Some dudes

[peirof]

Hi, 

 

 

I have been assailed by two doubts and I would like to know the opinion of the community, and they are:

 

- With the current level of realism that the simulators are reaching, specifically modules like this. Would an expert virtual pilot be able to fly a real plane? To what extent? (takeoff, navigation, landing, use of weapons)

 

and second question, with a constantly evolving technological level, is it necessary to risk humans in the execution of missions? When drones can do the work

[speed-of-heat]

Why are you concerned with either, it’s a game it’s fun!  This is likely a best a thread in the chit chat forum https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/46-chit-chat/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Stearmandriver]

The Horizon Q400 theft pretty well proves that a guy with only civilian desktop sim experience can figure out how to get a plane airborne.  Could he have landed it? That's more doubtful, but we'll never know. 

 

Operating weapons and sensor systems on a military jet though? I'd personally doubt it, at least not effectively.  Too much of these systems are - by necessity - merely approximations or "best guesses" in any publicly available simulation.  That's as it should be. 

 

I personally do think we won't see too many new manned air combat platforms; the human is the weak link in the system, and why risk human life if you don't have to?  Just my opinion though;  I have no crystal ball. 

[Bunny Clark]

I am a pilot in real life, though I've never flown anything more exciting than a Cessna 172 so I'm not sure that the experience exactly translates. But I was doing quite a lot of flight simming in the 90s before beginning my flight training and I do feel that it helped. An avid DCS player would probably know where buttons and switches are and would understand the fundamental concepts pretty well. It would certainly help. Real life is also quite a bit more complex than even DCS, there's a lot of important things to know and pay attention too that either isn't modeled in DCS or players just always skip over because it's not fun. Also, flying a real plane feels quite different. When the plane is actually moving, responding to your inputs, reacting to the winds and turbulence, it's a very different feel than yanking on a stick in front of a computer monitor. In a lot of ways flying in real life is easier for it, you get a lot of feedback that's missing in a flight sim that can be really valuable (landing a real plane, I can feel if my decent rate is correct, for example). But it's different enough that someone who only has muscle memory from a flight sim would probably be thrown off. Flight simming is the kind of experience that helps a new pilot learn proper technique faster, rather than specifically teaching proper technique. Doing any kind of combat and pulling G I'm sure would be a massive hurdle to overcome for someone who's only ever flown digital fighters though. 

 

Humans will be inside combat planes for a long time. Removing the humans from a combat aircraft would require either a reliable jam-proof datalink to a remote human operator who can make decisions, or an AI that we trust to make life-and-death decisions without any human input. I don't see either of those things happening anytime soon. UCAVs like the "Loyal Wingman" concept, which pair unmanned vehicles with manned aircraft that have direct local control make a lot more sense. I expect we'll see that sort of thing much sooner.

Edited July 9, 2021 by Bunny Clark

[Hobo 1-1]

Physically be able to flip the switches to start  and fly the aircraft without any regard to the very real problem of equipment failures or personal safety? Absolutely. 

 

Now having said that, there is absolutely nothing like the real thing. I can’t stress enough how differently real pilots fly than sim pilots. I say this not as a put down, but as someone who logged hundreds of hours in a Blackhawk third seat as a Crew Chief. Sim pilots spend a LOT of time inside the aircraft, tend to have extremely rough control inputs (because they don’t realize how radical some of their inputs are because they don’t have an physical aircraft responding to them) and will regularly exceed limitations without a concern in the world. We learn and internalize a LOT of bad habits that would be ruinous in real life. 
 

Now, many here have a whole lot wrapped up in your question. To them “realism” fills a void that has everything to do with them and nothing to do with the game. Could I start up a F-18 and fly it? If everything worked (it never does) as advertised and everything was operating at full capacity - probably. But it would be an exceptionally dangerous thing to do.

 

The game we all love is a very faithful reproduction of the aircraft they simulate. However, thinking we’re capable of suiting up and taking on the bad guys is the same energy as people who read Web MD and think they have enough knowledge to argue with actual physicians. 
 

I hope that makes sense. Cheers! 
 

ETA - we’re transitioning to pilotless aircraft faster than many realize. The new AF “Raider” bomber in design and early production will Be able to fly autonomously or with a crew. We’re going to see a rapid shift to autonomous war fighting with humans flying the support planes and fulfilling maintenance rolls. The last combat plane to require a pilot is the F-22. Everything moving forward will either be dual use, or flat out drones. 

Edited July 9, 2021 by Palmetto 1-1
Additional information

[Raptor9]

Drones will never fully replace human pilots.  Never gonna happen. There are things that humans are better at doing than computers (or robots, AI, etc), and there are things that computers are better at doing than humans.  Granted, you could get much better performance from an aircraft when things like acceleration and turn rate aren't limited by biological factors of a human pilot; not to mention removing the requirement for cockpit controls, displays, life support systems, ejection seats, or the power requirements to run all of that.  But ultimately, you are sacrificing one of the most potent tactical advantages you could have on board: the human brain.

 

Properly programmed computer systems and AI can usually analyze, process, and aggregate vast amounts of data from multiple data sources/formats much faster than a human can; but a human is much more capable of interpreting and understanding that aggregated data within the greater tactical context, and has the ability to make deliberate, conscious decisions as well as instinctive/intuitive sub-conscious decisions as well.  Of course, one could make an argument that humans can also make mistakes in those decisions, but so do computer systems.  The best combination in any sort of situation, combat or otherwise, is such that compliments each other's strengths, while mitigating each other's weaknesses.  Pairing humans with robots will always be the most potent combination; not choosing between one or the other, but integrating the two together into an effective team.

 

And despite what a lot of people believe, humans controlling aircraft remotely and looking at the battlefield through a soda straw will never be as effective as a human crew that is physically there.  There is simply no way to replicate the amount of situational awareness, context, and understanding that a manned aircraft has over a remotely-piloted aircraft.

[TWC_SLAG]

A few years ago, a glider club ran an experiment in which one group of new student pilots were given the normal flight training syllabus. Another group got all of their training on a glider flight sim.  Both groups soloed in about the same amount of flight hours.

 

Today, the military is using flight sims in their basic training with positive results.  I can tell you, as a private pilot with several hundred hours as PIC, and thousands of flight sim hours,  I know I would not have any great problems flying something like an airliner.  Actually, I have a few hours on full motion sims in the A300 and a Saudi AWACS 135.  Both built by top of the line aerospace companies.

 

Now, being able to take off, fly around, and land is totally different than being able to fight in something like an F/A-18C, for example.

[Bunny Clark]

1 hour ago, Raptor9 said:

Granted, you could get much better performance from an aircraft when things like acceleration and turn rate aren't limited by biological factors of a human pilot

That's a pretty commonly made point when discussing this topic, but it isn't really true. Every modern combat aircraft is limited somewhere between 7G and 9G, not because of the squishy human in it but because of the engineering of the airframe. Loading weapons onto that aircraft decreases the max G loading even further, usually down into the 5G - 6G range. Designing an airframe to be stronger requires more reinforcement, which means more material and more weight. Is being able to pull a few more Gs worth sacrificing fuel or payload capacity? Some day advances in material science will probably allow aircraft to be capable of pulling greater Gs without a significant increase in weight, but for now the tradeoffs just aren't worth it. 

[tweet]

The short answer is that sims like DCS can be useful in the learning process when flown like a real aircraft using actual procedures and techniques and performing to real world pilot performance standards. Otherwise, most concepts and maneuvers could be flown with practice and instruction in a sim like DCS. There is, however, a lot left out and some negative training will occur. Flown like a game DCS is not too useful.

 

The following YT video shows how VR, realistic controllers, and DCS (or similarly realistic sims) used in a flight training program can greatly increase learning and reduce the time and expense of aircraft only or full motion sim/aircraft military flight training. Sims of any type are only a tool to enhance learning to fly, not a substitute.

 

The New Way to Train Pilots with General Wills

 

It was recorded at Randolph AFB, San Antonio, TX, home of 12 FTW (Flying Training Wing), HQ AETC, and AFMPC (AF Military Personnel Center). I was an IP in the 559th FTS (Billy Goats) and a Flight Examiner at the 12 FTW Stan/Eval office (Standards/Evaluations) from early 1982 to late 1984. We flew the T-37B with the mission of producing all of the IPs who would teach at the Tweet to students at the UPT (Undergraduate Pilot Training) bases. The Billy Goats are a T-6 unit now with the same mission. Our sister squadron in those days was the 560th FTS flying the T-38. Together we were comprised PIT (Pilot Instructor Training). Every PIT IP had spent a few to a lot of years teaching at UPT. I had been a student ('74-'75) and later ('79-'82) an IP then F Flight Commander at Reese AFB, Lubbock, TX. The 7 FEs in the T-37 Stan/Eval section had more time in the jet than the entire T-37 squadron at Columbus AFB, MS.

 

We were what the video calls UPT 1.0. The training devices we used were cardboard cockpit panels, cockpit mockups (basically the panels glued to a wooden 'pit, a full motion, limited visual (only one generic airport on a terrain model board that a camera flew over in the last parts of instrument approaches or very basic CGI) simulator, and the jet. Ground training was books, manuals, film, slide shows, and lots and lots of face-to-face briefings. It's a far cry from what video and high quality video presentations plus VR sims can do to prepare students for flights in the aircraft. The statement that T-6 students who have been through the test program using VR solo after four sorties is astonishing. The Tweet program didn't have solo until somewhere around 12-15 sorties.

 

Desktop sims and VR are quite an effective training device. I've used DCS with several young guys who are now professional and/or recreational civil pilots. One Aussie is an F-35 pilot. I knew and flew online with him when he was a university student hoping to get a pilot slot in RAAF. Fourteen plus years later he's been a crusty Hornet IP and now flies the F-35.

 

So, I think the undeniable answer is that sims like DCS can be huge motivators and effective tools along the road to a flying career. I can't over emphasize the importance, though, of competent instructors with actual experience helping you along the way. Even then you could spend years flying DCS or MSFS but not be able to do much useful in the real aircraft. Done right though you would have a big step up.

[maxTRX]

1 hour ago, tweet said:

Desktop sims and VR are quite an effective training device. I've used DCS with several young guys who are now professional and/or recreational civil pilots. One Aussie is an F-35 pilot. I knew and flew online with him when he was a university student hoping to get a pilot slot in RAAF. Fourteen plus years later he's been a crusty Hornet IP and now flies the F-35.

 

from old 169th? I think I know who you're talking about... he was really into this stuff.

[tweet]

3 Squadron in DCS but, yes, 169th before S... went to flight school. We split from Iceman, a total dick, and formed 3 SQN. Icehole wanted people to think he had skillz but had exploits (his own local servers and almost certainly a way to use F keys in the server interface - never proved but lots of circumstantial evidence) most likely. S.... stopped simming after about two years on the Hornet. He had security concerns about unintentionally revealing tactics and performance data. I still run into S... on LinkedIn on occasion.

Edited July 10, 2021 by tweet
clarity

[maxTRX]

2 hours ago, tweet said:

3 Squadron in DCS but, yes, 169th before S... went to flight school. We split from Iceman, a total dick, and formed 3 SQN. Icehole wanted people to think he had skillz but had exploits (his own local servers and almost certainly a way to use F keys in the server interface - never proved but lots of circumstantial evidence) most likely. S.... stopped simming after about two years on the Hornet. He had security concerns about unintentionally revealing tactics and performance data. I still run into S... on LinkedIn on occasion.

 

 

Hehe, yep.  I flew briefly with them, then I had to disappear.  It was still a blast.  My approach was a bit arcadish but after a few flight with some of these guys ('S' was one of them) I started taking it more serious while still having fun.

[Foka]

I love the game, but it's still a game, and level of IRL simulation is really poor. Flight model, performance, limitations, and avionics system... it's all really "advanced arcade" and is very far from IRL values and behaviour.

[Foka]

Check out on Youtube series "Jetstream", if you want to know what it takes to be a Hornet driver... And remember that Canada has no aircraft carriers.