3 ms·

> now MSFS is as good as the software in any of those sims Are you sure? I'd expect the primary purpose of a pro simulator is to be a training aid in which cas

> now MSFS is as good as the software in any of those sims Are you sure? I'd expect the primary purpose of a pro simulator is to be a training aid in which case the simulation needs to be extremely accurate especially at edge-cases such as near/at stall speeds, various combinations of faults, etc - the dangerous stuff you'd actually want to train for and can't easily/safely replicate in a real aircraft. I'm sure consumer-grade sims do a great job at replicating routine flight, but I'd bet good money a pro sim is much more accurate at replicating let's see a stall condition.

dadadad100 4y ago
The software is good, but your point is about the flight model. The flight model is all about tuning. That was not my area but I watched it being done. It started with curves from the flight testing program and then many hours of trial and error parameter tweaking until the test pilot said that it was right. I saw a session in the middle of the night where the engineer tweaked, the pilot said it needed a little more, the engineer undid the tweak and the pilot said it was perfect. I also saw some Air Force pilots in a C5 sim (they were commercial sims) who could tell if the model was right by judging when they passed over the (simulated) highway in Dover, DE for a given engine setting. They were right, according to the engineer. The point is, if you spend enough time on [1] you can tune the model. No one spends that much time on the MSFS. But for logic based stuff, like the working title VNAV implementation in the CJ4 it’s just a matter of understanding the expected logic and implementing. It is very impressive stuff. [1]https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/Samples_And_Tutorials/Tutorials/Defining_A_Flight_Model.htm https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/Samples_And_Tutorials/...
kjellsbells 4y ago
I'm not claiming that MsFS is ready to train F16 pilots, but there is definitely an acceleration of convergence thing going on here. Engines like Unity, large scale mapping, pixel streaming, weather sims and the interest from high end defense contractors is going to make this a thing faster than you might think.

dadadad100 4y ago

The software is good, but your point is about the flight model. The flight model is all about tuning. That was not my area but I watched it being done. It started with curves from the flight testing program and then many hours of trial and error parameter tweaking until the test pilot said that it was right. I saw a session in the middle of the night where the engineer tweaked, the pilot said it needed a little more, the engineer undid the tweak and the pilot said it was perfect. I also saw some Air Force pilots in a C5 sim (they were commercial sims) who could tell if the model was right by judging when they passed over the (simulated) highway in Dover, DE for a given engine setting. They were right, according to the engineer. The point is, if you spend enough time on [1] you can tune the model. No one spends that much time on the MSFS. But for logic based stuff, like the working title VNAV implementation in the CJ4 it’s just a matter of understanding the expected logic and implementing. It is very impressive stuff. [1]https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/Samples_And_Tutorials/Tutorials/Defining_A_Flight_Model.htm https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/Samples_And_Tutorials/...

kjellsbells 4y ago

I'm not claiming that MsFS is ready to train F16 pilots, but there is definitely an acceleration of convergence thing going on here. Engines like Unity, large scale mapping, pixel streaming, weather sims and the interest from high end defense contractors is going to make this a thing faster than you might think.