Hi all, I'm not a RL pilot, but I suppose that piloting in real life is hard because most of the time nothing special happens. Then the concentration is hard to maintain to a high level and in case of emergency follow the procedures (aircraft/flying aeras), adapt to the environment (buildings, trees, hills, mountains, weather...), know how to use the aircraft now limited, perfectly understand forces applied to aircraft, the whole thing without any drop of sweat on the forehead, needs a lot of experience.
As far as I know, FG *is taking* the good direction because it is free to adapt to each situation quite easily. Indeed I'm trying to introduce some failures in a specific aircraft: - give the instruments the possibility to give wrong information (especially IAS) - fuel loss - unefficient brakes - burning engine - electrical system failure and as many problems as a non-pilot can imagine, and an non-developper can code using tools provided by FG (property tree, aliases, nasal, I/O capacities). Actually better than including the failures in the aircraft, I put them in a perl script, acting seperatly from FG, and sending to the last (randomly or not) signals to create the failure (using telnet, a local nasal script decodes messages sent by the perl script and applies the changes). The goal is to allow a "instructor" to put a "student" into some difficult situations, but the "student" doesn't know when it fails and what is failing. Writing this mail, I improve (I think I improve :p) the idea making it act as a server, then clients using it allow to modify their property tree remotely... The biggest lack of FG is, I think, the force-feedback. my two cents best regards seb John Denker a ecrit : > Hi Folks -- > > =========== > > I mention this on the FlightGear list because simulators > (in general) play an important role in pilot training > (in general). > > Heretofore FlightGear has not played much of a role in > real pilot training, but it has the potential to do so. > > I reckon virtually everyone on this list would like it > to go in that direction. The question is, who is willing > to do the work necessary to take it in that direction? > > This requires a certain amount of forward thinking. As > the saying goes, you do not build a bridge based on the > number of people who drove across the river _before_ the > bridge was built. By that criterion, no bridges would > ever get built. > > By the same token you shouldn't judge the value of FGFS > features based on the current user community. Right now > the user community consists of folks who care about > nice-looking liveries and nice-looking foliage, because > that's what FlightGear provides. Folks who care about > cockpit instruments that actually work properly have to > go elsewhere. > > The community I'm talking about is not small. The last > time I checked, there were 700,000 rated pilots in the US > alone. Practically all of them have PCs. There is a need > for simulator-based training that is not being met by the > multimillion dollar simulators at FlightSafey Inc. and > suchlike. It is not yet being met by FlightGear ... but > that could change. > > So, how about it? Who is serious about going down that > road? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This SF.net email is sponsored by: > SourcForge Community > SourceForge wants to tell your story. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
