Jump to content

Talk:Flight simulator/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

I moved the following link here, as it is an external link in a list entirely made up of internal links. The list itself is bad enough without the addition of external links.

Icemotoboy (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Il-2 Sturmovik.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Simulators used by criminals

I strongly suggest removing this section. Constructing a non-existing link between flight simulators (more specifically flight simulation games) and criminal activities does not help explaining the concept or normal use of a flight simulator.

Case 1 is about a mentally ill person committing a crime aboard a real aircraft. Reference #3 contains the remark that "home computer games weren't to blame for his actions".

Case 2 refers to an unspecified flight simulation software installed on a laptop computer. This setup neither qualifies as a flight simulator, nor does it enable anyone to improve his flying skills. The latter is supported by a statement of the FBI, which is stated in reference #4.

Case 3 simply refers to Mr. Jack Thompson's opinion about Microsoft Flight Simulator including his alleged claim Microsoft would be "aiding terrorists". Reference #6 does not mention this rather far fetched claim.

Case 4 discusses nothing but a rumour: a suicide bomber who may have participated in online flying games. It is hard to see how the presumed participation in a virtual airline should prepare someone for detonating a bomb in the London subway system.

To put that in perspective, the Wikipedia article about Maps does not and will not contain a section "Maps and criminals". The same applies to the articles about cars, mobile phones, telephone directories, binoculars, books and so on - despite the undeniable fact that these items could be used to plan, prepare or conduct criminal activities.

--Wikitanian (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I STRONGLY CONCUR. Telephones and all forms of technology are used by criminals too. AIR is breathed by criminals and we don't feel compelled to mention that. Flight simulators in this context are essentially a teaching technology, like paper and books. Would we mention in a "Book" article that a criminal learned how to pick a safe by "using books". Maybe, if the article was about the safecracker himself or about a particular book about safecracking. But, it's stupid to mention it in an article about "Books".
If no one complains too badly (and reasonably), or if Wikitanian or anyone else doesn't get to it before me, I WILL DELETE IT. Wikitanian, I highly encourage you to delete it first. Don't give the quibblers time to whine. Deleting garbage in Wikipedia is HIGHLY SATISFYING! Do it!  :-)
--Gummer85 (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I see that 11 days passed and no one complained about the idea of deleting the section and Wikitanian rightfully deleted it. So Wikitanian, wasn't that fun? Bah Ha Ha Ha Ha!

--Gummer85 (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi folks, agree - that "simulators used by criminals" was a totally inappropriate title. I was the person who added all the text, but not that heading. The information below merely displays where simulators have been highlighted in notable media incidents. There is a casual observation by some that flight simulators offer dangerous training abilities to those flying aircraft, and the purpose of this section is to highlight the casual observation. Remember that while a section may be incorrectly titled, the text below it may be quite valid. After all, all the text (added by myself) is sourced from notable publications and no POV is drawn on the conclusions. It's purpose is to note that controversy has, very occasionally, surrounded the (potential) use of Flight Simulators for less than noble purposes. I've restored the text, but changes the heading. Let me know if you think the section is more acceptable. Icemotoboy (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I called it "garbage". That old heading wrapped your sweet prose up in thick layers of fetid seaweed and I mistakenly couldn't see beyond it.  :-)

So where have you been the last 11 days man? Why didn't you speak up then? I think you are right that the heading was in need of improvement. I imagine it was created in a hurry by someone doing a little reorganization. And, "controversial" is indeed more "easy-listening" in tone and diplomatic. Good job there. I don't think sinister uses are really "controversial" though. They're just sinister. Inclusion of them creates a dark cloud that is just, well, not nice.  :-) Again, usage of cell phones and other technologies by bad guys (etc.) wouldn't be included in an article. I gotta stand by the "not applicable" call. "Not applicable" trumps both "no pov" and "well referenced" (i.e. excellent verified text about cats wouldn't be included because it's NA). So, I say "delete". But I'm not hard over on this. I'm hard over on correctness in aeronautics articles, but not this.

Does anyone else have an opinion? Is anyone out there besides us three (W,G, and I)? Hello?! McFly!? Anyone? Speak up!

--Gummer85 (talk) 07:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Text could still do with some work. The reason I found the text was looking for coverage of the topic in the media, to ensure that article met notability guidelines and had more references. It's a sad state of affairs when it seems the media largely only becomes interested in flight simulation when it has the potential for involvement in terrorism... but I guess that's the way it works out. Maybe we could make some changes to prose such that it unequivically has no POV stance? I'd like to see some of the text stay, to preserve the references to flight simulation in the media. As to where I was in the last 11 days, alas, work got in the way of my wiki'ing. Please don't see my revert as being belief that the text should entirely stay - I think that editing is needed. I guess my reasoning is that I think it's notable that the media has focused on Flight Simulation (and technology) as potentially involved in major events such as 9-11. Flight Simulators were directly addressed in the commission's enquiry. Now, regardless of whether one thinks Flight Simulator's role is irrelevant (much like, say Criminals use of Books or the Internet in committing there crimes... or anything else for that matter), people have drawn this picture and it has received reasonably substantial coverage. If you checkout the 9-11 Commission enquiries report, you'll see that they addressed this topic to suprising depth. Icemotoboy (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I think above discussion largely leans around why the assertion that the use of flight simulators by terrorists/criminals is absurd, and comparisons with books and maps are included. That is not the issue, the issue is that Flight Simulation is routinely and regulary discussed in the media when it has been potentially involved in terrorist/criminal activity. Now, it's been stated that this is not applicable. But while we, as subject matter experts, may believe this to be true - many do not. And this is explored in the media, and then reported here, because the discussion is notable. Flight simulation is notable as a subject in part because of a possible potential for it to have been used in terrorist attacks, whether that is absurd or unfounded - the area gained much attention as a result of it. I mean, read the opening sentence of the section: The 9/11 Commission in the US concluded in 2004 that those responsible for flying the planes into World Trade Center and Pentagon had used PC-based flight simulators for training, is that real not applicable? Why was it covered by the media widely? Why were people (rightly or wrongly) concerned about the technology?

The point here, is not Can flight simulators be used by criminals/terrorists?... obviously they can be used by anyone much in the same way as a book or the internet. The question is Has the use of flight simulators been directly linked to terrorist/criminal activites. Much of the original "case" outlines above draw on original research, and drawing conclusions. In the text of the section, the coverage (news articles) and results (such as court outcomes, FBI statements) are presented, allowing the reader to make up their own mind and not draw conclusions for them. Icemotoboy (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I still think all four incidents mentioned are highly irrelevant regarding this topic and simply do not qualify at all for inclusion in an encyclopedic article about flight simulators. (I gave the rationale in my initial comment.)
The 9/11 Commission Report states that the terrorists enroled at FAA-certified flying schools and used for instance a Boeing 737 full-flight simulator at Pan Am International Flight Academy (PAIFA) in Mesa. This is something different as playing with a generic aircraft simulation on a PC. While the whole issue of having used a flight simulator may be relevant for this specific crime (and possibly so for the Wikipedia article describing it), it is not relevant for the explanation of what a flight simulator is. In this particular case, they simply learned how to fly - and they did it more or less the same way as any other student pilot would have done it (including the use of simulators).
If the press keeps painting a strange picture of the potential dark side of PC-based flight simulation, it may become an urban legend, but it is not a sufficient reason to carve that in encyclopedic stone.
However the new heading (begging for simplification), opens up a whole new issue. Flight simulators are a very important tool for aircraft accident and incident investigation. There are a number of high-profile cases and some of them could be mentioned here to illustrate that point.
--Wikitanian (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Move request to move iOS (Apple) to IOS

IOS is currently a disambiguation page, and it links to this one. Its proposed to move iOS (Apple) over than and move the redirect to IOS (disambiguation). See Talk:IOS (Apple)#Requested Move 3 if you wish to comment. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

FAA Spatial Disorientation Simulator and Coriolis illusion

The FAA Spatial Disorientation Simulator travels the country ( I encountered it at the Reno Air Races.) This is the one motion simulator in aviation that many people have experienced.

One such simulator is mentioned on en.wikipedia.org at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Odegard_School_of_Aerospace_Sciences

The FAA simulator is extraordinarily effective in conveying the utterly convincing experience of roll which is contradicted by the stable instruments (initiated through a simple action such as bending to pick something up) without the use of graphics to complement the instruments and controls.

Incidentally, an early IBM PC "flight simulator" game in the 1980's was also graphics-free and covered London - Netherlands using keyboard input and character display of instruments for an imaginary DC-10 without even visual runway indications (if my memory serves.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grshiplett (talk • contribs) 23:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Complaints about need for citation

I have just finished copy editing this text, and am rather bothered by the drastic use of the "citation needed" comment and all the "no reference or sources" boxes in this article, section after section, paragraph after paragraph. Why does anyone have to be so aggressive and antagonistic? One comment at the beginning of the article should suffice, seems to me.

This new policy, which I have noticed in many articles recently, is starting to be a nuisance rather than a help. Such requests should be reserved for sentences that are very controversial or very doubtful or very opinionated, where their use has some validity. Otherwise, don't we have to trust the author in the first instance, and leave it to the Wikipedia user to tackle any needed editing? They are not shy about making such changes, after all. --Remotelysensed (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the bulk of this article is unsourced. If you check the history it has mostly been incrementally added by many different editors, many of them IP editors who were clearly here to promote companies or products as well as fans adding gaming text. As a result the article, even though you have now nicely copy-editted it, is a mass of unsourced and WP:OR text. As quoted in Wikipedia:Verifiability as Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said "I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar." The tags are there to warn readers that the information is doubtful as to its source and whether it is right or not. I was planning to leave them there for a while and see if anyone can find sources, but eventually the unsourced and tagged text will be removed. If the tags seem to be intrusive we can move that process up and just do a text clean up sooner if you prefer. - Ahunt (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much for this useful clarification. I have no problem whatsoever with the warning as such, your reasons are convincing. But I think it would be adequate to put it once at the beginning of the article if it refers basically to the entire article (as in this case) and otherwise just at the beginning of a dubious section (as one sees in other articles). That is very helpful for the user. But in this article, to go on to mark so many paragraphs in the same way with that big box, after once generally calling attention to the problem at the beginning, is like the little boy calling "wolf"; the effectivity drops. I guess I did not make myself clear enough in my comment, sorry for that. Another thought: why not use for the subsequent reminders that little superscript warning to the reader that some assertion needs backing; I seem to remember that it's a text something like "citation needed". Then you are getting across the message without "yelling". --Remotelysensed (talk) 10:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
No problem I can do that. - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Clean up time?

Most of this article consists of text that has now been tagged as unreferenced for four years. It is really time to clean it up and reduce it to what can be actually referenced. I think this will result is a rather short article, so I thought I would open discussion here first and see if there are other ideas or references available. - Ahunt (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

With no objections for more than two months, as per WP:SILENCE, it is time to remove the unsourced text. - Ahunt (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 Done - Ahunt (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

FlightGear RfC

There is an WP:RFC about restoring content deleted from the FlightGear article on its talk page here, which may be of interest to editors of this article, if nothing else because some of the content may potentially belong here or elsewhere. LjL (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Flight simulator/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Mid="relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas."

Last edited at 22:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 15:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Needs more information on 1960s-1980s simulators

I was kind of astonished this article skips completely over the 1960s-1980s simulators. This is when they were heavily driven by graphics systems and collimated displays. This was a major technological advance, well before the home gaming or arcade market appeared, and the topic really needs a more encyclopedic treatment. -Rolypolyman (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:BOLD--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
As always, coverage of subject areas and time periods like this is dictated by a lack of references. If you can find the refs, then the text can be expanded. - Ahunt (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 12 May 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Flight simulator → Flight simulator (device) – "Flight simulator" should be a broad-concept article describing both professional and amateur flight simulation, as well as combat flight simulation. fgnievinski (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category

Might consider integrating the "Qualification and approval" part into "Types of flight simulators" part. LuminousN (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the two sections were too similar, now one of them is application-specific MaarrkL (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Review only for sections: Types of flight simulators, Technology, EASA categories

Hello! The expanded part of this article is of professional content. Many advanced and solid conclusions are embeded in the added section. Good work!

One detailed thing about the short name of the nomenclature in this article may could be adjusted to improve the quality of the whole article. For instance, the term "BITD" located in the section of "instruments" perhaps doesn't have the explanation or the full time around, which is describled in the following section of "European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA, ex JAA) categories[edit source]". Probable the orders of them could be changed.

Ciao! Duomo Feng (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

"BITD" is used twice, once with a definition in brackets right next to it and the other with an abbr tooltip that defines it. - Ahunt (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, I reorganised the article so terms are mentioned after they are explained MaarrkL (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Review

The article well describes the features of flight simulators. I also agree with the suggestion above of merging Qualification and approval with Types of flight simulators, perhaps even renaming the Types of flight simulators into something along the lines of Employment of flight simulators. Also, the first appearance of the acronym ATD doesn't seem to explain its meaning (see the subsection Procedure in Qualification and approval). SlipherD (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Integration of content from Simulation article

In the Simulation#Flight section, there are a few paragraphs that describe the advantages (safety, cost etc.) that should probably be moved to this article, I'd say into Flight simulator#Pilot training section, to give reason for that application. I think as Simulation is already very long and a bit messy, the section about flight simulation should be just a simple example. The text there should be more related to the topic, like what kind of simulation that is according to the categories explained above.

But I am not yet sure if I should and how to approach that exactly MaarrkL (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Observations and suggestions for improvements

The following observations and suggestions for improvements were collected, following expert review of the article within the Science, Technology, Society and Wikipedia course at the Politecnico di Milano, in June 2022.

The Wiki entry appears well balanced in terms of content and description accuracy. Under a scientific perspective, flight simulation also includes simply forward-integrating a suitable set of equations of motion/control laws/actuator dynamic equations/sensor equations etc. Simulators in virtual environment (i.e. running on a standard pc), without visual outputs and without any real-time capabilities are possibly the most widespread for research purposes. I acknowledge this 'meaning' of flight simulator is somewhat far from what the general public usually is accustomed to - including this meaning in the page might be misleading. However, if completeness is sought, something more could be said on this use as well. The authors may also consider adding some references to commercial implementations, which have been made available to the general public over the years for entertainment and more sophisticated uses as well (MS Flight Simulator, Sierra Pro-Pilot, X-Plane, etc.), and often share simulation models with more complex simulators aiming at a professional or scientific target.

-- BarettoDiArchitettura (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flight_simulator/Archive_2&oldid=1250471271"