Free Flight, Free Speech

MountainFlyerN22 wrote:

legoboyvdlp wrote:Finally, am I weird for studying Airbus manuals?

No your not weird....unless something wrong with me reading manuals and working on machinery instead of playing video games.(FG is a flight simulator,not a video game)

Not sure I understand teenagers either....including myself.

I actually do the same things. I have over 2000 pages or aircraft manuals, checklists and more stored on my harddrive, and I gladly read through them to learn and enjoy. I know how to startup several planes completely by heart, and often forget that autostart even exists.

And yes, FlightGear is not a video game, it is a FlightSimulator as you said. Video games are pointless and stupid. FlightGear is for learning, and simulating flying aircraft, which is a complicated task to achieve.

ATC411

Where is the like button?

legoboyvdlp wrote:Where is the like button?

...

would make a very nice signature.

There is no guarantee whatsoever that a flightgame is a representation of reality in any way. I am not talking about a slightly off fdm, but about completely nature defying behaviour. Flightgear is full of such fdm's. One my learn very adverse reactions from such planes, which have to be beaten out in flight school proving not to be an advantage at all. So if you ever want to fly for real, take this game with a big grain of salt. Play it for fun, but do not try to learn flying from it.

Kind regards, Vincent

KL-666 wrote:There is no guarantee whatsoever that a flightgame is a representation of reality in any way. I am not talking about a slightly off fdm, but about completely nature defying behaviour. Flightgear is full of such fdm's. One my learn very adverse reactions from such planes, which have to be beaten out in flight school proving not to be an advantage at all. So if you ever want to fly for real, take this game with a big grain of salt. Play it for fun, but do not try to learn flying from it.

Kind regards, Vincent

Of course, but it still helps set the foundation on how flights are to be done, and can be taught things like VOR navigation. However, I always STAY AWAY form badly modeled or FDMed planes.

I do hope you have a good reference to tell good from bad modeled. In what i see in fg is that yasim makes a reasonable average, so that planes are just slightly off fdm's. But jsb really needs input, else it is nothing, worse, totally nature defying. The problem is that hardly any manufacturer will publish their wind tunnel data. So jsb stays a hopeless wild guess of the fg developer, which is ... nothing.

Kind regards, Vincent

The recently revised Aeromatic++ (the C++ program rather than the web application) does quite a good job of making a flyable base JSB FDM using the same principles as yasim. It (the FDM) is not the finished article, but that's also true of a yasim FDM created by just plugging in geometry.

Yes, it must be possible to generate something reasonable in jsb at first. I have good hopes that Aeromatic gets at some default level where the planes are not totally nature defying anymore. Unfortunately i have not flown any good results yet. But who knows in the near future.

Kind regards, Vincent

What do you mean by nature defying? The thing where they sometimes leap into the air and then bounce around like a rubber ball? Or do you mean flight characteristics when in the air?