Jump to content
peker

What areas are not modeled in flight simulators ?

Recommended Posts

I teach junior high school students Virtual Aviation
 
I Greatly appreciatet to read more aspects of the Aviation that can not show in pc simulator

(I choose to teach with the  il1946 because it's the cheapest stimulator and my principal rate me some money and I had to divide it between several components: joysticks etc )


Thank you

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sims are really bad at modelling turbulence, not least because our scientific knowledge about turbulence is incomplete. The effects of turbulence will always be an approximation.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also the pilot factors:

  • They black out in game but always at the same point. There are no differences between virtual pilots.
  • Issues like cabin heating (too hot or too cold) affecting pilots aren't there either.
  • In some aircraft, noxious fumes sometimes seeped into the cockpit and caused many issues.
  • Our PC flight sticks are fairly easy to move to maximum deflection. Some aircraft required pilots with massive amounts of strength to get full control deflection whereas I can roll a Pe-2 with my pinky finger.

Still... flight sims are great to gain some experience with. When I did go out in a Cessna the one time I had a really good feel of everything and it wasn't too different from my simulator experience.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One factor that's impossible to simulate but is extremely important when it comes to flying an aircraft is the pilot's sense of accelleration. I'm not just talking about the effect of high G-forces, but really any acceleration in any direction. Sitting in an actual cockpit it is extremely easy to feel even slight changes in speed, rate of climb/descent etc. Things we as virtual pilots need to rely on our instruments to tell us.

Edited by Finkeren
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One factor that's impossible to simulate but is extremely important when it comes to flying an aircraft is the pilot's sense of accelleration. I'm not just talking about the effect of high G-forces, but really any acceleration in any direction. Sitting in an actual cockpit it is extremely easy to feel even slight changes in speed, rate of climb/descent etc. Things we as virtual pilots need to rely on our instruments to tell us.

Agreed, would love to see the pilot position movement we have in Clod here or something similar.

 

 

 

Another difficult factor to model is engine reliability which the devs have done their best with. And overall individual plane quality is not something which can be shown in this sim.

Edited by 216th_Xenos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The external pre-flight check is not modeled and is not needed in a simulator.  It is however an important part of the safety checks to make sure the aircraft is airworthy.

 

As with any simulator, having to experience the "world" on a rectangle in front of you is problematic.  VR will help with that eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concerning the pilot, you can add the fatigue/stress/fear/panic which are impossible to model in game

(well, fatigue could be... but hard to balance, people will complain all the time...)

 

For example being a real pilot who does the same day 6 interception missions against bombers who could possibly target his hometown and drop a bomb on his family/friends... this can't be simulated!

Edited by -IRRE-Centx
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flight sims model what computer programmer's numbers tell them flying is, not what flying really is.

Edited by BlitzPig_EL
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hang out with too many real pilots I guess.

 

Buy some stick time in a Stearman and get back to me, then maybe you will understand what I'm saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stick deflection forces is a big one.

This one factor is probably responsible for a good many flight model debates and problems.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hang out with too many real pilots I guess.

 

Buy some stick time in a Stearman and get back to me, then maybe you will understand what I'm saying.

 

The argument from authority is a formal logical fallacy. As such, it doesn't validate any point that you're trying to make.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, would love to see the pilot position movement we have in Clod here or something similar.

Thats one of the things I don't like at all in CloD simply because it's way overdone. And yea, I've flown some aerobatics in RL.

Unless your seat belts are untight, which they shouldn't, your body does not move a tiny bit during flight. For aerobatics you even have to retight them again in the air to ensure you're absolutely safe in any kind of manouvre.

Just another typical 'more difficult = more realism' implementation. They way it's done in BoS seems believeble enought to me considering you're pulling no more than 4G usually.

 

Back on topic, what FS can't do is model dynamic and realistic weather (not just temperatur, airpressure and daytime). That includes everything from complex wind systems, sheer winds, ridge lift, turbulences, thermal, clouds (all different kinds), rain/snowfall, freezing ect.

 

What also can't be done is modeling the pilot body, namely fatigue, sickness, tiredness, ect. Every human being differs and some can fly on for hours while others get sick after only 3min. Since we're in a combat sim our pilots all are physically fit as per military requirements but especially in civil aviation this does not apply to every pilot.

Edited by 6./ZG26_5tuka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet real WWII pilots didn't actually fly their planes on the edge as most people do in this game?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet real WWII pilots didn't actually fly their planes on the edge as most people do in this game?

Indeed. Having only one life to lose is perhaps the number one thing that will always be missing from combat flight sims.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hang out with too many real pilots I guess.

 

Buy some stick time in a Stearman and get back to me, then maybe you will understand what I'm saying.

 

I would suggest no one is trying to do some 'sword' fighting with you.

 

The post asks what is not modeled in flight sims not whether it is modeled or not.  Your first post says flying is flying and this game is a simulation."  The reason the facepalm was given to you is it was so out of touch with the purpose of the post but then again I am starting to wonder if the point was you wanted to come in here and talk about how awesome your real flying is.  If you do have some 'stick time in a Stearman' I would suggest you could add to the content of the thread by mentioning -specific- things that you feel are modeled poorly or cannot be modeled well in flight simulators in the same method that you see everyone else doing in this thread. 

 

Less ego please.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I don't see mentioned is what we call HPMA, or Human Performance in Military Aviation. When you're fatigued and uncomfortable and stressed out due to the demands of the mission (not to mention the dangers), it becomes easy to make mistakes. Au contraire, sitting here in my nice heated house on my leather desk chair is very relaxed.

 

There was an incident once where a helicopter pilot, in a hurry due to demanding flight conditions, reached for the cabin lighting button but ended up hitting one that was nearby and looked/felt the same. Except the nearby button was the emergency cutout for the fuel system. They crashed.

 

Another tragic case occurred in the USAF (if I recall correctly) where two Hercules pilots had wedged an NVG case into the control column to keep the elevators from drooping while bulky cargo was being loaded via the rear ramp. In the ensuing chaos they switched places and both forgot that the NVG case was holding the control stick back a ways. When they lifted off they were unable to push the yoke forward, stalled, and were killed in the crash.

 

Can't really model these effectively in a simulator.

Edited by JG13_opcode

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have been commented yet but I like to highlight them too:

 

- Weather simulation: Not that is not modelled at all but just in a basic way. Hopefully as more computer power is available it will be improved accordingly. Weather has a huge impact in all aspect of aviation.

-Pilot phisiology: As far as I know only the black out and the inability to get full deflection of the stick (the fact that you can move your joystick doesn´t mean that the virtual plane stick is moved to its fullest depending on the speed) are simulated. I would love if they simulate fatigue. Throwing yourself around all day long is not very realistic. Having some limitations would mean that you have to be more cautious on your aproach to combat and probably more realistic ones. For example, sustaininng many Gs would mean that after a given time (that time could be the tricky spot) you start being able to pull less and less Gs with what it means.

There are many other aspect with room for improvement but I think those ones would impact air combat in a greater degree compared with what we have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably the most important thing not simulated is the fear of dying.

 

I just hang out with too many real pilots I guess.

You know that military pilots spend lots of time in simulators, right? Edited by BraveSirRobin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of our guys flys Harriers now and pretty much says the same thing.  Even though the Harrier is perhaps the most difficult aircraft there is to fly, the simulator is far harder.

 

If I made a list of things the sim gets, well, not right, compared to the real thing I'd be accused by the fans of being a hater, and nothing could be further from the truth.  I love "flying" on the PC and I want to see the whole genre prosper, really I do.  I wouldn't be here if I didn't.

 

Once in the air and cruising at altitude the sim is very good.  I can truly suspend my disbelief.

 

It's at the edges that things come unglued, oh, and that ground handling thing too...

 

But when I fly over the landscape at econ cruise, all is well.  

Edited by BlitzPig_EL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, part of that is due to the complexities of the physics. It's not witchcraft, they use the same equations to make this sim as they do to design real aircraft.

 

But our understanding of fluid dynamics is not entirely complete, and there are certain governing equations that cannot be solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pilot Fatigue

Situational Awareness

Survival Instinct

 

Those are three things that seem to be very difficult from a programming standpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I teach junior high school students Virtual Aviation
 
(I choose to teach with the  il1946 because it's the cheapest simulator...

 

 

Thank you

 

 

Question, why 1946?  IL-2 Cliffs of Dover sells for the same amount from Steam and has clickable cockpits for startup procedures if done manually, etc.  Team Fusion has a nice mod to add.  I would think this would serve better to teach the complexity of aircraft management and procedures.  I can understand though if it is a problem of the PC available to run it on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game already has pilot position movement based on Gs and plane movement

Sliders under camera for FOV effect by Acceleration and so on turn these up. (i think thats what they are)

Imho i turn them off completely as i hate fudged artificial things like thats and DOF and Motion Blur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The external pre-flight check is not modeled and is not needed in a simulator.  It is however an important part of the safety checks to make sure the aircraft is airworthy.

 

As with any simulator, having to experience the "world" on a rectangle in front of you is problematic.  VR will help with that eventually.

It is modelled in some cases. A2A Simulations has precisely that for most of their recent aircraft for FSX/P3D. In addition, P3D has the walk around the plane since v.3.x now in general.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sims are really bad at modelling turbulence, not least because our scientific knowledge about turbulence is incomplete. The effects of turbulence will always be an approximation.

You can make that good enough for practical purposes. The problem is more that a PC sim lacks motion. Thus the player does not sense turbulence as in a real plane and as a common procedure the shaking is drastically overmodelled to compensate.In FSX et. al., weather generators exaggerate to such a degree that normal turbulence has the potential to unhook the autopilot of a GA plane.

 

One of the largest limitation of simulating reality is "customer expectation and acceptance".

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can make that good enough for practical purposes. The problem is more that a PC sim lacks motion. Thus the player does not sense turbulence as in a real plane and as a common procedure the shaking is drastically overmodelled to compensate.In FSX et. al., weather generators exaggerate to such a degree that normal turbulence has the potential to unhook the autopilot of a GA plane.

 

One of the largest limitation of simulating reality is "customer expectation and acceptance".

My point was, that even if we found a way to have the player realistically experience the effects of turbulence, we'd still not actually be modeling turbulence, but just an approximation of the effects of it.

 

AFAIK science has yet to come up with a model that can simulate actual turbulence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One factor that's impossible to simulate but is extremely important when it comes to flying an aircraft is the pilot's sense of accelleration. I'm not just talking about the effect of high G-forces, but really any acceleration in any direction. Sitting in an actual cockpit it is extremely easy to feel even slight changes in speed, rate of climb/descent etc. Things we as virtual pilots need to rely on our instruments to tell us.

 

Agree totally with this! Having had some aerobatic lessons specifically aimed at ACM, which made me feel really nauseous, I know that I could not survive the manoeuvres I make in flight sims, in reality. Perhaps age is a factor at 62 but I do wonder if I could have done what 20 year olds did in these aircraft during the war. It really is very tiring!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So do I! I've done aerobatics in Chipmunks, a Tiger Moth and a Harvard and the aircraft were really not being pushed that hard and it is genuinely uncomfortable!

The other thing is the lack of head movement and body movement from being strapped in tightly and the lack of visibility from wearing goggles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was, that even if we found a way to have the player realistically experience the effects of turbulence, we'd still not actually be modeling turbulence, but just an approximation of the effects of it.

 

AFAIK science has yet to come up with a model that can simulate actual turbulence.

No matter how "accurate" you make it, it is still just "shaking". Besides, if you sit in a level D full motion sim, approximated or not, no-one complains of "unrealistic turbulences".

 

Sometimes "alike" is as good as "similar". You simply don't want to reproduce chaotic processes "exactly" (you cannot by principle), when you even have to resort to lifting line theory to compute your flight performance instead of using high resolution computational fluid dynamics.

 

This is the same issue:

Back on topic, what FS can't do is model dynamic and realistic weather (not just temperature, air pressure and daytime). That includes everything from complex wind systems, sheer winds, ridge lift, turbulences, thermal, clouds (all different kinds), rain/snowfall, freezing etc.

You can have weather. You can have very convincing weather. And there is no need to do it the same way as weather forecast does it. You just use all available source data from weather stations and let this draw your weather. Weather, although unique in detail, follows largely repetitive patterns. You can use them and use all weather data to make specific weather situations that very well depict the real world. use a flight sim with a good weather generator. Comparing with and without weather generator, you will see that these "two sims" suddenly have little in common.

 

There is functionality that you can use. But every functionality comes at the price of performance. You have to be careful what you ask for and look for thing that are the relevant issues.

 

This brings us to the OP:

 

The main limitation on what is simulated is what you are ready to pay for. You pay for it, you get it simulated. this includes the hardware too! At least in a reasonable approximation to the real thing.

 

Now with this great game, we paid for a combat simulator, and that is what we get, fair and square. It is nor meant to learn to navigate, not meant to create weather as you would do it for weather prediction, it doesn't teach you procedures, but it gives you aircraft that are great for combat flying. To do so, they gave us some of the best flight models for their aircraft, as well as damage model along with pretty maps to do just that: Flying and shoot down aircraft. Other things are not modelled because you are not paying for them.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how "accurate" you make it, it is still just "shaking". Besides, if you sit in a level D full motion sim, approximated or not, no-one complains of "unrealistic turbulences".

 

Sometimes "alike" is as good as "similar". You simply don't want to reproduce chaotic processes "exactly" (you cannot by principle), when you even have to resort to lifting line theory to compute your flight performance instead of using high resolution computational fluid dynamics.

I think you completely misunderstood the point of this thread. We are not complaining about this or any other sim. It's a completely neutral discussion of aspects of flying that sims do not or cannot model.

 

Noone is saying that flight sims need to have detailed modeling of fluid dynamics, an approximation of the effects works just fine (though you could make the argument, that flight sims tend to exaggerate the effects of turbulence quite a bit)

 

This is purely a theoretic discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zachs' post above deserves more than the 1 'Like' I could give it :) 

 

Cheers Dakpilot 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, as a pilot and meteorologist.. I find the modeling of turbulence and wind shear very plausibly modeled in IL.2 BoX!

 

Regarding features not modelled in most sims, I would like to point your attention to aeroelasticity effects, which I believe are indeed modeled in IL.2 BoX and RoF ( ? )

 

They are for sure in Aerofly FS 2: http://www.ipacs.de/forum/showthread.php/7760-Flight-model-and-joints?p=36519

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you completely misunderstood the point of this thread. We are not complaining about this or any other sim. It's a completely neutral discussion of aspects of flying that sims do not or cannot model.

Noone is saying that flight sims need to have detailed modeling of fluid dynamics, an approximation of the effects works just fine (though you could make the argument, that flight sims tend to exaggerate the effects of turbulence quite a bit)

This is purely a theoretic discussion.

Oh, I didn't take it as complaining. If my utterances came across coarse, then I just joined the ranks of forists that typed faster than they could write. Sorry for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I didn't take it as complaining. If my utterances came across coarse, then I just joined the ranks of forists that typed faster than they could write. Sorry for that.

No harm intented from any side :) Besides, all the points you raised were correct, no dispute there.

 

:salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the kind of combat flight sims like Il-2, generally they model the physical environment and the physical characteristics of planes reasonably well, but the biological characteristics of pilots very little or not at all. Not surprising since they tend to be made by engineers.

 

So they are generally "aeroplane simulators" rather than "pilot simulators". But as soon as you model black-out, for instance, you are not simulating the plane at all, but the pilot.

 

Personally, I would be happy if pilots were simulated a little more, so that high gs induce fatigue that would progressively limit control inputs. (99% of MP would probably hate that, although the best pilots should welcome it) .

 

Then there is the physical environment - generally simulated in some detail, again it is "just" physics and necessary for the "aeroplane simulation".

 

The messy and complex "combat environment" in contrast is usually sketched in as a bare minimum to provide a plausible (sometimes) backdrop for the player (aka "The Hero) to perform his feats. Again understandable: no point simulating things the player will never see, but sometimes the Potemkin Village nature of the combat environment is all too obvious.

 

In an ideal world the most "fun" SP CFS for me would have rather more attention to simulating the human factor and the battle, rather than the exact number of times the oil cooler flap control wheel can turn. But since no-one seems to want to make that sim I am happy enough with what we have.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I would be happy if pilots were simulated a little more

You can do that yourself. Fatigue can be simulated by not sleeping for 48 hours, then join WoL. Also you might want to consider never taking a leak while flying a mission, unless you do it in your seat somehow (bag, nappies, pants, possibilities for that are manyfold). ;)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can do that yourself. Fatigue can be simulated by not sleeping for 48 hours, then join WoL. Also you might want to consider never taking a leak while flying a mission, unless you do it in your seat somehow (bag, nappies, pants, possibilities for that are manyfold). ;)

 

I can simulate the physics and combat environment parts too by sticking my arms out and running up and down the street yelling "daka-daka-daka": but I would rather the PC did it for me. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Unless your seat belts are untight, which they shouldn't, your body does not move a tiny bit during flight. For aerobatics you even have to retight them again in the air to ensure you're absolutely safe in any kind of manouvre.
 

 

This is true for movements making pure G and Negative G. this is why a movement platform never will simulate sitting in a plane, you lack the G forces and will just hang in your belts. But there is movements where pilot says it rips the face of your head or head of the shoulders. I guess it is when they provoke a spin of some sort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...