Discuss: The average Real Pilot does not have a 'more valid' opinion on flightmodels

[Jinja]

Something irked me today.

 

It's happened more than once, but you get someone on this forum saying "I am extremely disappointed with DCS:X. It's flight model is pants; A2A's X is much better. BTW, I'm a real pilot, so I know naanaanaa!".

 

This really annoys me, if there is no validation. Kerry Katona may be a qualified driver and owner of a Nissan GTR, but she'll (highly likely) have zero experience or understanding of the 'edge of the envelope' characteristics of that car, with respect to understeer/oversteer/chassis dynamics/mechanics of drifting/traction control/slide-recovery/braking moments....

 

So excluding the RL Air-force jocks or aerobatics pilots, does the average commercial or recreational pilot have any position from which to comment on the flight-model of a PC-plane?

[159th_Viper]

So excluding the RL Air-force jocks or aerobatics pilots, does the average commercial or recreational pilot have any position from which to comment on the flight-model of a PC-plane?

 

Even RL pilots cannot agree on the flight characteristics of RL planes, not because one of them are wrong but because each airframe is different.

 

A commercial or recreational pilot can certainly comment on the flight model of a PC simulator provided that he has personal experience of the particular airframe being commented on and he takes into consideration the inherent limitations of the PC platform, ie the lack of tactile/sensory feedback and limitations of PC hardware, amongst others. Even doing so limits his opinion to being subjective as his experience will then also be a factor to take into consideration. An understanding of the maths involved in simulating the airframe will also be advantageous.

 

But yeah, I agree with you: Forum members who state that plane X is better than plane Y just because they have more success flying one as opposed to the other is ludicrous. Sure, they are entitled to express their opinions but for what it's worth, said opinions are worth very little if expressed with the intention of highlighting some perceived deficiency within the modelling of the airframe. One has to do much better than 'It does not feel right', even if your day-job is flying planes from A to B. If you cannot back it up with numbers/data then why bother in the first instance, unless the sole intention is to moan, in which case it's probably better to leave said moan well enough alone - usually fizzles quickly if no-one pays attention.

[EtherealN]

There is one exception though: a "problem" (or for that matter a given complaint itself) might be wrong in such a fundamental manner that "any pilot" will be able to say whereas a non-pilot might not. But in this case, I'd say an experienced sim-pilot is roughly on equal footing assuming they've taken their learning seriously within the simulator(s). In fact, in the specific case of DCS, someone with no RL experience but extensive and serious simulator use might well be better off than an RL pilot with little simulator experience - assuming he isn't a pilot of that specific aircraft.

 

But like Viper says, in almost all cases being "a pilot" is not enough. It's the same as it not being enough to have a PhD for what you say to be accepted in science - you still need to show the numbers.

[cichlidfan]

So excluding the RL Air-force jocks or aerobatics pilots, does the average commercial or recreational pilot have any position from which to comment on the flight-model of a PC-plane?

 

What excludes those groups? They have no special analytical abilities.

[Jinja]

What excludes those groups? They have no special analytical abilities.

 

True, but at least they have 1st-hand experience of the sensations of departure from controlled flight, which is a big 1-up on the rest of the pack.

[cichlidfan]

True, but at least they have 1st-hand experience of the sensations of departure from controlled flight, which is a big 1-up on the rest of the pack.

 

Those 'sensations' are the big thing missing from a PC sim. So how would being familiar with any sensation of flight be relevant.

[aaron886]

Yes, but it's going to depend on the type of pilot. A commercial pilot is very different than Joe Schmoe who decided to spend some money on a private pilot license. An aviation professional is generally going to have a better concept of aerodynamics/flight physics, kinesthesia, systems, etc. It's going to be hard to tell which one is which sometimes, unless you're on the other side of the fence.

 

I think one pretty good indicator of someone who has no idea what they're talking about is that they won't back up their statement with a logical progression of thought. Or they angrily write off the entire product as a result of one perceived flaw.

Edited January 9, 2015 by aaron886

[PeterP]

Something irked me today.

 

It's happened more than once, but you get someone on this forum saying "I am extremely disappointed with DCS:X. It's flight model is pants; A2A's X is much better. BTW, I'm a real pilot, so I know naanaanaa!".

... be aware that most of this statements are made by people that don't have familiarized themselves with the options menu and the simulation as a whole...

This really annoys me, if there is no validation. Kerry Katona may be a qualified driver and owner of a Nissan GTR, but she'll (highly likely) have zero experience or understanding of the 'edge of the envelope' characteristics of that car, with respect to understeer/oversteer/chassis dynamics/mechanics of drifting/traction control/slide-recovery/braking moments....

 

I'm a Glider pilot....

Did it helped me fo fly and fight in DCS?!... NO (- I had to relearn almost everything...)

But it helped me a lot to know what I have to concentrate on in my learning.

 

So excluding the RL Air-force jocks or aerobatics pilots, does the average commercial or recreational pilot have any position from which to comment on the flight-model of a PC-plane?

 

Yes they have - as long they use the popper tools to make their judgement and also know their shortcomings.

 

This is only a small part what I did to get as close I can get at Home:

 

... I can tell you that the extension alone boosted my "skills" at about 200% and the FFB +200% more.... -

 

 

...Just wanted to tell that most of this "bad" comments are made because they didn't used the right tools for the job.

 

Things I had to face/learn the last year : Controllers that are sufficient for FSX/X-plane are not always sufficient for DCS P-51D...

Edited September 21, 2012 by PeterP

[Slap_Chop]

So true Peter. Very well said. Unfortunately if I attempted to set up a sim pit

using that stick setup I would probably need to watch the video about getting

the best divorce lawyer.

 

Indeed this is a serious sim for people who love this genre and to EXCEL at it

you need to invest some serious $$$ and time.

 

For me mediocrity is still enjoyable. :pilotfly:

[Pyroflash]

It's amazing how many real pilots actually don't understand the fundamental principles that govern how their aircraft flies. Though they THINK they do simply because they are able to manipulate those principles in order to make a plane fly.

 

I know an airline pilot of 30 some years on the job, who thinks that the MiG-29 is a better aircraft than the F-15C because the MiG-29 can turn faster in certain flight regimes (Specifically low and slow). :doh:

 

(great guy otherwise though!)

Edited September 22, 2012 by Pyroflash
MiG-29 is a better aircraft than the MiG-29.

[AlphaOneSix]

It's amazing how many real pilots actually don't understand the fundamental principles that govern how their aircraft flies.

 

This is sadly true in far too many cases.

[aaron886]

To be fair, "a better aircraft" is a very subjective quality. The MiG-29 is certainly superior in some ways.

 

It's amazing how many real pilots actually don't understand the fundamental principles that govern how their aircraft flies.

 

It's amazing how many non-pilots think they do. Let's be honest, there's a LOT of armchair wannabe pilots here.

[Cali]

To be fair, "a better aircraft" is a very subjective quality. The MiG-29 is certainly superior in some ways.

 

 

 

It's amazing how many non-pilots think they do. Let's be honest, there's a LOT of armchair wannabe pilots here.

 

So true, so many pilots in here have never flown a military jet and think they know all about it

[Exorcet]

Being a pilot should certainly help with basic understanding I hope, but so should flight simming. Barring the pilot's specific aircraft, I don't see an advantage for the pilot. Not even the engineers who design the planes know what it's really going to do until they run CFD or conduct flight tests

[NC_Cyborg]

My two cents...

 

I am sure almost anyone on this forum would make some sort of sacrifice to be able to fly the real A-10C for a day. How many of you would love to fly in the backseat of a Blue Angel or Thunderbird? I know I would in a heartbeat.

 

Why? Because of my desire to be up in the clouds. So do something about it. I worked my way to get a commercial pilot’s license. I fell 15 hours short of that goal. But my best part in that training pipeline was probably the private pilot license. Sure, the mutli-engine or instrument rating is cool. But ~90% of the private pilot training is failures and what ifs. That is the area where you get to learn the feel of the airplane. You learn what the plane is capable of before it happens.

 

I finally started to realize near the end of my training that all the fun things like stalls, engine out procedures, loss of control, etc… was less and less. I became dependant on building time for the 250 hours needed for the Commercial Pilot License. And in the commercial pilot world, the more time you have on the books the better the chance you have of being hired. In my honest opinion, flying a bus from point A to B is not that exciting.

 

What is my stand on commercial pilots (no military background) and this forum? I feel they are one small step ahead of the combat flight sim pilots. And the only reason they have that small step is because of the private pilot training. Those pilots cannot possibly relate the intricacies of combat flying. Try and Google the USS Vicennes and the Iranian Flight 655. Granted, they did not know what their outcome was going to be that fateful day. But they at least have more combat experience then the other bus drivers on this forum.

 

One of my former boss was a previous F-14 driver. Upon my exit interview with him, I asked him, “Are you planning on being a commercial pilot when he retires? His response, “Hell no!” He later went on to explain his reason for not going into the bus driving business. The biggest reason was nothing else could compare to being at the stick of a Tomcat.

 

I know I will probably take a lot of slack for this post, but this is how I feel.

 

I am not the all knowing fight jock. I am just a humble chair pilot at the mercy of DCS. With the TrackIR, TM Warthog HOTAS and flight pedals, I am again a couple steps away from really flying again. One of those steps would have to be the seat of your pants sensations. Pulling two Gs in a Cessna is fun. Or how about that feeling of an oncoming stall. Maybe trying to control your pitch with the use of the stick.

 

But until that day, I am at your beck and call DCS. Thanks for such a great platform!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Vincennes_(CG-49)

Edited September 23, 2012 by NC_Cyborg

[aaron886]

That is the area where you get to learn the feel of the airplane. You learn what the plane is capable of before it happens.

 

Not the ones I fly with. ;) That should be the kind of thing you're really becoming comfortable with in commercial pilot training in the US. A private pilot has a crude understanding of what happens. A commercial pilot should understand why.

[Pyroflash]

..should..

 

Too bad more often than not, they don't. Not enough pilots know how their aircraft works, how their engine works, or how their electronics work. Even some commercial pilots I know simply do not understand the internal workings of analog flight instruments. To not know what kind of failure results from a clogged drain tube and pitot tube in airspeed indicator is completely ridiculous. These are things that can really affect aircraft safety in a major way, and not understanding them risks flight safety, even for private pilots.

 

Instrument pilots are shown and tested on how to cross-check failures. How many pilots could actually identify the partial failure of a given system in flight?

 

Granted these are mainly people who do not take their education seriously, but then the question becomes. If they don't take their lessons seriously, why are they allowed to hold ratings to begin with?

Edited September 23, 2012 by Pyroflash

[cichlidfan]

Granted these are mainly people who do not take their education seriously, but then the question becomes. If they don't take their lessons seriously, why are they allowed to hold ratings to begin with?

 

To a certain, albeit limited, extent for the same reason that many americans (I don't know about other countries) hold a drivers license without being even remotely competent at operating a vehicle safely and responsibly.

[chaos]

I think we're going off topic... I'd just like to add my 2 cents. :-)

 

I see a lot of uninformed comments being made by wannabees, private pilots and 'almost commercial' pilots.

 

Pyro,

The internal workings of an altimeter is of very little interest to a pilot. Its nice to know but not essential knowledge when dealing with a pitot static problem. The mental capacity to engineer yourself out of a situation is simply not available in the heat of the moment. Besides, what are you going to do...? Breakout your Leatherman tool and fix it? No.. you collect information from different sources and compare. Isolate the problem and move on.

 

I hate to admit it but my technical knowledge of the aircraft that I fly is very limited. I hate to admit it because it is professional pride, not lack of essential knowledge. However, mr. Boeing believes it is not necessary to provide me with this knowledge and he has been right sofar. I have passed my checks every single time since I started flying for the airlines 20 years ago. Must be doing something right...

 

James r. Wright,

May I ask why you stopped short of a commercial license? Surely completing 15 hrs. of flying to finish the course wasn't insurmountable? Your former boss hasn't got a clue what commercial flying is all about and neither do you. It's definitely not 'driving a bus'.

 

Back on topic... I do feel that 'real pilots' have a definite leg up compared to wannabees when discussing FM's. Certainly in the era of FSX and the like. The devil is in the details and one can only understand the details if one actually flies an aircraft (big or small). It's all about the 'feel' and past experience of actual flying. Sounds vague but one only needs to talk to a real pilot or wannabe for a minute to figure out who is who... However, for the first time in more than 2 decades of flying simulators, the lines are starting to blur with the release of DCS products. The fidelity is such that one gets a very good impression of what happens in certain flight regimes. There's always room for improvement but that also goes for the Level D sims in our training dept. It'll never be perfect... that's why it is called a simulation. :-)

 

Regards,

Chaos

[Pyroflash]

I think we're going off topic... I'd just like to add my 2 cents. :-)

 

I see a lot of uninformed comments being made by wannabees, private pilots and 'almost commercial' pilots.

 

Pyro,

The internal workings of an altimeter is of very little interest to a pilot. Its nice to know but not essential knowledge when dealing with a pitot static problem. The mental capacity to engineer yourself out of a situation is simply not available in the heat of the moment. Besides, what are you going to do...? Breakout your Leatherman tool and fix it? No.. you collect information from different sources and compare. Isolate the problem and move on.

 

I hate to admit it but my technical knowledge of the aircraft that I fly is very limited. I hate to admit it because it is professional pride, not lack of essential knowledge. However, mr. Boeing believes it is not necessary to provide me with this knowledge and he has been right sofar. I have passed my checks every single time since I started flying for the airlines 20 years ago. Must be doing something right...

 

James r. Wright,

May I ask why you stopped short of a commercial license? Surely completing 15 hrs. of flying to finish the course wasn't insurmountable? Your former boss hasn't got a clue what commercial flying is all about and neither do you. It's definitely not 'driving a bus'.

 

Back on topic... I do feel that 'real pilots' have a definite leg up compared to wannabees when discussing FM's. Certainly in the era of FSX and the like. The devil is in the details and one can only understand the details if one actually flies an aircraft (big or small). It's all about the 'feel' and past experience of actual flying. Sounds vague but one only needs to talk to a real pilot or wannabe for a minute to figure out who is who... However, for the first time in more than 2 decades of flying simulators, the lines are starting to blur with the release of DCS products. The fidelity is such that one gets a very good impression of what happens in certain flight regimes. There's always room for improvement but that also goes for the Level D sims in our training dept. It'll never be perfect... that's why it is called a simulation. :-)

 

Regards,

Chaos

 

I'll disagree on a few points here. I find it to be absolutely invaluable knowledge to know how a system operates rather than just isolating the problem and moving on as it were. Knowing why a problem occurs can help immensely when trying to deal with it. i.e. your GPS shows a fault with RAIM integrity. Knowing what RAIM integrity means, how and when it applies, and what the causes of its failure are can be of help in pushing past the problem. In this case a satellite was down, so you simply wait until the receiver picks up another satellite. A less knowledgeable person may have turned back assuming the GPS encountered a failure. It helps even more so when trying to analyze the issue afterwards. You are an airline pilot, so it probably doesn't apply very much to you, but knowing exactly why a problem happens can be the difference between spending thousands of dollars on a new instrument and spending $5 on a screwdriver, which, trust me, happens to owners more often than you might think.

 

And on to your assumption that real pilots have a leg up on analyzing flight models of aircraft. While it is true that they are more knowledgeable about the flight dynamics and how they feel in a real aircraft, they also introduce a heavy amount of bias that can counteract their experience and knowledge extremely easily.

 

Again, not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that there are things which extend beyond the realm of first glance.

[aaron886]

Pyro, there's a difference between knowing principally how something works, and knowing the names of all the little gears and levers inside it. One of those things is useful to a professional pilot, one is not. I guarantee you all commercial pilots at least knew those things at one time (and in some cases, once a year,) but the test of their value is whether or not they remain common knowledge among professionals.

[NC_Cyborg]

Surely completing 15 hrs. of flying to finish the course wasn't insurmountable?

 

For me it was a finance issue. And because of that I had to choose another career path.

 

Pyro, there's a difference between knowing principally how something works, and knowing the names of all the little gears and levers inside it. One of those things is useful to a professional pilot, one is not.

 

 

Spot on. I enjoy watching "Air Emergency" on the National Geographic Channel. There have been times where Pitot / Static failure has caused many mishaps. Again going to the basics, it was drill into my head. But I am starting to think my instructor was more advanced than most.

 

I feel a commercial pilot would be better suited in given advice on departures and approaches. Not combat.

 

My opinion... The average Real Pilot does not have a 'more valid' opinion on flightmodels? If the flight model in question is the type the pilot is rated in, yes.

[aaron886]

Spot on.

 

Don't think that means we agree... ;)

[cichlidfan]

My opinion... The average Real Pilot does not have a 'more valid' opinion on flightmodels? If the flight model in question is the type the pilot is rated in, yes.

 

Does it not take rather few hours in an aircraft to become 'rated' in that type? I don't recall the numbers but I seem to remember that one could get rated in a specific type of aircraft in a matter of a few weeks if you flew frequently.

 

If that is the case then I think merely being 'rated' in a given type would not be enough experience to judge the accuracy of a sim's FM.

[aaron886]

Expertise is a difficult thing to quantify.