> Dave Martin wrote: > > On Sunday 12 Dec 2004 13:55, Paul Surgeon wrote: > > > >>I'm not sure I understand what you mean. > > > > > > I'm inferring that if you invite the uninitiated (I hate the term > > 'noob') then > > that is exactly what you will receive (in all forms) > > > > > >>Are you suggesting we should prevent people from using > single engine > >>aircraft all together? > > > > > > No. > > > > > >>M$FS has realism sliders that affect aircraft handling and they are > >>set to "noob" by default. It works just fine and I don't see why we > >>can't do the same. > > > > > > MSFS is also a game rather than a serious simulator. Although it > > boasts a > > massive swaythe of features, it's flightmodel is at best > lack-lustre. > > > > If Flightgear is a realistic simulation of flight then let it be a > > realistic > > simulation of flight. - If people can't fly the very first > time they try and > > are unwilling to persevere then it would probably be better > that they walked > > away and used something more simplistic such as MSFS or > X-Plane. (Not to > > belittle X-Plane but it can be made to be 'easy' ) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Agreed, If my memory is correct, the ultimate goal of the > project is to > produce a simulator that can satisfy the FAA requirements, > one that can > be used as part of the training to qualify for issue of a pilot's > license. I've seen posts from NASA and Boeing guys saying > they intended > to contribute to fgfs, hoping to use it in their daily > development work. > > Such a simulator (ELITE - JAR/FAA certified) is used at our school as > part of IMC/IFR training and examination, so the handling has to be > realistic. Recently a guy started training and stated that he > was a wiz > on MSFS, but had to remark that the real aeroplane was a completely > different experience. > Some years ago, I did 1.7 hours flying a PA28-161, completed > the paper > work, paid up and headed off to an exhibition where there was > MSFS with > yoke and pedals, I did a smooth take-off and at 500 feet did a right > turn only to have the PA28 in MSFS roll left and crash. I > phoned up the > school to advise against the purchase they were > contemplating, instead > they bought a proper package that is still used for IFR/IMC > training and > exams. > > Perhaps, the project goals should be spelled out in bold > coloured type 0202 > so that no one gets the idea that fgfs is an attempt at cloning MSFS. > MSFS is not designed to meet certification standards. > Regards > Sid. > --
I was at the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation & Education Conference in Orlando Florida last week, and there were a number of low-cost simulators flying MSFS. I talked to a few of them, and they all voiced similar concerns, that MSFS wasn't that great of a flight model, and that they were bothered because it wasn't open source. FlightGear and JSBSim answer those issues. From what I've seen of JSBSim, it should be capable of FAA Level 6 simulators, and even possibly Level B or higher. I'm working on trying to prove that. I am new to the FGFS list, but have been on the JSBSim list for a while, so I thought it might be time to introduce myself here. I am an Aeronautical Engineer with over 20 years of flight simulator experience. I am currently working with the JSBSim Flight Dynamics Model (FDM), developing an Automatic Fidelity Test (AFT) system that uses the JSBSIM FDM. For those of you that might not know what an AFT system is, it is a scripting method which allows one to test a simulator in predetermined maneuvers. These would include trim points as well as dynamic tests. With this system, one can more easily obtain FAA certification and/or pass military requirements by comparison to actual aircraft flight tests. I have also modified DATCOM to produce models for use in JSBSim. DATCOM is an old Air Force program that allows the user to input aircraft design parameters (geometry, airfoil sections, surface deflections, etc) and it produces aerodynamic coefficients. It is not perfect, but it is QUITE impressive for conventional aircraft. Work on this continues.... Combining my AFT system, DATCOM and JSBSim (when all the pieces are completed), I believe that it is going to be possible to crank out a 90% model in the matter of a couple of weeks, and a model that meets tolerances in a few months (depending on tolerances and flight test data). This is a huge improvement over the current process where each company must develop their own system and/or you spend a suitcase of money to buy the manufacturer's model, if there is one available. Having these proven tools reduces the risk in the flight area significantly. If you are interested in this, please check out my web page at www.holycows.net/freefdm and www.holycows.net/datcom. Bill Galbraith _______________________________________________ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
