Jump to content

Talk:Flight simulator/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2


Reorganization

While this article generally contains valuable and applicable information, I feel that the organization of this article, as well as the terminology used, could use some cleaning up in order to improve article flow and to match current industry parlance. To this end, I propose the following changes:

The article be renamed to "Flight Simulation". The words "Flight Simulator" have a very specific meaning in recent versions of JAA regulations, and using this name on an article that is not specifically about flight simulators is misleading. I think that Flight Simulator should redirect to Flight Simulation, since this is a common misuse of the term.

The Flight Simulation article should have the following sections:

  • History
  • Types (Current "Flight simulators and flight training devices" section)
  • Uses
  • Qualification, Certification, and Approval (Current "Simulator and flight training device certifications" section)
  • Technology (Current "Instructor operating stations" and "Modern high-end flight simulators" sections)
  • See Also
  • References
  • External Links

The section "Flight simulators at home" should probably be moved to a separate article titled "Amateur Flight Simulation", which would be prominently linked to from this page. This would allow the two main segments of the industry (flight training and entertainment) to maintain relevant information without stepping on each other's toes.

Additionally, pages would be created for any of the following device types that do not already have articles:

  • CPT - Cockpit Procedures Trainer
  • ATD - Aviation Training Device (would encompass both BATD and AATD) (FAA)
  • BITD - Basic Instrument Training Device (JAA)
  • FNPT - Flight and Navigation Procedures Trainer
  • FTD - Flight Training Device
  • FFS - Full Flight Simulator

This article should be removed from the series "Simulation video games", since flight simulation is largely geared toward flight training, although a significant entertainment segment does exist.

Just for everyone's information, semantics are extremely important in the flight simulation industry, so here is a list of common terms and their explanations:

  • Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) - A generic term that encompasses FFS, FTD, FNPT, and BITD.
  • Flight Simulator (FS) - A deprecated term used by the JAA (Joint Aviation Authorities) for devices equivalent to the current Full Flight Simulator (FFS).
  • Full Flight Simulator (FFS) - A term used to describe full motion flight simulation training devices (FSTD). An FFS can only be called such after it is qualified by the FAA or other NAA.
  • Flight Training Device (FTD) - A term used to describe fixed base training devices, either with or without visual systems. An FTD can only be called such after it is qualified by the FAA or other NAA. FTDs, may have motion systems if desired.
  • Flight and Navigation Procedures Trainer - A term used to describe generic fixed base training devices. This is a term used only by the JAA. FNPTs may have motion systems if desired.
  • Aviation Training Device (ATD) - A term used to describe generic fixed base training devices. This is a term used only by the FAA. There are two types; Basic ATDs and Advanced ATDs.
  • Cockpit Procedures Trainer (CPT) - A term used to describe a trainer that provides the basic layout of a cockpit, but with little or no aerodynamic modeling.
  • Qualification - The current term for approval of an FSTD to be used for flight training. Granted by the FAA or other NAA.
  • Certification - A deprecated term equivalent to qualification. No longer in use.
  • Approval - The current term for approval of an ATD by the FAA to be used for flight training. Also a deprecated term equivalent to qualification.
Additional Notes
  • Regulation of FSTD in Europe is still handled by the JAA under JAR-FSTD A and JAR-FSTD H. Although draft regulations have been published by EASA (CS-FSTD A and CS-FSTD H), a final rule has yet to take effect.
  • In the united states, the FAA regulates FSTD qualification under 14 CFR Part 60. ATD approval guidance is provided in AC 61-136.

If I don't hear any objections to these changes in the next few days, I will go ahead and start the reorganization.

NoNameXII (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

X-Plane certification

Contrary to a widely-held misconception, X-Plane itself isn't certified for anything by the FAA. There are certain complete simulator configurations that incorporate X-Plane that are certified for certain limited purposes, but only the complete configurations are certified, not the X-Plane software itself (that is, if X-Plane is used in any way other than part of the certified configuration, it has no special status at all). Article corrected to remove the claims of certification for the software. Agateller (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Whirlybirds

Helicopter flight sims seem to be very rare. Presumably low demand. Drutt 19:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that dedicated rotor-wing simulators are very rare, however, it seems as though the PC simulators have involved helicopters quite well. The Microsoft series of Flight Simulator, for example, includes a couple of default choppers, and of course there will always be a great number of third-party add-ons. -Brian

How are the controls simulated in a home enviroment? Drutt (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Stick and rudder pedals, or a stick with a twist axis (for the rudder), or an auto-rudder feature on some sims Yosef1987 (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Modified Home Built section

Magicaldr 22:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Provided stronger links to simpits area which covers home built simulators. Tried to remove bias to one companies software and general references to specific packages to more globally overview the current state of home simulator building against commercial simulators.

Magicaldr 21:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Further updates to homebuilt section, added example photo of common mid range hardware and re-wrote the article to try and better fit into the whole page as well as update the content. Renamed the section to indicate it relates purely to homebuilt cockpits as opposed to home simulation which is what the main section is about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Magicaldr (talk • contribs) 21:10, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Magicaldr 09:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Moved 'Home Cockpit Software' section links to external links where other comparable links were already contained. Added in a small range of other commercial links to provide a more balanced view of what is available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicaldr (talk • contribs) 09:39, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Flightexperiencewa (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC) The section on Home Built cockpits has a reference to Flight Experience in New Zealand. I have added a link to their website under External Links as there is more information available about the simulators themselves.

Why is there a section for links to commercial websites here? WP:SPAM, no? - Special-T 22:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, removed commercial links heading (was just trying to highlight that they were commercial) and flagged links for review. Suggest also merge of simpits into home cockpits or vica versa. Magicaldr 23:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


The heading is not the problem - these are links to completely commercial websites. I'll leave it to someone familiar with the subject matter to sift through them judiciously, but the websites I clicked on are clearly spam. - Special-T 00:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are the links that were in the section. Anyone think any should be restored back into the article?

--Ronz 00:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of the links, while commercial, are commonly in use in home cockpits, so do show what is available. However in an encylopedic sense I don't think they add much to the article and it stands well on its own. Equally some of the links are pure spam, not software I have come across, and seems to be there more to advertise than inform. In fact I felt the original 'Home Cockpit' sub article was written simply to push the software add ins, not inform on subject matter. The same links (shown below) then appeared in other home cockpit pages after they were removed from here.

I personally feel we should leave all the commercial links out of the article, as all the sites are easy to locate with a simple google search if a person wishes to go further into the subject. Magicaldr 12:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the following writing due to it reading as an advertisement for a product, rather than give insight into residential flight simulators:

"In 2009, Russian game-developer neoqb released World War I combat flight simulator called Rise of Flight: The First Great Air War. The game has unique physics and flight model and also an advanced damage model, which bring new level of realism to a user. Rise of Flight features an advanced flight model that simulates the unique handling characteristics of World War I aircraft. Spins, stalls, loops, takeoffs and landings are all accurately modeled. The complex physics model simulates natural forces such as lift, g-force, inertia and torque, which allows for an amazing level of fidelity and interaction of objects within the game environment. The detailed and progressive damage model tracks the trajectory of every bullet and shell fragment, leaving no room for error." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ev3nfl0w (talk • contribs) 06:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Reworking of sections / article as whole

Reading through this article in full (I previously focused on home cockpits as I have an interest in these) it seems to me that we need more sections. We also need to somehow make this read as a single contiguous article. Currently to me this reads as 3 separate (although interesting) articles, each covering the basics of flight simulators in commercial environments, but with focus on slightly different areas or simulators.

I have played with breaking up the page while keeping the content, but cannot order it to better effect myself without major alterations to what is really good reading. As an example there is repeated discussion on what a flight simulator can be used for, and details of the axis of motion available. We should in my opinion cover each item once in their own sections. Would value other editors thoughts. Magicaldr 23:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Spam - Homebuilt 3 Axis Motion Platform

I added this link in, although it is not my site and I have no affiliation to it. I found it while researching home cockpit designs and feel it provides a reference backup to my comments in the Homebuilt section regarding homebuilt motion platforms. The site does sell plans, but not for the 3 axis sim. The advertising is only to the side and the primary purpose of the site is as an article on the 3 axis sim and its development to other home cockpit builders.

Obviously I feel this adds some interesting further reading into the subject and is not a spam link, but I note it was removed as spam and would welcome comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.16.50 (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ride Simulators

I feel this fails to add anything to this article, although it could be argued that it belongs in 'See Also' section. To me flight simulation needs a degree of user input, a motion platform with a movie is not simulating, it is simply playing back.

Thoughts anyone? Magicaldr 18:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Google Earth

Since the latest version now includes a (pretty basic) Flight Sim that is accessible by pressing Ctrl+A. Does this mean it merits inclusion here? I wanted to ask before I jumped in and edited. Timw06 16:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This article needs additional citations for verification.

I note that this was flagged as needing citations, however was there anything specific that whoever flagged it was asking to be referenced or challenging? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicaldr (talk • contribs) 05:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed a link today to http://www.sailorsofthesky.com/ which to my mind adds nothing to the general article on Flight Simulation. As per WIKI policy it is not desirable to have a link to every flight simulator, and I feel we should only add in external links that add in further reading not already available.

I have added in the WP:WPSPAM no more links template and suggest new external links are discussed here prior to be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicaldr (talk • contribs) 12:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Flightexperiencewa (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC) I have added Flight Experience in New Zealand to the External Links as they were mentioned in the Home Built cockpits section and they have more information about their simulators on with website.

Is PFD really the main problem?

I have removed the following paragraph:

"The main problem with homebuilt simulator systems is to find real software and hardware for GPS and PFD navigation that can also be used for pilot training and in the same time interface with air data from flight simulators. To make this more easy, fun and useful the FSFDEXGA software a plug-in for MS Flight Simulator together with the popular FSUIPC plug-in enables external system like the Q-12 Series (Electronic Map Display and Primary Flight Display) to show live GPS and AHRS data in external simulator displays."

This contradicts with the previous article section which states that there are a variety of suppliers for software/hardware. I can list a whole range of suppliers for off the shelf software for PFD or GPS using a 2nd PC. There is also the option to simply undock windows from flight simulator on a multi-head graphics card (which is how I approach this) which opens up the options even further.

To me this addition is contradictory, and linked to only 1 software provider. This makes it more commercial than informative. Although I accept this may not have been the intention, which is why I am clarifying my reasons for removing it here. Happy to discuss this and reach a compromise.

Magicaldr (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Shuttle lift-off in Orbiter.jpg

Image:Shuttle lift-off in Orbiter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Shuttle lift-off in Orbiter.jpg

Image:Shuttle lift-off in Orbiter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Aerowinx

Aerowinx (Precision Simulator 1.3 or PS1.3) should be included

It is the most realistic PC simulator

I added it and it got removed a while back

www.aerowinx.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.196.232.22 (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims required extraordinary citations, I imagine that without verifiable sources such material would be deleted from the article. Icemotoboy (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Can it be added without extraordinary claims, and adding to the ref list this site or sub-pages like this: http://aerowinx.com/html/reviews.html
it is too good to be forgottenYosef1987 (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not trying to advertise BTW, i don't care...it has been sold out in April 2008, I've added it, it has the right to be addedYosef1987 (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flight_simulator/Archive_1&oldid=1250470930"