edu/about/fleet-simulators/red-bird-cross-wind-trainer

Providing both lateral and yaw motions, the ERAU Redbird Xwind SE gives students a true feeling of the impact of crosswind and gusts so that they can practice the eye-hand coordination necessary to land safely in crosswind conditions.

In addition to providing realistic wind conditions, the Redbird Xwind SE will objectively “score” each landing a student makes. That scoring gives them honest, instant feedback of their progression through more challenging crosswind conditions.

Redbird Xwind SE features

• Variable crosswinds up to 30 knots
• Variable wind gusts up to 15 knots
• Low-altitude wind shear and turbulence
• Laser markers for yaw and drift
• Provides up to 30 landing simulations an hour

https://news.erau.edu/media-resources/facts-and-figures/aircraft-and-simulators

On the Prescott Campus, hands-on fixed-wing flight training is supplemented by 18 dedicated high-end PCs in the Airway Science Lab that run SIMLAT IMPACT simulation software. 

Total Embry‑Riddle Simulators at Both Campuses: 134

 

 

 

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by turbomax

12 hours ago, ca_metal said:

AFAIK the aircrafts are flying within the atmosphere. So, having it simulated is also important.

He has a point though, wind simulation in the atmosphere does not equal flight dynamics simulation, both are completely different things. Trying to twist his words in a not so successful nitpicking manner is an extremely childish behavior around here.

You can argue that good atmospheric simulation is an important aspect of flight simulation in general, surely no one will deny that.

But it is not flight dynamics, which is when wind actually hits the metal and flows around your fuselage, determining how it immediately affects aerodynamics and your inputs as a pilot; I fail to see why wind 20KM away has anything to do with that.

 

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by Inu

Double post.

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by Inu

11 hours ago, Abriael said:

No one is "confusing" them. 

Both are parts of literally the same thing. You're arguing semantics (likely knowingly) and it's hilarious to see. 

Both are part of a good flight simulator, but are completely different things.

The only one nitpicking semantics and twisting them in a ridiculing manner are you guys & honestly it's cringe, not hilarious, pure gaslighting.

A flight model by definition is when the wind hits the metal and affects your aerodynamics and pilot inputs & vice versa, what does wind 20KM away has anything to do with that?

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by Inu

1 hour ago, turbomax said:

 

Do those screens want to be any further away? 😄

Quote

1 hour ago, turbomax said:

hhmmm, interesting.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has given its top-level approval to Embry‑Riddle's Flight Simulation and Training Devices.

Flight Simulation and Training Devices (FSTDs) include both Full Flight Simulators (FFSs) as well as Flight Training Devices (FTDs). Unlike Full-Flight Simulators, FTDs do not require a motion platform or a visual system.

https://daytonabeach.erau.edu/about/fleet-simulators/red-bird-cross-wind-trainer

Providing both lateral and yaw motions, the ERAU Redbird Xwind SE gives students a true feeling of the impact of crosswind and gusts so that they can practice the eye-hand coordination necessary to land safely in crosswind conditions.

In addition to providing realistic wind conditions, the Redbird Xwind SE will objectively “score” each landing a student makes. That scoring gives them honest, instant feedback of their progression through more challenging crosswind conditions.

Redbird Xwind SE features

• Variable crosswinds up to 30 knots
• Variable wind gusts up to 15 knots
• Low-altitude wind shear and turbulence
• Laser markers for yaw and drift
• Provides up to 30 landing simulations an hour

https://news.erau.edu/media-resources/facts-and-figures/aircraft-and-simulators

On the Prescott Campus, hands-on fixed-wing flight training is supplemented by 18 dedicated high-end PCs in the Airway Science Lab that run SIMLAT IMPACT simulation software. 

Total Embry‑Riddle Simulators at Both Campuses: 134

 

 

 

As if anyone needed more proof that ERAU is for complete suckers...

21 minutes ago, psychedelic_tortilla said:

As if anyone needed more proof that ERAU is for complete suckers...

people who successfully graduate ERAU do very well compared to your average school.  Don't forget they have many degree programs even if Aeronautical Science is the big one.  It's continually voted one of the best University's in the country in terms of return on investment.  

  And the drama discussions are going on ... 😄

 

15 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

Whether or not one believes the current aircraft flight model configurations use this well or whether enough parameters are exposed, the base grid sampling of the MSFS flight model is of a much higher resolution and the atmospheric contribution in 3d is a consumer sim first (to my knowledge, anyway). It also has the benefit of generating different lift values across the surface from front to back, which can be critical value differences at the flight envelope edges.

...

-Matt | Working Title

Marketing gibberish ... And why does that yield subpar results? It doesn't help to throw what may be the right technique at something if it is used incorrectly. This leads to dubious results. Even if you are throwing the CERN on something but configure it wrong, then ... draw your own conclusions 😉.

 

1 hour ago, Inu said:

Both are part of a good flight simulator, but are completely different things.

The only one nitpicking semantics and twisting them in a ridiculing manner are you guys & honestly it's cringe, not hilarious, pure gaslighting.

A flight model by definition is when the wind hits the metal and affects your aerodynamics and pilot inputs & vice versa, what does wind 20KM away has anything to do with that?

THIS! Someone who claims otherwise has (sorry to say) no idea and just repeats beliefs or marketing gibberish. Or lies to himself, because something cannot be what must not be.

 

4 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

As somebody else already said, it's a part of the flight dynamics.

But if you disagree, then let's just say we agree to disagree.

It's like saying 1+1=4 but if you disagree, then let's agree to disagree.

Atmospheric simulation is not a flight model, just like water wave simulation, thermals in a cloud, haze or fog are not part of the flight model.

Have we come that far with this BS around here? denying simple facts? What's next, the sun shining is part of the flight model? because that affects it as well, after all, this usually means higher temperatures, thus affecting the aircraft performance. So with this logic, improving the sun simulation, equals an improved flight model. In fact, with this logic, anything in this world is "part of a flight model".

See how ridiculous this sounds? but "let's agree to disagree", after this kind of gaslighting, you don't deserve to make a U-Turn and act all polite.

And i'm sorry in advance if my comments seem a bit aggressive, but seriously, come on....who are you trying to fool around here guys? You think people around here are idiots? 

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by Inu

Looking forward to hearing how much of FS2020 will be 'fixed' in FS2024.

• Proper and accurate ATC
• Full CPU multi core usage
• Full flight save anytime, anywhere, any plane, any operation state, any plan.
• Proper route preloaded offline play without drastically butchered graphics

4 hours ago, turbomax said:

hhmmm, interesting.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has given its top-level approval to Embry‑Riddle's Flight Simulation and Training Devices.

Flight Simulation and Training Devices (FSTDs) include both Full Flight Simulators (FFSs) as well as Flight Training Devices (FTDs). Unlike Full-Flight Simulators, FTDs do not require a motion platform or a visual system.

https://daytonabeach.erau.edu/about/fleet-simulators/red-bird-cross-wind-trainer

Providing both lateral and yaw motions, the ERAU Redbird Xwind SE gives students a true feeling of the impact of crosswind and gusts so that they can practice the eye-hand coordination necessary to land safely in crosswind conditions.

In addition to providing realistic wind conditions, the Redbird Xwind SE will objectively “score” each landing a student makes. That scoring gives them honest, instant feedback of their progression through more challenging crosswind conditions.

Redbird Xwind SE features

• Variable crosswinds up to 30 knots
• Variable wind gusts up to 15 knots
• Low-altitude wind shear and turbulence
• Laser markers for yaw and drift
• Provides up to 30 landing simulations an hour

https://news.erau.edu/media-resources/facts-and-figures/aircraft-and-simulators

On the Prescott Campus, hands-on fixed-wing flight training is supplemented by 18 dedicated high-end PCs in the Airway Science Lab that run SIMLAT IMPACT simulation software. 

Total Embry‑Riddle Simulators at Both Campuses: 134

 

 

 

I wrote above that FAA gave more approval for AATD, BAATD, FTD. However, I can't recall seeing statistical data that sim doi impact of GA safety. I know it take some years to collect the data

I do hope like others that we get something to chew on before the 25th. When Jorg said September I didn't have just one event in mind and I hope he didn't either.