Flight Simulators... (was concept of good landing)

[Mark VandeWettering]

In article <8212 at watcgl.waterloo.edu> rhbartels at watcgl.waterloo.edu (Richard Bartels) writes:
>In article <27132 at sgi.SGI.COM> tarolli at dragon.SGI.COM (Gary Tarolli) writes:
>>	Stalls are unpredictable in real-life.

>Nope.  Neither are spins.  The aerodynamics of both are laid out
>in any good pilot's instruction book.  Quite logical and quite
>standard physics.  As a university teacher I could never fathom why one
>of my students with a pilot's license thought the flight simulator
>was so uninteresting.  After I got my own license, I see why.
>Among other things, in real life you practise stalls and spins until you
>get sick of them (sometimes literally to the point of severe nausea)
>and learn through them, and sideslips, and take-offs, and landings,
>and coordinated turns, and spiral dives, and etc. all of the quirks
>and physical personality of a plane.  The behavior of the planes
>on the iris is completely phony.  Part of this is evident in the
>sheer caprice of their stall and spin behavior (or lack of it).

While the aerodynamics may be laid out in a pilots book, programming it
into a realistic simulation seems to be considerably LESS trivial.  
The aerodynamics are often described in a highly qualitative fashion.  Getting
a flight simulator to "feel" right is probably very hard.

The point I think that Richard is missing is that flight and dog are supposed
to be GAMES.  Fun.  You know, blast the other guy.  Figure out quirks in the 
program.  Is it really vital that the flight simulation be accurate when
you can have more fun zooming about?

Actually, I would like to know if people really crave realism, or they want
a video game-style simulation.  I have been considering writing a flight
simulator for the sun, and right now I am leaning toward game play rather
than realism as its chief goal.  Comments?

>-Richard

Mark VandeWettering