Imagine putting this much work into every detail of your simulation, and then getting negative reviews on Steam because there's background music during the initial download.
tbf, the initial download screen is so bad I can't believe it was actually coded by a microsoft studio. It's a 120GB download, so I thought ok, I'll just play some other game in the meantime, right? Nope, they forgot to check if the application is in the foreground and check for button presses even when the download window is minimized, meaning that when I play something else pressing "A" on the controller presses the "help" link on the download screen, opening a new browser window and microsoft help page. So....nope, I can't play something else while Flight Simulator is downloading its data, because whoever coded it doesn't know basic principles of input capture on MS platforms.
The downloader itself also just doesn't meet the level of quality I'd expect Microsoft would want before putting their name to something. Microsoft is meant to be all about cloud, and this seems to be a single threaded downloader, pulling one file at a time, then decompressing it. Once it's decompressed fully, it moves into the next file.
It's not a deal breaker for me - I just left it running for a couple of hours, but the process seems sufficiently fragile that many people had quite serious problems getting it to download.
I'm not a game dev, but it feels to me like there's a few areas where FS falls short of what I'd be expecting as Microsoft. I'd want it to be responsive and start quickly (at least presenting something on the screen), and I wouldn't want it to be using full GPU in the menus. Teething issues are to be expected, but the downloader is critical and it's the first experience people have. A shame they didn't use some more reliable file transfer tech (or even just thread it!) The general lack of multi core use on the sim is definitely quite disappointing though for a 2020 release that's doing lots of general calculations and other tasks that benefit from threading.
> The general lack of multi core use on the sim is definitely quite disappointing though for a 2020 release that's doing lots of general calculations and other tasks that benefit from threading.
Ugh, yeah as a VR flight sim enthusiast this is just sad. Essentially every semi-realistic flight sim on the market is main-thread bound even on high-end on modern CPUs. I was really, really hoping that MSFS2020 would finally be the modern engine sim we've been waiting for so smooth VR flight could be enjoyed.
I am a gamedev and that's one of the reasons why this screen is so annoying :-) It's just basic stuff. Not to offend anybody(we were all there at some point) but it feels like it was coded by an intern or a team who had nothing to do with the main project. For whatever technical reason they had to have a download screen separate from the main game, so someone quickly added a single threaded downloader with basic input - still, I have no idea why it's using so much GPU just displaying some text.
Yeah, I can understand wanting the downloader to exist outside of the game (so they can update a broken game out-of-band) - that's all reasonable.
The issue is, as you say, a single-threaded "download-extract-next" flow... It's 2020 and that's what we'd expect from a 90s game launcher. Steam and other game launchers/downloaders can all saturate an arbitrarily fast network connection. Heck, even Windows Update (BITS?) can do this well. A shame Asobo wasn't able to leverage any of this.
The amount of GPU is indeed strange - I think there's more than meets the eye here. There seems to be a lot of HTML/JS type stuff in the UI here, and I wonder if they are doing some kind of GPU-based full-screen rendered surface, rather than just having a simple oldskool Windows Forms app that does the downloading without GPU acceleration.
As I said in my other comment just now - the GPU usage is completely broken. When in foreground, the downloader uses about 15% of my GPU, but in the background it takes over 60%. It's just written very very poorly.
Ok, the download screen is even more broken than I thought. I'm using a GTX1080Ti, and when the download screen is in the foreground, it's using about 15% of my GPU(still stupid, for a static text screen, but whatever), but when the application is in the background.....it's using 60% of my GPU!!! So it's literally burning about 200W of GPU power just to download some files. And all because they probably forgot to enable a framerate limiter on that screen when in the background. Mind boggling.
Sheesh, I had the 15% usage issue as well when in the foreground of the downloader (and also wondered why it was using GPU to show a basic screen). I never popped it into the background to see that. I wonder if the lack of framerate cap could be to blame, ramping GPU to max...
Quite strange, as in the tech world we normally super optimise the initial onboarding user experience. Especially when many will try FS through Gamepass, it seems strange to not focus on the "onboarding ramp" to try and convert and retain users.
Yeah, it's bad, and it's the first thing you see as well. But it's not "negative review for the whole game" bad. I just muted it in Windows in the volume mixer (although I bet a lot of people don't know you can mute individual apps). I didn't notice your input problem but that sounds pretty annoying.
No, of course, I wouldn't go an review the entire game based on that one screen, but yeah, it's a pretty stupid thing to have right at the beginning as every single player will see it before trying the game.
Yeah for sure, even just having a download inside the game after downloading the "game" is pretty strange. When you uninstall it via Steam, those files don't go away automatically either, so now you mysteriously have 90GB less hard drive space. Gives me the feeling that things were pretty rushed up to release.
You can control the volume of individual applications from the volume center on Windows. Shouldn’t be necessary, but I assume that would probably work.
To be fair, the negative reviews are mostly because the steam installer only installs the game installer which then downloads the actual game. And that counts towards gameplay hours. And just the sheer size of the download means the number of hours spent downloading and thus counting as hours played puts the game outside of the refund window.
> Steam is very liberal on giving refunds even if you go over the refund gameplay hours of Flight Simulator.
That's not been my experience. I had a game which wouldn't even run on my system, and they refused to refund it. Even when the problem was documented and it obviously didn't work.
There's no effective way to dispute it either. If I did a chargeback of the game, then Steam would revoke my entire account.
Needless to say, I've not bought anything from Steam from that point, though I still use my account to play already purchased games.
- As others have pointed out, you can't background it during a 100G download. It continues to capture keystrokes.
- There's no way to mute the annoying music. So forget about passing the time on Netflix or YouTube.
- If the download craps out midway, it frequently gets stuck. Meaning you might have to delete those 80g you already have & start again. (Unless you tell what is complete & isn't.)
I think it's completely legitimate (not necessarily the music, but the launcher has enough issues). I'm not sure why we're expected to put up badly designed software just because at some point we get to play a good game. I will absolutely give a game a bad review if certain parts of the on-boarding experience are terrible. My most recent one was Fallout 76, where all the problems getting the game running in the first place drained any interest I had in trying the game and at least giving it a chance.
Just yesterday I watched a few "real X pilot flies X in a simulator" videos. One of my favorites was a real Rafale pilot flying a Mirage 2000C in a dogfight in DCS [1]. Amazing instincts and skill.
Are there any good videos like this where the dogfights are many-on-many instead of just one-on-one?
I'm not a pilot, and my knowledge of dogfighting is next to non-existent, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd expect that it would be much harder to utterly dominate one's opponents when there are a lot of planes in the air, any one of which could take you out when you think you've got an advantage on someone else.
A busy dogfight would probably be more exciting to watch, too.
The video is a reconstruction from the radio recordings. I learned that air traffic controllers are rarely themselves pilots and that finding someone with King Air experience during an emergency isn't easy. This video is recent, but the incident happened in 2009. News story from that year:
He only knew how to use the radio because he'd had the pilot show him before take off. He described the King Air as being so different from the plane he'd learned on that it might as well be the space shuttle.
One of the controllers who helped get him down realized she had to simplify the plane for him. He had been struggling with the autopilot and she got him to turn it off and fly it manually. He was fortunate to have some great controllers to help him and a clear day with no wind.
After the incident, he started flying again and went on to become a rescue pilot.
Youtube's been trying to get me to watch that for eons, and I kept clicking away from it because it's simulator video. I thought it was just someone roleplaying.
Now knowing it's an actual event being recreated, I might have to go give it a watch!
There was a similar recording 2 years ago: retired soviet military pilot (no piloting experience in 20yrs) is trying simulator of MiG 29 (with VR helmet). He did some maneuvers and even land the plane.
I have GamePass, so I thought: "I'll give this a go. How hard can it be? I'm really good in Elite Dangerous."
Turns out: Quite hard. I have a newfound respect for airline pilots.
On a related note, even my RAF cadet experience 20 years ago counted for naught. Whilst I could keep the plane in the air, landing proved the most difficult, and I crashed and bounced and would not have survived without invulnerability switched on.
It’s not that difficult to land; especially in a sim where you can experiment without worry.
It’s all in the setup - as you line up on your final approach, make sure you are at a prescribed speed and rate of descent; generally in a small plane (172 etc), you’re aiming for around 300-500ft/m at 70-80kts, and the plane is pointing to hit the runway at the threshold (piano keys / white lines).
Counter intuitive: Throttle controls rate of descent, elevators control speed. Mess around until you feel these two things clicking.
When you’re around 20-30ft above the threshold, reduce power to idle, keep the aircraft straight and level or the nose just slightly high and just let the plane drop on to the runway!
Whatever you do - don’t force it, take your time and you’ll have far more fun actually going to places and stopping there!
These are good tips for flying GA and getting started in the sim. Older versions of FS used to teach more of the ground school theory than the current version. I did the tutorial just out of curiosity but it didn't really teach enough to have an understanding of flight in the way the FS2004 lessons did.
For flying jets though (assuming this is what the GP means when mentioning the respect for airline pilots), you'll have some higher numbers, and you'll use the thrust for speed rather than the "counter intuitive" approach you'd use in a smaller aircraft.
The things to remember at first are that you're moving faster than you think in the air, so you need to take a longer final approach than you may think as a newcomer, as you're "consuming" that distance rapidly. You'll also need to get used to lining up with the runway (assuming you're doing VFR approaches, which isn't how airlines do it in reality) and find a reference in the cockpit. And chances are you'll be coming in far too high as well - you will feel lower down when you get the view from up front (compared with a side window) and often end up too high. If this happens, go around and try again - if you dive down to compensate, you'll end up gaining too much speed and miss your touchdown zone on the runway.
A good way to learn and practice landings is to wait until ILS and autopilots in FS get their bugs fixed, and learn enough to configure them to fly the landing. If they're accurate replicas, the A320 neo should be able to land itself from ILS. Learn what the approach looks like, and get used to the height and view of the descent. Then try some ILS approaches with flight director on, but autopilot off, so you're flying the approach yourself, but with guidance. This can be tricky if you're not used to the auto throttles on an Airbus though.
> For flying jets though (assuming this is what the GP means when mentioning the respect for airline pilots), you'll have some higher numbers, and you'll use the thrust for speed rather than the "counter intuitive" approach you'd use in a smaller aircraft.
Minor point - fairly certain power applications are used regardless of the size of aircraft to control the rate of descent.
Pitch + Power = Performance
You're essentially trying to get back on your landing descent profile.
Too low? Add power, pitch up slightly to maintain speed, reduce rate of descent.
Too high? Remove power, pitch down slightly to maintain speed, increase rate of descent.
It is somewhat counter intuitive, but power does not have a "direct" relation with speed, but certainly impacts it.
Even if you fly straight and level, and start adding power - the increase airflow over the wings/elevators will cause a pitch up / lift, your speed will decrease which will need counteracting by a slight downwards pitch to maintain straight / level, and only then would you see a speed increase. There will always be a point where the aircraft just settles into a given configuration of power and pitch/attitude, giving you a specific horizontal/vertical speed.
You yourself mention pointing the aircraft down (pitch), thus gaining speed (without touching the power), which is exactly the counter-intuitive approach to power/speed.
I may not be explaining it well but here's a decent article:
And you'll find quite a few more if you go searching.
I also highly recommend looking up the pilot owner manuals, they give you performance tables for given configurations (rpm, power, density, altitude, fuel, temp etc), and of course what power settings to use and numbers to hit for various stages of flight.
I do concur with all your other points though, it's an absolute blast - especially in VR. And of course, I can't encourage folks enough to try out the real thing, I find it easier than driving a car! :)
I feel like learning to safely land whatever plane I'm flying in is just due diligence. I wish each seat had a simulator for the current aircraft available as an entertainment option, for me to brush up on in case everyone else who could fly it chooses the wrong entree for dinner. You know the toy steering wheels that children play with in cars? Like that.
It’s hard! They’re not slow by choice, they’re slow because of the years it takes for safety approvals, testing, and certification to complete. I’ve met a creative director who’s responsible for Norwegian’s IFE last year, and she was telling me about some of the crazy challenges it is to try and work with the hardware and software constraints they get. The software teams certainly have the resources and knowledge to build a great, modern platform.
> Nearly every element [of an airplane seat] undergoes a safety-enhancing process called “delethalization”: seats have to withstand an impact equal to sixteen times the force of gravity [and many other constraints] .... Largely as a result, in-flight entertainment systems are almost unbelievably expensive. The rule of thumb, I was told, is “a thousand dollars an inch”—meaning that the small screen in the back of each economy seat can cost an airline ten thousand dollars, plus a few thousand for its handheld controller.
Can someone explain how an object that can withstand and impact equal to sixteen times the force of gravity is not going to be lethal to the person who's face hits it?
I've always wondered why screens in the back of seats were allowed, as they seem to clearly be an additional hazard compared to a nice soft cushioned seat back that they displaced.
That’s fascinating! Thanks for sharing both of you - I had an inkling that regulation and testing has a massive impact on the usability of IFEs.
I know some airlines supply an iPad which can be mounted to the back of the headrest and needs to be stowed at takeoff or landing. I wonder what kind of testing would be required for those setups.
First you need to know how to use the radio to ask for that help. Just putting the headset on isn't enough; finding the microphone button is half the battle, and then you need to know what frequency to tune to, and how. Then you need to follow along with those instructions.
Even assuming everything goes perfectly up to that point, the plane can only /land/ itself -- assuming you're approaching an ILS autoland-capable runway, in a plane with autoland equipment installed. You still have to idle the engines on touchdown and engage reverse thrust. You may have to keep the aircraft on the runway centreline after touchdown. Then you need to shut down the engines so emergency vehicles can approach and passengers can evacuate safely.
In addition to that, you also need to know how to:
Read the instruments. This is non-trivial with modern glass cockpits as the readings on the screen don't necessarily have labels.
Set the flaps at the right time. Too soon and you'll tear the wings off or run out of fuel before you make it to the runway. Too late and you will be flying too fast to land.
Lower the gear, again at the right time to prevent them being torn off by airflow or not being down when you hit the runway.
Know that, once on the ground, the nose gear is steered with the footpedals and not the sidestick (Airbus) or yolk (Boeing).
Set the autobrake so you don't need to brake manually at touchdown. If you get this right, you don't need to mess with reverse thrust.
It would be helpful to know how to turn off the cabin pressurization system so no one is blown out the doors when they are opened.
Even if you're lucky enough to get all this right, you're only going to make a smoking hole somewhere near the runway if there's any significant crosswind.
I think finding the microphone button without messing anything up would indeed be the main challenge. AFAIK on some planes it is unmarked, and has a similar-looking button, also unmarked, on the other side of the yoke. That other button is the autopilot disconnect aka "everyone is going to die" button. Also, if you kick the yoke while trying to get into the seat, the autopilot will disconnect...
Once you find the radio and manage to reach anyone, I'd assume they can get someone to relay information to you on that frequency. At that point it becomes a matter of them being able to give sufficiently idiot-proof instructions and you following them, i.e. as long as whatever bad thing happened with at least a couple hours of flight time remaining and you don't mentally shut down, I'd say it should be recoverable.
It'd definitely help if whoever is in the cockpit has played some flight sim before, because "gear down" is a lot faster to convey than describing what the gear lever looks like and making sure they actually found that one instead of something completely different that will crash the plane.
Mhm. In some planes there's VOX capability (so you can speak and it will transmit for you), in others there's a microphone button on the yoke, and in yet others (like the Boeing 777, which is what I have the most experience with) it's a button on the console in front of you [1].
And assuming you figure out how to use the radio at all, that's still of no help whatsoever unless you happen to know how to tune to 121.5 MHz (the international aircraft emergency frequency) or are still in range of the previous controllers!
[1] https://live.staticflickr.com/7443/27038444724_18cc73d82c_b.... In the right of this image, there is an empty pencil holder on the far right pillar (like the A-pillar in your car). Immediately to the left of that is a set of 2 black buttons and a white dial. The microphone button is the left black one. It only has "MIC" written above it. The unmarked single button on the yoke is indeed the autopilot disconnect.
EDIT: I should also add that the microphone button doesn't mean you'll necessarily be talking on the radio either. The headset also serves as a PA system and an interphone, and it can use the satphone too. This is all controlled on the radio panel next to your leg.
Unfortunately this is typical "All you need is..." fallacy.
Even assuming for a moment that yes, all you need to do is dial in the numbers...
Have you ever tried to run tech support over a dodgy phone connection to someone who's never touched technology before? Where one wrong button push turns off all of that automation? Where there's no chance to go "Ooops, undo that!"? Where it's a very high stress situation, involving a huge number of acronyms?
Even just managing radios could be a major problem - you may quickly find yourself out of range of the controllers, and if you haven't figured out how to ask for and change frequency, well you're now not talking to anyone.
Now the thing to understand about Center controllers, was that whether they were talking to a rookie pilot in a Cessna, or to Air Force One, they always spoke in the exact same, calm, deep, professional, tone that made one feel important. I referred to it as the " Houston Center voice." I have always felt that after years of seeing documentaries on this country's space program and listening to the calm and distinct voice of the Houston controllers, that all other controllers since then wanted to sound like that, and that they basically did. And it didn't matter what sector of the country we would be flying in, it always seemed like the same guy was talking. Over the years that tone of voice had become somewhat of a comforting sound to pilots everywhere. Conversely, over the years, pilots always wanted to ensure that, when transmitting, they sounded like Chuck Yeager, or at least like John Wayne. Better to die than sound bad on the radios.
This reminds me of a story that I think was about Yeager, where due to some human error on the part of a mechanic (I think in regards to fueling his plane) Yeager almost died, and after the accident he surprised everyone by asking for the same mechanic to be assigned to service his plane on his next flight. He explained his choice by saying expected that mechanic would not make the same mistake twice.
I probably butchered that story a bit.. anyone recognize it and have a link to the original?
Some non-fiction books can read very much like novels, even if the term technically doesn't apply to them. These are sometimes called "non-fiction novels".
A great example is Endurance by Alfred Lansing, which tells the story of Shackleton's incredible expedition to Antarctica in 1914. It is apparently a very accurate re-telling, and a book that I highly recommend. Even though I knew the outcome of the expedition, the book was suspenseful to the very end, and surprisingly character-driven.
This reminds me of reading Maya Angelou’s _I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings_ in high school.
I asked our teacher (who also made us memorize the opening to beouwouf) how Angelou could remember some of the quotes. I recall the teacher’s response being something like, “this is what she remembers”
Looking at that book now in the context of this thread I found this:
>Reviewers often categorize Caged Bird as autobiographical fiction because Angelou uses thematic development and other techniques common to fiction, but the prevailing critical view characterizes it as an autobiography, a genre she attempts to critique, change, and expand.
Might I ask where you are from? If anyone going to school in the US does not learn about Chuck Yeager, then I weep even worse for our education system.
I am originally from the Soviet Union but had moved to Canada very long time ago.
Also while I am totally floored by such a man maybe his place is not in a schoolbooks yet. If the US is similar to Canada school education wise I suspect that kids in US are in desperate need of basic fundamental knowledge. This should come first I believe.
Given how much pilots and ATCs talk among each other on the radio, I suppose it isn't all that surprising that they would develop an identifiable accent.
Geez, you seem to have a hard-on for this "more diversity!" issue.
Does it matter much for piloting? It's quite a mechanical job. I'd argue diversity matters more if you have a team of movie writers (how many movies have terrible female/minority characters because of the diversity problems?) or UX designers, but I don't think your race or gender matters much when piloting a plane...
Of course there is probably currently an excess of white male pilots, but that seems cultural and a socio-economic problem, if you fix the culture (e.g. if little girls also get asked equally as often as little boys if they'd like to be a pilot (instead of a nurse; or if the same percentage of black folks can afford pilot school as white folks), shouldn't this problem fix itself?
Personally I'd cheer on a pilot scholarship for disadvantaged groups, because it'd be nice to see them having some sort of advantage in reaching their dreams after hundreds of years of disadvantages, but I don't think having more black or female pilots would change the job, since, as I said, it's quite a mechanical job. Whereas having a woman or minority in a movie writing crew would probably make a better story due to a more diverse perspective.
These sorts of scholarships increasingly do exist, and I’m confused that you both acknowledge the problem and insult me for raising it. I also think it’s unbelievably patronising if you think the only benefit of diversity is better movie scripts. I support equal rights for mediocre scriptwriters too.
You seem keen on finding the ways people are insulting you. Those 2 examples aren't great, but I don't mean I only care about those fields.
Different voices in the boardroom? I'd say a good thing. Different voices in the cockpit? What the hell difference is that going to make, will the plane fly better due to diversity? The pilots are presumably trained to fly the planes as optimally as they can, and their gender or race shouldn't make a difference to the way they operate these machines...
Diversity is as much about opportunity as it is the economic output at the end. If the most profitable company in the world refused to hire women or black people, we’d still know that was wrong, I hope. But also in this case we almost certainly are promoting mediocre talent, who merely have access to the funds to train. Industry bodies themselves have warned of this, I’m not actually on some one man crusade about it. Believe it or not (despite spending some time writing software for airports) I don’t really care much about aviation, I just thought this was an opportunity for us all to uncover some implicit biases we might be walking round with. But alas, there is now lots of testosterone flying around and it seems unproductive.
In classic Hacker News style, you're now being downvoted too. So clearly the truth is somewhere between "diversity matters" and "diversity doesn't matter". Who knows?! Best not talk about it.
"Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names.
"Eschew flamebait.
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
"Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That destroys the curiosity this site exists for."
Now please consider how many of these guidelines the "You've been brainwashed by left-wing media" insult violated.
The comment was downvoted not because it "told the truth" or talked about a taboo subject, but because it violated the community norms of keeping the site friendly, and making substantial, thoughtful comments.
Now if the poster had omitted the insult and actually substantiated their claim about diversity not mattering much instead of making a throwaway comment about it, they probably would have gotten a bunch of upvotes and maybe even sparked a lively debate.
For a site that supposedly prides itself on discussions that gratify one's intellectual curiosity, there certainly are some jarring taboos on acceptable topics to be curious about.
I appreciate the downvotes, but there is a reason that most people in this job (that costs tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds to train for) sound reassuringly like a middle class man. I am not trying to make anyone feel bad for noticing the pattern, and certainly not for enjoying planes or computer games, but given that the UK government, industry groups like IATA, and several airlines all admit the issue, let's all take a deep breath.
A wide diversity of humans can and have learned to speak the pilot/ATC dialect and cadence; and, English is the generally accepted lingua franca for flight.
I am not sure how class enters the equation, although it seems to me likely that travelers would prefer to hear neither George Plimpton nor an East-End eelmonger over the intercom.
There are probably thousands of people who would be better pilots than the current average, who have no hope of ever qualifying because of either the cost, or the traditional hiring/training patterns of airlines. Maybe that doesn't bother you as a passenger, but it does seem to bother the airlines themselves, who keep introducing programs to address the issue which everyone here clearly knows better than them about.
My point isn’t that planes are racist, as I suspect you know. All I’m saying is the reason most pilots on UK airlines sound the same is because they are the same. Whenever there’s an occupation where we might have a clear cut image of what those people look or sound like (lawyers, doctors, journalists) that’s some small indication that there’s probably a diversity issue at play. You can argue it doesn’t matter, and look, I even said “sub-optimal” up there, I wasn’t trying to call anyone evil. And while race and gender are issues I was also just as much thinking about working class kids’ access to these career paths because of the enormous debts they might have to run up. I share this viewpoint with such radical leftist organisations as the British Airline Pilots’ Association.
I don't know about the UK, but in the USA, many pilots come from the military.
In the USA, if you want to learn to fly for free, rather than with "enormous debts", it's simple.
All you do is go thru the US Air Force Academy. They take black, white, male, female. They will train you for "free". Yes it requires a service commitment but it's by-and-large a meritocracy.
In the USA you're not entitled to pilot training merely for the sake of "diversity". Pay your dues, earn your way.
I had a cousin who did it. He flew jets for the US Air Force for years. He then became a commercial pilot.
Does anyone have any insights regarding licensing?
Is MS opening a big wallet or is it the other way around where these companies want their newest planes in these type of games?
In the video you see "unbeatable fuel efficieny" and I remember seeing Iberia on one of the boeings in the launch trailer, seems like adverts to me.
I usually fail miserably at driving simulators because I drive by the "seat of the pants" feeling, and you get none of that with the driving simulators. It's similar to how badly I do with flight simulators, as I constantly overcontrol it because there's no feedback to my body.
I'm guessing you're not a pilot, then, because the first thing you learn is to absolutely NOT trust your body (by which I mean your vestibular system) - you have to rely on your instruments - your body will always lie to you and get you killed.
I presume you're right about that, but up to a point. My father was a fighter pilot, and he said you live and die by how tight you can turn without stalling out ('cuz then you'll fly right into the crosshairs of the guy behind you trying to line up on you). This is done by feeling in your seat and the control column the minute trembling of the wings as they reach the stall point, and that's exactly where you need to place the airplane.
I took a class in performance driving once. They say to cinch the belt down as tight as you can so that your seat feels every nuance of the road. And it does, and it works. With some practice you can feel when the tires are right at the limit of their grip. It's just like reaching the stall point in an airplane when the wings lose their grip.
Also, airplanes have a "feel" in the control column, and they definitely fly by that pushback. It's so essential that Boeing jets have a "feel computer" to push back on the stick to simulate what the pilot would feel if he were directly controlling the surfaces. There's none of that in the flight simulator games.
Amazingly force feedback has actually been a thing for a while although no recent joysticks seem to support it. People horde the old MS Force Feedback 2 sticks. It does add a lot in particular to things like setting trim to feel the weight on the controls.
Thanks, patents! I think they just expired, finally. FF steering wheels were still being made, but the lower volume stuff like flight joysticks hadn't been willing to pay the licensing cost
> you live and die by how tight you can turn without stalling out
I thought that modern fly-by-wire fighters don't let you stall during a turn. i.e. you just use full stick and the computer gives you the max turn rate.
I feel like everyone on the road except me drives by the seat of their pants with absolute last second decision making that leads to "rude" behavior. As many defensive driving classes I have taken (yeah, you know why), I actually learned a few things from them and now drive very defensively, and it is clear that the majority of drivers do not.
In MS Flight Simulator so far, I noticed that I quickly developed a habit of flying almost 100% from instruments even when there’s great visibility outside. I don’t know if that’s because of what you describe here, or because it’s difficult for me to manipulate the camera and fly the plane at the same time, or because this is actually just the best way to fly a plane. Either way, it’s worked pretty well for someone like me who had no flying experience. I’m also terrible at racing sims for what it’s worth.
I flew for the first time today in a Cessna 172. I had a hard time determining if I was climbing or descending by looking over the cowling and found myself frequently checking the altimeter and rate of climb steam gauges. To be fair it was mountainous terrain so there was no obvious horizon.
That’s funny to read, I took my first flying lesson a few weeks ago and had the exact same problem flying over completely flat terrain. I have some simulator experience which made me look at the instruments way too much, the instructor had to remind me continuously to stop doing that and look outside instead.
The driving sims with feedback rams under moving seats are amazing, this is how pretty well how all of the new generation of racing drivers learn tracks and skills.
Very expensive though. https://youtu.be/X9PoorzvU2k
What's the use case of Flight Simulator? If it's meant to be a practice testbed for pilots, how does using (playing) it on laptop/xbox give you the real flight experience?
I use it to do a practice flight before I do a real world trip to a new airport. That gives me a much better idea of terrain and what to expect than just looking at charts.
It’s also a huge amount fun and let’s you do things that would be unsafe in IRL.
I certainly didn't think about that they would have to re-implement the entire (or at least most of the) computer system the pilot is interacting with as well.
Wow, after playing Microsoft Flight Simulator and flying the Airbus myself this was incredibly informative. A lot of crucial things outlined here, like for example I didn't know you could control the autopilot like that.
