What Is A Level D Simulator?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad (Flt) Scientist, I agree mostly with your comments – in fact, the only place that I would add (please note, that is “add” NOT “differ”) is that cause-effect models break down when trying to cater for abnormal conditions (just as you said) but they also often break down when the crew operates the systems incorrectly for the situation at hand.
lefthanddownabit, you also are quite correct in your summation of the various levels of simulation … for the JAA (soon-to-be EASA) standards. The US differs slightly in that the Level A simulator also has prescribed tolerances for objective tests, whereas, JAA merely requires CT&M for a majority of cases (…correct trend and magnitude).
As for my statement that “MSFS is not a simulation” being not true … You say,
In other words, MSFS is the same, just different. And the only places it’s different are data resolution, complexity, coefficients, and performance and handling to the extent that one shouldn’t expect to learn much about aircraft handling from it. Additionally, it’s not “validated” by anybody. OK. I think that’s probably a bit generous, but, in general, I agree with that. They are the same with those differences. The space shuttle and an RC model airplane are the same – just with some differences.
AHRS, I have elected to keep my identity and my employer’s identity to myself. I don’t want to have my employer feel obligated to defend itself against accusations or comments they might receive because of something I’ve said or implied. Therefore, you, nor anyone else, really knows if I know what I’m talking about or not – that is a given. However, if you choose, you can believe me when I say, I think I am quite qualified to make remarks about aircraft certification, simulation and its production and application, as well as pilot training with and without the use of simulation. I’ll let you read any of my posts here to see if I “appear” to be knowledgeable or not. Your choice. You choose.
Having said all that, while I applaud your efforts and your apparent success in getting through your flight training as you have, and I don’t say this to “pop your balloon,” there are others who have gone through similar flight training scenarios, and have done just as well, and have done so without the “benefit” of years of MSFS operation. So, I would submit that you are probably not quite as uniquely able (even if you do ascribe your abilities largely to MSFS) as you might think.
Also, I would suggest that you re-read my earlier posts. I’m not saying that MSFS doesn’t have any redeeming qualities – just that it does not substitute for the airplane for flight training activities. Any computer-based system, accurately programmed, can do wonders for systems knowledge, procedural steps, sequencing of events, etc. I have described such devices as computerized, animated, and interactive chalkboards – and I certainly don’t use that term in a demeaning manner. In fact I have been on a campaign for a number of years to have manufacturers of certain training equipment (CAE and FlightSafety come to mind immediately) that represent the cockpit of a given aircraft in a series of flat-panel displays (either LCD or Plasma) that are touch sensitive; and are programmed with the identical programming that is found on the legitimate Level C or D simulator – so there are no concerns about interoperability issues between systems, etc. I believe such devices can, and would, allow a pilot to complete training with less time in the aircraft or with less time in the Level C or D simulator – without having to have these new training devices meet any regulatory established standards and be qualified as some lesser level of “flight training device;” the caveat, of course, is that they DO, actually, function correctly. There are other pieces of training equipment that are similar, except they do not have the cockpit mockup with touch-sensitive screens. These cases involve the use of laptop computers (or desktop – dictated by preference), also have systems (often including avionics) programmed rather accurately, and are used for pre-classroom training by several major airlines and training centers. However, here too, the programming is based on manufacturer-supplied data and someone knowledgeable about what such programming should do has verified that programming. These devices are also very effectively used in these cases – but, again, there is no expectation that what is learned is complete and there is no implication that “flight training” has been initiated, let alone, been conducted.
So, because I really don’t know, it would be interesting to find out just who is it that verifies the programming and the interoperability between systems on any version of MSFS? Do you know? Does anyone know? I recognize that Mr. Gates and most of his senior staff at MS have enough clout, certainly enough money, to be able to hire or purchase whatever they want – up to a point. But I know for certain that the development of an accurate aerodynamic model for any given airplane simulation is a tedious endeavor that involves a lot of high-tech equipment and people knowledgeable enough to use it – not to mention access to and use of the appropriate airplane for a rather extended period of time – and the person who owns the airplane has to agree to having things done to his aircraft that are not typical – like drilling holes through the pressure vessel. Then this data is used to modify an aerodynamic program for the structure of the airplane involved, and eventually, a sophisticated, arithmetic representation of the performance and handling qualities of the specific aircraft is developed. When sold to a specific simulator sponsor (at least in the US, and I would assume it is true elsewhere around the globe as well) it is sold with proprietary rights that this aero-program be used ONLY on that single simulator and nothing else. That model, in today’s market, goes for something on the order of $1.5 million a copy. I wonder what that cost would be to MS if the manufacturer knew it was to be loaded onto a platform like MSFS and sold by the millions, if not billions, to interested parties such as yourself for something even like an order of magnitude MORE than you paid for your MSFS version.
Your comment about taking “two rookie pilots” and training them with only one having exposure to MSFS, has already been accomplished – or at least the experiment conducted was close to what you suggest. It was completed several years ago; and, if I’m reading your posts correctly, it was done in your back yard, I believe at the University of Cranfield. The basic experiment was to test the value of “training” on a computer based training device – complete with a computer generated instrument panel and an out-of-the-cockpit visual scene. There were two such computer based devices: one had a stick, rudder pedals, and a throttle; the other used a keyboard and mouse. Three groups of ab initio students were trained equally in ground school. The “control group” went from ground school to the aircraft where they were given a “trials-to-performance” test on 8 tasks commonly expected of private pilots. I don’t remember all the tasks but they were things like turns to headings; accelerate to a stated airspeed and then slow to the original airspeed; climb to an altitude and then descend to the original altitude while maintaining airspeed; interception of an electronic radial; steep turns; etc. The other two groups went to their respective computer-based training devices. Each student was given training on the accomplishment of all the maneuvers that they were to see in the airplane including the 8 which were to be compared. This training was an additional 4 hours per student.
When the trial groups went to the airplane they were given the same “trials-to-performance” tests. The first computer group did much better than the non-computer group did – reaching acceptable performance in about 2/3 of the number of trials taken by the control group. But what was interesting, was that the second computer group did just as well as the first computer group – reaching acceptable performance in about 2/3 of the number of trials taken by the control group. Recall, that the 2nd computer group “flew” the training device with a keyboard and a mouse! What this says to me is that additional training is probably valuable. But what was translated into the airplane was not due to the accuracy or the fidelity of the control method, as they were completely different. So, the additional training must have been realized in additional opportunities to see relationships between bank and pitch, relationships between pitch and airspeed, and so forth. What wasn’t accounted for in this additional experiment was, what would have happened had the “control group” been given an additional 4 hours of training, using a chalkboard, and emphasizing just those relationships? It would be an interesting experiment to try some day.
XPMorten, the links you provided take one to sites sponsored by organizations or persons with whom I am quite familiar. I know and have had extensive conversations with the owner of Fidelity Flight Simulation, Inc. and the developer of the Motus device. In fact, I “flew” the version of this device that was built as a “generic” version of a B-737 a couple of years ago, I think, at a WATS Convention in Montreal. As I recall, the device was not quite ready for sale – as it had only force transducers for rudder pedal use (the pedals did not move, they only recorded the amount of force applied) and, as I recall, the seats did not adjust. I asked the owner why he did not ask the FAA to evaluate the device as a Level 6 FTD and he indicated that it probably would not pass – and, besides, getting it qualified as a “generic” level trainer – at that time a Level 2 FTD – was easier in that no objective tests were required and only a cursory, subjective “flight” was required to “certificate” the line of devices. AND, the authorization issued by the FAA for its use in pilot training was at least as much – likely greater – than if it were qualified to Level 6 FTD standards.
And, the comments posted by mutt were not, I believe, intended to be applied to any type of training outside of those who currently use the normally understood “flight simulators” for substitution of the airplane for training, testing, and checking authorizations. General aviation has always had a lesser level of restriction on training programs – in fact, a Fixed Base Operator, operating within the confines of Part 61 of the FARs does not need to have FAA approval for their programs. The Motus device must be used within a training center approved by the FAA under Part 141 of the FARs – which does require FAA-approval of their training programs. But, none of these schools, to my knowledge anyway, currently use anything like what major training centers or airline training departments use. So your links are really references to “apples and oranges.”
I Truly did not expect to get this amount of comment from my posts … but that is what forums like this are all about.
lefthanddownabit, you also are quite correct in your summation of the various levels of simulation … for the JAA (soon-to-be EASA) standards. The US differs slightly in that the Level A simulator also has prescribed tolerances for objective tests, whereas, JAA merely requires CT&M for a majority of cases (…correct trend and magnitude).
As for my statement that “MSFS is not a simulation” being not true … You say,
The MSFS aero model works in just the same way as in a Level D sim, only the data has much less resolution, less complexity, fewer coefficients and is not validated by anybody. The MSFS flight model is very simplified, so no one should expect to learn much about aircraft handling from it. What you can learn is radio navigation, procedures (though not on the included default aircraft), etc.
AHRS, I have elected to keep my identity and my employer’s identity to myself. I don’t want to have my employer feel obligated to defend itself against accusations or comments they might receive because of something I’ve said or implied. Therefore, you, nor anyone else, really knows if I know what I’m talking about or not – that is a given. However, if you choose, you can believe me when I say, I think I am quite qualified to make remarks about aircraft certification, simulation and its production and application, as well as pilot training with and without the use of simulation. I’ll let you read any of my posts here to see if I “appear” to be knowledgeable or not. Your choice. You choose.
Having said all that, while I applaud your efforts and your apparent success in getting through your flight training as you have, and I don’t say this to “pop your balloon,” there are others who have gone through similar flight training scenarios, and have done just as well, and have done so without the “benefit” of years of MSFS operation. So, I would submit that you are probably not quite as uniquely able (even if you do ascribe your abilities largely to MSFS) as you might think.
Also, I would suggest that you re-read my earlier posts. I’m not saying that MSFS doesn’t have any redeeming qualities – just that it does not substitute for the airplane for flight training activities. Any computer-based system, accurately programmed, can do wonders for systems knowledge, procedural steps, sequencing of events, etc. I have described such devices as computerized, animated, and interactive chalkboards – and I certainly don’t use that term in a demeaning manner. In fact I have been on a campaign for a number of years to have manufacturers of certain training equipment (CAE and FlightSafety come to mind immediately) that represent the cockpit of a given aircraft in a series of flat-panel displays (either LCD or Plasma) that are touch sensitive; and are programmed with the identical programming that is found on the legitimate Level C or D simulator – so there are no concerns about interoperability issues between systems, etc. I believe such devices can, and would, allow a pilot to complete training with less time in the aircraft or with less time in the Level C or D simulator – without having to have these new training devices meet any regulatory established standards and be qualified as some lesser level of “flight training device;” the caveat, of course, is that they DO, actually, function correctly. There are other pieces of training equipment that are similar, except they do not have the cockpit mockup with touch-sensitive screens. These cases involve the use of laptop computers (or desktop – dictated by preference), also have systems (often including avionics) programmed rather accurately, and are used for pre-classroom training by several major airlines and training centers. However, here too, the programming is based on manufacturer-supplied data and someone knowledgeable about what such programming should do has verified that programming. These devices are also very effectively used in these cases – but, again, there is no expectation that what is learned is complete and there is no implication that “flight training” has been initiated, let alone, been conducted.
So, because I really don’t know, it would be interesting to find out just who is it that verifies the programming and the interoperability between systems on any version of MSFS? Do you know? Does anyone know? I recognize that Mr. Gates and most of his senior staff at MS have enough clout, certainly enough money, to be able to hire or purchase whatever they want – up to a point. But I know for certain that the development of an accurate aerodynamic model for any given airplane simulation is a tedious endeavor that involves a lot of high-tech equipment and people knowledgeable enough to use it – not to mention access to and use of the appropriate airplane for a rather extended period of time – and the person who owns the airplane has to agree to having things done to his aircraft that are not typical – like drilling holes through the pressure vessel. Then this data is used to modify an aerodynamic program for the structure of the airplane involved, and eventually, a sophisticated, arithmetic representation of the performance and handling qualities of the specific aircraft is developed. When sold to a specific simulator sponsor (at least in the US, and I would assume it is true elsewhere around the globe as well) it is sold with proprietary rights that this aero-program be used ONLY on that single simulator and nothing else. That model, in today’s market, goes for something on the order of $1.5 million a copy. I wonder what that cost would be to MS if the manufacturer knew it was to be loaded onto a platform like MSFS and sold by the millions, if not billions, to interested parties such as yourself for something even like an order of magnitude MORE than you paid for your MSFS version.
Your comment about taking “two rookie pilots” and training them with only one having exposure to MSFS, has already been accomplished – or at least the experiment conducted was close to what you suggest. It was completed several years ago; and, if I’m reading your posts correctly, it was done in your back yard, I believe at the University of Cranfield. The basic experiment was to test the value of “training” on a computer based training device – complete with a computer generated instrument panel and an out-of-the-cockpit visual scene. There were two such computer based devices: one had a stick, rudder pedals, and a throttle; the other used a keyboard and mouse. Three groups of ab initio students were trained equally in ground school. The “control group” went from ground school to the aircraft where they were given a “trials-to-performance” test on 8 tasks commonly expected of private pilots. I don’t remember all the tasks but they were things like turns to headings; accelerate to a stated airspeed and then slow to the original airspeed; climb to an altitude and then descend to the original altitude while maintaining airspeed; interception of an electronic radial; steep turns; etc. The other two groups went to their respective computer-based training devices. Each student was given training on the accomplishment of all the maneuvers that they were to see in the airplane including the 8 which were to be compared. This training was an additional 4 hours per student.
When the trial groups went to the airplane they were given the same “trials-to-performance” tests. The first computer group did much better than the non-computer group did – reaching acceptable performance in about 2/3 of the number of trials taken by the control group. But what was interesting, was that the second computer group did just as well as the first computer group – reaching acceptable performance in about 2/3 of the number of trials taken by the control group. Recall, that the 2nd computer group “flew” the training device with a keyboard and a mouse! What this says to me is that additional training is probably valuable. But what was translated into the airplane was not due to the accuracy or the fidelity of the control method, as they were completely different. So, the additional training must have been realized in additional opportunities to see relationships between bank and pitch, relationships between pitch and airspeed, and so forth. What wasn’t accounted for in this additional experiment was, what would have happened had the “control group” been given an additional 4 hours of training, using a chalkboard, and emphasizing just those relationships? It would be an interesting experiment to try some day.
XPMorten, the links you provided take one to sites sponsored by organizations or persons with whom I am quite familiar. I know and have had extensive conversations with the owner of Fidelity Flight Simulation, Inc. and the developer of the Motus device. In fact, I “flew” the version of this device that was built as a “generic” version of a B-737 a couple of years ago, I think, at a WATS Convention in Montreal. As I recall, the device was not quite ready for sale – as it had only force transducers for rudder pedal use (the pedals did not move, they only recorded the amount of force applied) and, as I recall, the seats did not adjust. I asked the owner why he did not ask the FAA to evaluate the device as a Level 6 FTD and he indicated that it probably would not pass – and, besides, getting it qualified as a “generic” level trainer – at that time a Level 2 FTD – was easier in that no objective tests were required and only a cursory, subjective “flight” was required to “certificate” the line of devices. AND, the authorization issued by the FAA for its use in pilot training was at least as much – likely greater – than if it were qualified to Level 6 FTD standards.
And, the comments posted by mutt were not, I believe, intended to be applied to any type of training outside of those who currently use the normally understood “flight simulators” for substitution of the airplane for training, testing, and checking authorizations. General aviation has always had a lesser level of restriction on training programs – in fact, a Fixed Base Operator, operating within the confines of Part 61 of the FARs does not need to have FAA approval for their programs. The Motus device must be used within a training center approved by the FAA under Part 141 of the FARs – which does require FAA-approval of their training programs. But, none of these schools, to my knowledge anyway, currently use anything like what major training centers or airline training departments use. So your links are really references to “apples and oranges.”
I Truly did not expect to get this amount of comment from my posts … but that is what forums like this are all about.
Last edited by AirRabbit; 15th Apr 2007 at 20:29.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I AM NOT SURE WHETHER HE IS QUALIFIED TO MAKE SUCH DEMEANING STATEMENTS ABOUT MSFS.
Mutt
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was kinda surprised to see that some Simulators can be changed quite radically on the fly. A few years i was flying a research session in a simulator that is normally certified as class D and used for normal flight crew training for the A330 and A340. In that session the simulator was actually simulating an aircraft that doesn't even exist (A340 with a canard above the forward fuselage and A300 undercarriage, the latter one was just cheaper than the original landing gear model, the canard was the research topic) and in the next simulator session a normal crew was doing its normal recurrent training.
To change that simulator all that was needed was plugging in a notebook and change some aspects of the simulation model while still using those modules that were available from the original simulator. On the link given above you can find further information how they do it.
To change that simulator all that was needed was plugging in a notebook and change some aspects of the simulation model while still using those modules that were available from the original simulator. On the link given above you can find further information how they do it.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This type of “research” vehicle is not unusual. For a couple of decades, the US FAA had evaluated and qualified a B-727 simulator located at the NASA Ames facilities at Moffett Field, California. Several years ago, NASA donated that B-727 and purchased a new B-747-400 Level D simulator. This simulator is not used for regular crew training, but, because of the nature of the research, NASA, in conjunction with the FAA, concluded that any research conducted using a simulator that was not maintained in the same working order as any other simulator used for flight crew training would not hold up to the inevitable scrutiny that might follow. Therefore, this particular simulator is held to the same standards and evaluation schedule as any airline or training center simulator.
Along those same lines, the FAA’s own simulator operation at the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma City, OK, recently exchanged their aging B-727 simulator for a more modern B-737-800 Level D simulator . This particular simulator, whose main function will be research and development as well, as been acknowledged as likely to be used for the conduct of some training, and is, at present used in the training of FAA inspectors to conduct simulator evaluations. Current and former members of the FAA’s National Simulator Program Staff conduct this training. Just recently, the Aero Center has been given the “green light” to let a new contract for a Level D, Airbus A-330 / A-340 convertible simulator which will be used in the same way as the B-737-800 simulator is currently used.
Along those same lines, the FAA’s own simulator operation at the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma City, OK, recently exchanged their aging B-727 simulator for a more modern B-737-800 Level D simulator . This particular simulator, whose main function will be research and development as well, as been acknowledged as likely to be used for the conduct of some training, and is, at present used in the training of FAA inspectors to conduct simulator evaluations. Current and former members of the FAA’s National Simulator Program Staff conduct this training. Just recently, the Aero Center has been given the “green light” to let a new contract for a Level D, Airbus A-330 / A-340 convertible simulator which will be used in the same way as the B-737-800 simulator is currently used.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In other words, MSFS is the same, just different. And the only places it’s different are data resolution, complexity, coefficients, and performance and handling to the extent that one shouldn’t expect to learn much about aircraft handling from it. Additionally, it’s not “validated” by anybody. OK. I think that’s probably a bit generous, but, in general, I agree with that. They are the same with those differences. The space shuttle and an RC model airplane are the same – just with some differences.
Some people seem to think sims like X-Plane are inherently more realistic because shape determines aerodynamic characteristics. This simulation method is actually no more likely to produce a better result than the data table model. The difference in performance is almost certainly due to the more complex aero model and equations of motion used in X-Plane. MSFS is highly simplified.
You certainly couldn't replace the FFS with MSFS. However some pilots use MSFS plus complex add-on for practise. An airline could use such a desktop trainer in their training programme, would receive no credits for it, but might get better training transfer in the CPT, FBS and FFS sessions.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey lefthanddownabit:
With the exception of your 2nd and last sentences, your quote here (the underlined part) is the crux of the issue. That is, whether a more accurate and more realistic simulation can be achieved through the use of a complex set equations of motion, modified by coefficients derived directly from flight test of the subject airplane – OR – if one can be provided via a set of look-up tables, populated with what someone thinks (or for that matter, has knee-board data to prove) is representative of the airplane under varying sets of circumstances. Several decades ago the simulation industry went to the aerodynamic model; and quite frankly, I think that is why X-plane has a pretty nice product. Whether or not a COTS X-plane package can be used with flight test derived coefficients (or public domain values in the same areas), and provide the necessary accuracy and realism for a regulator to accept the result as adequate substitution for the airplane, I think remains to be seen – although it probably won’t be terribly long before someone does just exactly that and some regulatory authority somewhere around the world will be confronted with making that decision.
Some people seem to think sims like X-Plane are inherently more realistic because shape determines aerodynamic characteristics. This simulation method is actually no more likely to produce a better result than the data table model. The difference in performance is almost certainly due to the more complex aero model and equations of motion used in X-Plane. MSFS is highly simplified.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some people seem to think sims like X-Plane are inherently more realistic because shape determines aerodynamic characteristics.
When these programs start running full 3D Navier-Stokes solvers, I might - emphasis on MIGHT - given them some credence.
Given a choice between a panel method (or whatever it uses) and REAL flight test data ... it's no contest at all.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UAE
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
take your sacrcasm home
So funny Mut (HO HO HO)......but you apparently missed the whole point.Your sarcasm is a reflection of your tunnel vision perhaps.Curiosly...what have you gained or how have you benefited the thread by your sarcasm?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UAE
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A LEVEL D SIMULATOR.
I APPLAUD YOUR EXTENSIVE AND IN DEPTH THESIS Mr.AirRabbit.Your knowledge of the subject is indeed commendable.Just want to clear a small misunderstanding.
My statement was intended for your lack of succinct qualifications to demean MSFS as a pre-flight training devise was on the subject of MSFS and not the real simulators.If you wish to verify how the programming is vetted it is best to approach the individual companies that produce the add ons(which is my focus rather than MSFS itself).
This thread was announced with the intent on getting a definition..just DEFINITION of what a Level D simulator was and whether the aircraft on the list I had shown have any fitting to that definition...it was not a trick question or a cryptic one either.
There was no need to inflate my head with your applause for the success of my training....never requested it.I never suggested that the sucess of my training benefitted entirely due to MSFS preparation, rather that its augmentation was very useful(unlike the position that you took on the same) to pre Sim-flight training...PARTICULARLY(I MUST ADD), AFTER A VERY LONG ABSENCE FROM FLYING...SUCH AS ALMOST 10 YEARS!
As I have introduced this thread, I think it would be good to thank every one for the thoughts and commentary this thread has provoked,inspite of the huge divergeance from the original question after your provoking the MSFS factor , despite of my warning against related answers with respect to MSFS in my original question.Some individuals were close to answering the thread more relevantly and I PARTICULARLY COMMEND AND THANK MAD(FLT)SCIENTIST,LEFTHAND DOWN A BIT,and RBR919.Your commentry Air RABBIT was non the less enlighteneing and no doubt, look forward to savouring more from you in future threads
I now consider this thread terminal,unless a clearer textbook DEFINITION of the various levels of Simulators can be offered.
Cheers
AHRS
My statement was intended for your lack of succinct qualifications to demean MSFS as a pre-flight training devise was on the subject of MSFS and not the real simulators.If you wish to verify how the programming is vetted it is best to approach the individual companies that produce the add ons(which is my focus rather than MSFS itself).
This thread was announced with the intent on getting a definition..just DEFINITION of what a Level D simulator was and whether the aircraft on the list I had shown have any fitting to that definition...it was not a trick question or a cryptic one either.
There was no need to inflate my head with your applause for the success of my training....never requested it.I never suggested that the sucess of my training benefitted entirely due to MSFS preparation, rather that its augmentation was very useful(unlike the position that you took on the same) to pre Sim-flight training...PARTICULARLY(I MUST ADD), AFTER A VERY LONG ABSENCE FROM FLYING...SUCH AS ALMOST 10 YEARS!
As I have introduced this thread, I think it would be good to thank every one for the thoughts and commentary this thread has provoked,inspite of the huge divergeance from the original question after your provoking the MSFS factor , despite of my warning against related answers with respect to MSFS in my original question.Some individuals were close to answering the thread more relevantly and I PARTICULARLY COMMEND AND THANK MAD(FLT)SCIENTIST,LEFTHAND DOWN A BIT,and RBR919.Your commentry Air RABBIT was non the less enlighteneing and no doubt, look forward to savouring more from you in future threads
I now consider this thread terminal,unless a clearer textbook DEFINITION of the various levels of Simulators can be offered.
Cheers
AHRS
Last edited by AHRS; 16th Apr 2007 at 05:01.
Moderator
An interesting thread .. but can we all try to keep a goodly sense of humour and good cheer generally ... those who are competent will be recognised by others of competence after a few posts and accorded an appropriate level of professional respect and courtesy ...
If I may add several comments -
(a) some years ago I was involved part time in a particular 737-300 training program.
On a couple of sessions, I was able to take two maintainer colleagues who worked for me in my day job. Neither had pilot licences, as I recall, but both were very knowledge aircraft folk and dreadfully avid flight simmers .. with whichever programs they used.
During the breaks, I put each in the seat, in turn, for a few minutes of push and pull famil and then an ILS. To say that I was more than amazed at the ability of each to drive the box (full flight) to the ILS minima and do a passable landing would be about spot on ... Of course, they would have been all at sea with abnormals and emergencies but the basic speed with which they settled into the seat still causes me to shake my head somewhat ..
(b) I am sure that no-one seeks to equate MSFS and similar software with the high end "real" simulation kits. However, they do have a potentially significant value in, eg, maintaining scan rates and procedural comfort for those whose jobs for the time being don't get them into the real aircraft or real sim ...
Be interesting to see this thread get into the meat of simulator evaluation and certification ... ?
If I may add several comments -
(a) some years ago I was involved part time in a particular 737-300 training program.
On a couple of sessions, I was able to take two maintainer colleagues who worked for me in my day job. Neither had pilot licences, as I recall, but both were very knowledge aircraft folk and dreadfully avid flight simmers .. with whichever programs they used.
During the breaks, I put each in the seat, in turn, for a few minutes of push and pull famil and then an ILS. To say that I was more than amazed at the ability of each to drive the box (full flight) to the ILS minima and do a passable landing would be about spot on ... Of course, they would have been all at sea with abnormals and emergencies but the basic speed with which they settled into the seat still causes me to shake my head somewhat ..
(b) I am sure that no-one seeks to equate MSFS and similar software with the high end "real" simulation kits. However, they do have a potentially significant value in, eg, maintaining scan rates and procedural comfort for those whose jobs for the time being don't get them into the real aircraft or real sim ...
Be interesting to see this thread get into the meat of simulator evaluation and certification ... ?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be interesting to see this thread get into the meat of simulator evaluation and certification ... ?
I'd be glad to try and answer questions if you have any.
Whether or not a COTS X-plane package can be used with flight test derived coefficients (or public domain values in the same areas), and provide the necessary accuracy and realism for a regulator to accept the result as adequate substitution for the airplane, I think remains to be seen – although it probably won’t be terribly long before someone does just exactly that and some regulatory authority somewhere around the world will be confronted with making that decision.
whether a more accurate and more realistic simulation can be achieved through the use of a complex set equations of motion, modified by coefficients derived directly from flight test of the subject airplane – OR – if one can be provided via a set of look-up tables, populated with what someone thinks (or for that matter, has knee-board data to prove) is representative of the airplane under varying sets of circumstances.
Secondly you don't seem to understand aerodynamic modelling. Coefficients are not used to "modify" the equations of motion. Equations of motion come later. First you calculate the aero coefficients and derivatives. From these you calculate forces and moments. Then you insert these values into the EOM.
X-plane allegedly computes coefficients and derivatives from the shape of the 3D model. As the average PC is not yet capable of real time CFD calculations, I suspect this is very simplified and based on published data for aerofoils. Where X-Plane wins over MSFS is that the model they use is more complete, not how they compute the data. Anyway if the aerodynamics of X-Plane is in anyway realistic and non-linear then the only way to do this is with polynomial approximations or function generation (using data tables!).
Several decades ago the simulation industry went to the aerodynamic model; and quite frankly, I think that is why X-plane has a pretty nice product.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: north
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every flight simulation needs an aero model, why does this make X-Plane "nice".
simulator. The problem is that only the aircraft manufacturer has
access to the HUGE amount of data needed to pull it off. Also, these data
will usually be within the envelope. Once outside, things get VERY
complicated. MSFS has a very primitive flightmodel compared to X-Plane.
Austin Meyer (the developer of X-Plane) recently posted the below in reponse
to a review comparing X-Plane to MSFS. It gives you an idea why
the difference is siginificant between the two.
WARNING: Austin is not known for his diplomatic skills
http://www.xplanefreeware.net/morten/DOCS/XPvsFS.rtf
Cheers,
M
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was really hoping AirRabbit would explain the comment I quoted, never mind.
As you say, Austin Meyer is not very diplomatic, more like one of those infomercial salesmen. That style would not go down well this side of the pond.
What Austin Meyer is implying is that his X-Plane is better than any Level D ZFT simulator, which also use lookup tables and which might not consider something or other. Each of his blade elements will probably have a few lookup tables in it's model. You've got to have the data somewhere.
MSFS is well know for more or less ignoring sideslip. Also the lack of many terms means some dynamics are completely missing. The problem is not the so called lookup method, which to the layman sounds inherently unrealistic. It sounds like you take the flight condition, look it up in a table and come out directly with the resulting preformance. In fact all a lookup table is doing is providing a quick and convenient way to model what might be a non-linear, multi-dimensional function.
I did buy a copy of X-Plane once, but soon got fed up with it's user interface, lack of compatibility between versions, constant stream of updates and patches, and the fact that simulation of everything outside the aircraft was extremely basic. Maybe it's better now, but the overall package was disappointing.
Today's Level D simulator has digital sound and vibration simulation which closely match the original aircraft. The visual system, while not up to PC game standards, will be full colour, high capacity, textured, wide angle, with cross-cockpit viewing. The aero model will accurately represent the original aircraft in every degree. Digital flight control loading for highly accurate control feel and response.
A 1970 Boeing 727 FFS would have a basic analogue sound system, buffet cues in all the right places but not closely matching the original in frequencies and amplitudes. If it had a visual at all it would probably be the TV camera and model board type. The aero model would be limited, probably tweaked to achieve certain responses and compromised in other areas. Analogue control loading with good static forces but poor dynamic response.
For basic training purposes, not a great deal of difference then. In terms of overall fidelity and immersion though a huge improvement. All brought about by the FAA's National Simulator Program which successfully standardised and upgraded the expected performance of simulators in the USA, a lead followed worldwide.
As you say, Austin Meyer is not very diplomatic, more like one of those infomercial salesmen.
That style would not go down well this side of the pond.What Austin Meyer is implying is that his X-Plane is better than any Level D ZFT simulator, which also use lookup tables and which might not consider something or other. Each of his blade elements will probably have a few lookup tables in it's model. You've got to have the data somewhere.
MSFS is well know for more or less ignoring sideslip. Also the lack of many terms means some dynamics are completely missing. The problem is not the so called lookup method, which to the layman sounds inherently unrealistic. It sounds like you take the flight condition, look it up in a table and come out directly with the resulting preformance. In fact all a lookup table is doing is providing a quick and convenient way to model what might be a non-linear, multi-dimensional function.
I did buy a copy of X-Plane once, but soon got fed up with it's user interface, lack of compatibility between versions, constant stream of updates and patches, and the fact that simulation of everything outside the aircraft was extremely basic. Maybe it's better now, but the overall package was disappointing.
What is, or is there, any real difference between the full motion B-727 sim used in 1970 compared to a Level-D sim of today?
A 1970 Boeing 727 FFS would have a basic analogue sound system, buffet cues in all the right places but not closely matching the original in frequencies and amplitudes. If it had a visual at all it would probably be the TV camera and model board type. The aero model would be limited, probably tweaked to achieve certain responses and compromised in other areas. Analogue control loading with good static forces but poor dynamic response.
For basic training purposes, not a great deal of difference then. In terms of overall fidelity and immersion though a huge improvement. All brought about by the FAA's National Simulator Program which successfully standardised and upgraded the expected performance of simulators in the USA, a lead followed worldwide.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey lefthanddownabit
Actually, while you may or may not believe it, I do understand aerodynamic modeling. And while I’m not involved in the specifics of aero-modeling every day, I am and have been directly involved on its periphery for the last 20 years. Certainly, you are correct that coefficients are not used to “modify” the equations of motion. However, and, please feel free to correct me if I am in error, once generated and applied they certainly do modify the outcomes of those EOM – and, though I may not have done it very well, that IS the reference I was making.
The largest difference I’ve seen between simulations limited to “look-up tables” is that at times when the simulator was “flown” outside of its flight test validated envelope (i.e., outside of the table values – often the simulator just quit flying in that part of the envelope. You should take a look at the link provided by XPMorten to see someone else's "take" on the limitations of "look-up" tables. For example, a major US airline had an older version of the A300-600 / A310 simulator (and now I don’t remember which cockpit was actually replicated) in which a pitch-up and bank angle combination beyond a certain point would simply “hang” the simulator at that pitch/bank attitude with no control input from the pilots – and, in fact, pitch and/or bank inputs from the pilots were fruitless. In fact, something had to be done to “kick” the computer into a section of the table where values were entered … like pressuring the downside rudder to get the nose to move more toward the horizon. Interestingly, after doing so, the simulator was again “flyable.” There is substantial suspicion that this simulation necessity lead to a very … ah … “interesting” upset event in flight that was looked into by the NTSB. One of the finger points to the guilty culprit was directly toward this particular simulator – and the maneuvering it required – incorrectly “training” the pilots who experienced the upset. Also, please know that my comments here are not based on rumor or innuendo; I have personally “flown” this particular simulator and it DID what I describe here.
On the other hand, more modern simulators use aerodynamic programs that have the ability to compute something for 360 degrees around both the lateral and longitudinal axes. Unfortunately, the only “valid” pitch and bank excursions that are validated as being “like the aircraft,” are those which have flight tested values. In these circumstances, you would not run into a simulator “hanging” at a particular point. The simulator might well perform a reasonable loop or aileron roll because the computer is going to compute something all the way around either axis. Of course, once outside the validated flight envelope NO ONE can attest to the simulator’s performance or handling qualities as being anything even close to the airplane the simulator is replicating. In fact, so adamant are some about this particular point that they are absolutely and vehemently AGAINST the use of simulators for training in “upset recoveries.” As anecdotal evidence, talk to any of the guys who have performed loops in B-747 simulators and aileron rolls in DC-9s and B-727’s. Simulators are wonderful tools when used in the proper manner – and just like being able to drive a nail with pipe wrench – you can do loops in a B-747 simulator – but that is not necessarily the way that particular tool was designed to be used.
Hey john_tullamarine: Your point is very well taken, and has formed the substance for my on-going campaign described in my earlier post:
The only modification I would make to my quote here, is where I said “I believe such devices can, and would, allow a pilot to complete training with less time in the aircraft or with less time in the Level C or D simulator,” and I probably should have said “…allow a pilot to complete training with the potential of using substantially less time in the aircraft…” The specific amount of time would likely be directly linked to the accuracy of the training device. Personally, I draw the line between what is and should be “flight training” and what could be and likely should be “extended ground training.” The devices I described that are equipped with touch-sensitive screens and can be “flown” only through autoflight systems I believe are easily classed in the “extended ground training” family. Computers equipped with something like a “joy stick” that provides interactive pilot input and results in simulated airplane response are also candidates for this same family. However, when you walk into something that for all the world looks like the cockpit of the airplane and you are able to climb into the seat and function like you would be piloting the airplane – we have now crossed over into the “flight training” segment – and these devices, I believe, must be evaluated against prescribed standards, initially and recurrently, and should have limits placed on them regarding what piloting tasks should be authorized to be conducted here instead of in the actual airplane.
I agree with your musing about having this (or another) thread get into the “meat” of simulator evaluation and certification – although, according to the regulators, they don’t “certificate” simulators … the “qualify” them. And, I too, would be interested in participating in that discussion.
Hi XPMorten: GREAT link! Yes, diplomacy may not be Mr. Meyer’s strong suit, but I wouldn’t want to argue with his accuracy!
Actually, while you may or may not believe it, I do understand aerodynamic modeling. And while I’m not involved in the specifics of aero-modeling every day, I am and have been directly involved on its periphery for the last 20 years. Certainly, you are correct that coefficients are not used to “modify” the equations of motion. However, and, please feel free to correct me if I am in error, once generated and applied they certainly do modify the outcomes of those EOM – and, though I may not have done it very well, that IS the reference I was making.
The largest difference I’ve seen between simulations limited to “look-up tables” is that at times when the simulator was “flown” outside of its flight test validated envelope (i.e., outside of the table values – often the simulator just quit flying in that part of the envelope. You should take a look at the link provided by XPMorten to see someone else's "take" on the limitations of "look-up" tables. For example, a major US airline had an older version of the A300-600 / A310 simulator (and now I don’t remember which cockpit was actually replicated) in which a pitch-up and bank angle combination beyond a certain point would simply “hang” the simulator at that pitch/bank attitude with no control input from the pilots – and, in fact, pitch and/or bank inputs from the pilots were fruitless. In fact, something had to be done to “kick” the computer into a section of the table where values were entered … like pressuring the downside rudder to get the nose to move more toward the horizon. Interestingly, after doing so, the simulator was again “flyable.” There is substantial suspicion that this simulation necessity lead to a very … ah … “interesting” upset event in flight that was looked into by the NTSB. One of the finger points to the guilty culprit was directly toward this particular simulator – and the maneuvering it required – incorrectly “training” the pilots who experienced the upset. Also, please know that my comments here are not based on rumor or innuendo; I have personally “flown” this particular simulator and it DID what I describe here.
On the other hand, more modern simulators use aerodynamic programs that have the ability to compute something for 360 degrees around both the lateral and longitudinal axes. Unfortunately, the only “valid” pitch and bank excursions that are validated as being “like the aircraft,” are those which have flight tested values. In these circumstances, you would not run into a simulator “hanging” at a particular point. The simulator might well perform a reasonable loop or aileron roll because the computer is going to compute something all the way around either axis. Of course, once outside the validated flight envelope NO ONE can attest to the simulator’s performance or handling qualities as being anything even close to the airplane the simulator is replicating. In fact, so adamant are some about this particular point that they are absolutely and vehemently AGAINST the use of simulators for training in “upset recoveries.” As anecdotal evidence, talk to any of the guys who have performed loops in B-747 simulators and aileron rolls in DC-9s and B-727’s. Simulators are wonderful tools when used in the proper manner – and just like being able to drive a nail with pipe wrench – you can do loops in a B-747 simulator – but that is not necessarily the way that particular tool was designed to be used.
Hey john_tullamarine: Your point is very well taken, and has formed the substance for my on-going campaign described in my earlier post:
I have been on a campaign for a number of years to have manufacturers of certain training equipment (CAE and FlightSafety come to mind immediately) that represent the cockpit of a given aircraft in a series of flat-panel displays (either LCD or Plasma) that are touch sensitive; and are programmed with the identical programming that is found on the legitimate Level C or D simulator – so there are no concerns about interoperability issues between systems, etc. I believe such devices can, and would, allow a pilot to complete training with less time in the aircraft or with less time in the Level C or D simulator – without having to have these new training devices meet any regulatory established standards and be qualified as some lesser level of “flight training device;” the caveat, of course, is that they DO, actually, function correctly. There are other pieces of training equipment that are similar, except they do not have the cockpit mockup with touch-sensitive screens. These cases involve the use of laptop computers (or desktop – dictated by preference), also have systems (often including avionics) programmed rather accurately, and are used for pre-classroom training by several major airlines and training centers. However, here too, the programming is based on manufacturer-supplied data and someone knowledgeable about what such programming should do has verified that programming. These devices are also very effectively used in these cases – but, again, there is no expectation that what is learned is complete and there is no implication that “flight training” has been initiated, let alone, been conducted.
I agree with your musing about having this (or another) thread get into the “meat” of simulator evaluation and certification – although, according to the regulators, they don’t “certificate” simulators … the “qualify” them. And, I too, would be interested in participating in that discussion.
Hi XPMorten: GREAT link! Yes, diplomacy may not be Mr. Meyer’s strong suit, but I wouldn’t want to argue with his accuracy!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey AHRS:
Sorry. I am not at all sure what you are saying in your first sentence quoted above. I don’t have a desire to learn how MSFS goes about recruiting “add-ons” or how they determine the compatibility of those “add-ons” to the basic program. In my book, MSFS is still MSFS.
I fully recognize your original request was for the “definition – just the definition” of a Level D simulator. Unfortunately, one cannot fully reduce what constitutes a Level D simulator into two or three short sentences. That is why I provided you with the link to the FAA’s National Simulator Program Staff Home Page, from which you can research to your heart’s content – and, after reading sufficiently, you should be able to understand the “definition – just the definition” of a Level D simulator.
For what its worth, I regret that you think I’m “picking” on you or that you feel that I am “trifling” with the successes of your flight training – for I have no desire to do either. What I was pointing out was what appeared to me to be a significant amount of bravado (ego) and even more advice from you in your posts when there simultaneously appeared to be somewhat of an absence of experience to warrant either.
And, here, one more try, is a link that you might find less overwhelming and still informative:
http://www.faa.gov/safety/programs_i...Sim_Levels.doc
My statement was intended for your lack of succinct qualifications to demean MSFS as a pre-flight training devise was on the subject of MSFS and not the real simulators. If you wish to verify how the programming is vetted it is best to approach the individual companies that produce the add ons(which is my focus rather than MSFS itself).
This thread was announced with the intent on getting a definition..just DEFINITION of what a Level D simulator was and whether the aircraft on the list I had shown have any fitting to that definition...it was not a trick question or a cryptic one either.
This thread was announced with the intent on getting a definition..just DEFINITION of what a Level D simulator was and whether the aircraft on the list I had shown have any fitting to that definition...it was not a trick question or a cryptic one either.
I fully recognize your original request was for the “definition – just the definition” of a Level D simulator. Unfortunately, one cannot fully reduce what constitutes a Level D simulator into two or three short sentences. That is why I provided you with the link to the FAA’s National Simulator Program Staff Home Page, from which you can research to your heart’s content – and, after reading sufficiently, you should be able to understand the “definition – just the definition” of a Level D simulator.
For what its worth, I regret that you think I’m “picking” on you or that you feel that I am “trifling” with the successes of your flight training – for I have no desire to do either. What I was pointing out was what appeared to me to be a significant amount of bravado (ego) and even more advice from you in your posts when there simultaneously appeared to be somewhat of an absence of experience to warrant either.
And, here, one more try, is a link that you might find less overwhelming and still informative:
http://www.faa.gov/safety/programs_i...Sim_Levels.doc
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Here
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob Lenahan
I think that you'll find that in those days the Sims had a 3 or 4 axis motion system. Nowadays they have a 6 axis system (roll, pitch, yaw, heave, surge & sway). Some even have a secondary motion system on top of the primary one to simulate vibrations etc (helicopter ones)
lefthanddownabit
This means that when the controls are moved in a particular axis (roll, pitch, yaw), the visual sytem as well as the instruments (ADI) must respond within that time. Level B is 300 ms
SW
What is, or is there, any real difference between the full motion B-727 sim used in 1970 compared to a Level-D sim of today?
lefthanddownabit
Transport delay less than 150 milliseconds
SW
N4790P
Just to add an extra dimension to the debate.
What are the views on the FFT product currently being promoted and now unbelievably approved by French DGAC, Indian and NZ authorities for just about everything a LD FFS does despite not complying with a raft of requirements of JAR-STD-1A or international equivalents for even a Level B sim, let alone LD? (No motion system, faithful cockpit environment etc).
Is it acceptable for crews to experience their (hopefully) only high speed RTO, OEI or whatever every 6 months or to convert onto type without the ‘benefits’ of a full motion system or a faithful replicant of the flightdeck?
(Having experienced the FFT, it is an excellent training tool that could enhance training programmes quite considerably. However should this type of devise replace an FFS or complement/supplement it?)
What are the views on the FFT product currently being promoted and now unbelievably approved by French DGAC, Indian and NZ authorities for just about everything a LD FFS does despite not complying with a raft of requirements of JAR-STD-1A or international equivalents for even a Level B sim, let alone LD? (No motion system, faithful cockpit environment etc).
Is it acceptable for crews to experience their (hopefully) only high speed RTO, OEI or whatever every 6 months or to convert onto type without the ‘benefits’ of a full motion system or a faithful replicant of the flightdeck?
(Having experienced the FFT, it is an excellent training tool that could enhance training programmes quite considerably. However should this type of devise replace an FFS or complement/supplement it?)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: australia
Age: 48
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry. I am not at all sure what you are saying in your first sentence quoted above. I don’t have a desire to learn how MSFS goes about recruiting “add-ons” or how they determine the compatibility of those “add-ons” to the basic program. In my book, MSFS is still MSFS.
As an avid aviation fan, and flight sim nerd, I can tell you that the difference between the default a/c on MSFS and an add-on like PMDG's 737 -6,7,8,900 series and the wonderful Level D 767 is light years.
I fully refuse to fly any...er.....sorry....'fly' any default a/c. I'll pay 60-80AUD for an add-on and let me tell ya it makes a difference.
The flight dynamics for one. Planning the descent and approach to use idle as long as possible aint easy. Maybe easier in the real a/c eh! Supposedly use of spoilers below 250kts in the real a/c seem to do little. Which is how the add-ons are modelled. Default a/c? Um.....no.
No FMC in default a/c either. PMDG state of their FMC : " The complexity of mathematics contained in real FMC's has been reproduced here to an extensive degree using actual engineering methods and principles".
Could well be all a wank of course, but I believe it. Also to consider is that the realism can only go as far as the constraints on MSFS anyway.
Know a real pilot who purchased the Level D 767 add-on to practise before using a real 767 sim for the first time in his attemt into an airline here. I later asked him how close it was thinking it would be poles apart. Kinda supprised to learn that the performance was quite close.
Have also met a real 767 F/O who was also very impressed with the add-on. And other pilots I've met have told me that they know new into the airline pilots who use it to get up to scratch on procedures/FMC usage into airports they've never been to before.
Maybe I'm just making excuses to make me feel less nerdy!
Unlike some, I'm also the first to admit that I CANNOT fly a real aircraft because I 'fly' jets well on MSFS. But I'd sure as hell love to test my skill on on real sim. Of course that'll never happen either.
Now lastly, I HAVE flown a real a/c. Actually got up to solo nav flights many years ago when I was learning to fly. Unfortunately, a number of things prevent me from going any further. One of course being $$$.
It'll always be my biggest regret in life. Hey guys, I envy you all like you wouldn't believe. Which is why I view these forums. I love it! I look up at EVERY a/c no mater what. Hell, I even got a job near an airport!
'Flying' the big jets on MSFS will always be the closest I'll ever get to doing actually doing it. So try not to laugh at us nerdy PC 'pilots' too much. Perhaps many are like me and will never get the chance to really do it.
Oh, and I'm not a skinny glasses wearing nerd. I'm actually pretty good looking and have muscles. Just for ya info!