I flew a real A10 simulator at an air force base several years ago. The entire room was a big dome and it had 360 degree video. The guy showing me around said just the video was over a million dollars. The problem was that it was STILL 2D. The real cockpit with real controls was super cool, but flying in my sim pit at home in VR with 3 butt kickers is a million times better. Having a motion rig would be cool though.
@@riverbankfisher The entire rig is on welded 2 inch aluminum tube and the buttkickers are not in any sequence, although I plan on doing that soon. The original buttkicker amps are long since burned up and they now are powered by a JL Audio car amp and a desktop bench power supply. lol works great though.
@@baaamakingbaaaa That is an innovative workaround to keep the gear working even when its dedicated amplifier burned out. Flight sim enthusiasts are gifted with creativity for sure.
Yeah sim can do a lot but it has relatively narrow field of view. I think a motion seat with good VR headset and some dummy avionics to touch is a much greater experience.
VR cannot give the tactile and build motor-memory experience of a Level B, C, or D flight training device (simulator). Very little flight training in a simulator is spent just cruising around the sky. A vast majority is spent working through abnormal and emergency procedures. VR would have zero value dealing with engine-inoperative situations, single-engine approaches, etc. Also consider that pilot Type Ratings can be awarded using a Level D flight training device. The physical hardware matters.
@@EJWash57 I wouldn't agree with the premise but you overlooked that I mentioned some dummy avionics to touch. That means the form is physically there for you to touch but what you see is computer generated. You follow? The accurate 3D representation will be far more real than the narrow 2D illusion of the multiple monitors. What I'm suggesting can be superior to a 10million dollar airliner sim. And cost 1/1000. Price matters. What it could offer is total proficiency before any actual airplane time. It can make an airliner license as cheap as it should be.
@@DanFrederiksen Pilots would face the learning curve of interacting with VR - in addition to learning the aircraft. You're deep into the negative-training realm now. More training hours would have to be added to the syllabus, and more training hours means more money and pilots not flying the line. Or, will there her a VR simulator to train on in order to step into a flight simulator that uses VR? Still, more training hours. As far as outside (terrain/manmade structures) 2D presentations. 2D or 3D isn't a factor, because training flights are low-visibility on the ground, and IMC shortly after takeoff. And, approaches are IMC to approach minimums. Some approaches are intentionally set so the runway environment is not acquired at minimums, forcing a missed approach. Bottom line? It doesn't sound like you're familiar with the flight training devices currently being used. If you have a better program, I'd market it.
@@EJWash57 nah you didn't think that through. putting on a VR headset is not a master's degree at MIT. you don't have to know sign language or stenography. there is no learning curve. the idea is that there are physical dummy avionics to touch that match what the VR headset is showing so the illusion is effortless and like being there.
Flight training devices (flight simulators) are invaluable learning and teaching aids. They pre-date the Wright Brothers, and were a huge part in putting man on the moon. With a competent instructor and effective syllabus, training time towards an Instrument Rating is reduced, and produces a sharper check-ride candidate. And, for those looking to make a living as a professional pilot, get used to simulators - you'll be evaluated/re-certified in simulators every six-months at the earliest, and annually at the latest for your entire career. Commenters here are disappointed in the lack of sharp terrain and manmade structures (buildings, etc.) in the simulator featured in the video. This isn't important because flight simulators are intended to build and keep IMC skills sharp in simulated low-visibility situations - take-off, en route, on approach to minimum weather criteria, and touchdown. Programs like Microsoft Flight Simulator are entertainments, and in some cases promote negative-training. The student will spend more time in the aircraft or an approved flight training device undoing the habits that entertainment programs have embedded.
Airplanes are expensive because of liability and corrupt insurance companies, These simulators are expensive because of greed. MSFS is cheap and helps in training but is not certified by the FAA for sim time.
I know people used to dog on the flight models when it first came out, but I know CFI's who say some of the aircraft couldn't be any more realistic now. It does have incredible scenery.
Keep in mind that flight simulators are primarily used for instrument flight training. Outside presentation becomes irrelevant. Programs like Flight Simulator, et al, are for entertainment purposes.
I flew a real A10 simulator at an air force base several years ago. The entire room was a big dome and it had 360 degree video. The guy showing me around said just the video was over a million dollars. The problem was that it was STILL 2D. The real cockpit with real controls was super cool, but flying in my sim pit at home in VR with 3 butt kickers is a million times better. Having a motion rig would be cool though.
Wow three Butt Kickers is a lot. How are they set up? One for each seat and one for the floor of your flight deck?
@@riverbankfisher The entire rig is on welded 2 inch aluminum tube and the buttkickers are not in any sequence, although I plan on doing that soon. The original buttkicker amps are long since burned up and they now are powered by a JL Audio car amp and a desktop bench power supply. lol works great though.
@@baaamakingbaaaa That is an innovative workaround to keep the gear working even when its dedicated amplifier burned out. Flight sim enthusiasts are gifted with creativity for sure.
Hi Mojo, does it come with ATC?
Does it have a Rotax ?
Hi Mike from Sydney Australia. Great training asset for the business. Is it FAA approved for logbooks? 📘
🇦🇺🌏
Yea it is
Yeah sim can do a lot but it has relatively narrow field of view. I think a motion seat with good VR headset and some dummy avionics to touch is a much greater experience.
VR cannot give the tactile and build motor-memory experience of a Level B, C, or D flight training device (simulator). Very little flight training in a simulator is spent just cruising around the sky. A vast majority is spent working through abnormal and emergency procedures. VR would have zero value dealing with engine-inoperative situations, single-engine approaches, etc. Also consider that pilot Type Ratings can be awarded using a Level D flight training device. The physical hardware matters.
@@EJWash57 I wouldn't agree with the premise but you overlooked that I mentioned some dummy avionics to touch. That means the form is physically there for you to touch but what you see is computer generated. You follow? The accurate 3D representation will be far more real than the narrow 2D illusion of the multiple monitors. What I'm suggesting can be superior to a 10million dollar airliner sim. And cost 1/1000. Price matters.
What it could offer is total proficiency before any actual airplane time. It can make an airliner license as cheap as it should be.
@@DanFrederiksen Pilots would face the learning curve of interacting with VR - in addition to learning the aircraft. You're deep into the negative-training realm now. More training hours would have to be added to the syllabus, and more training hours means more money and pilots not flying the line. Or, will there her a VR simulator to train on in order to step into a flight simulator that uses VR? Still, more training hours. As far as outside (terrain/manmade structures) 2D presentations. 2D or 3D isn't a factor, because training flights are low-visibility on the ground, and IMC shortly after takeoff. And, approaches are IMC to approach minimums. Some approaches are intentionally set so the runway environment is not acquired at minimums, forcing a missed approach. Bottom line? It doesn't sound like you're familiar with the flight training devices currently being used. If you have a better program, I'd market it.
@@EJWash57 nah you didn't think that through. putting on a VR headset is not a master's degree at MIT. you don't have to know sign language or stenography. there is no learning curve. the idea is that there are physical dummy avionics to touch that match what the VR headset is showing so the illusion is effortless and like being there.
@@DanFrederiksen There is no getting through to you. I'm done. Good luck selling your - - whatever you're selling.
Whats this cost
Flight training devices (flight simulators) are invaluable learning and teaching aids. They pre-date the Wright Brothers, and were a huge part in putting man on the moon. With a competent instructor and effective syllabus, training time towards an Instrument Rating is reduced, and produces a sharper check-ride candidate. And, for those looking to make a living as a professional pilot, get used to simulators - you'll be evaluated/re-certified in simulators every six-months at the earliest, and annually at the latest for your entire career.
Commenters here are disappointed in the lack of sharp terrain and manmade structures (buildings, etc.) in the simulator featured in the video. This isn't important because flight simulators are intended to build and keep IMC skills sharp in simulated low-visibility situations - take-off, en route, on approach to minimum weather criteria, and touchdown. Programs like Microsoft Flight Simulator are entertainments, and in some cases promote negative-training. The student will spend more time in the aircraft or an approved flight training device undoing the habits that entertainment programs have embedded.
Hopefully it’s better than a redbird…
Airplanes are expensive because of liability and corrupt insurance companies, These simulators are expensive because of greed. MSFS is cheap and helps in training but is not certified by the FAA for sim time.
The same ugly "x-plane like" graphics as I remember~3 years ago, zero progress...
I'm surprised that simulator isn't running MS Flight Sim 2020 for a better looking enviroment.
I know people used to dog on the flight models when it first came out, but I know CFI's who say some of the aircraft couldn't be any more realistic now. It does have incredible scenery.
@baaamakingbaaaa Yea, but I think the actuacy of the environment for vfr is what's needed in something like this.
Keep in mind that flight simulators are primarily used for instrument flight training. Outside presentation becomes irrelevant. Programs like Flight Simulator, et al, are for entertainment purposes.
@@EJWash57 yes, but better to fill it is real than opposite.
@@ЮрійГордієнко-х2з What?
The MSFS fanatics always crack me up with these kind of videos.
Wow! you mean you are a REAL pio-lot??
S**t graphics, is it X-Plane ? 🙈😂💩
The cessna sounds like P3D and also the graphics.