Slashdot Mirror

You need to be introduced to XPlane. I guarantee I learned more about aerodynamics, and how to crash stuff into the ground with it than making models did. It is a flight simulator with all the tools you need to create your own creations. And yes, all of what you listed will make a hell of a difference in custom designs.

I don't work for them or get kickbacks, but it has these programs (http://www.x-plane.com/about.html is the source)
---snip---
Airfoil-Maker (to make airfoils for your aircraft if you would like to make your own planes).
Plane-Maker (to make your own planes and helos if desired)
World-Maker (to make your own scenery to fly in if you like)
Weather-Briefer (to get a weather-briefing before your flight if desired)
X-Plane (the actual flight simulator)
---snip---

You can make your own airfoils and wing shapes, and do it in such a way that you don't waste materials. When you come up with a good model, then you can build it and already have an idea of how it will fly.

http://www.x-plane.com/

I've been interested in giving that a try, but I still don't expect much from it. It would need a full force feedback cockpit and wrap around displays to really pull off the realism. It's not just about the physics model.

Someday, when I've got a bit of time, I'll check it out.

Try a real flight sim, instead of a game.

Check out X-Plane MARS and test some designs for yourself. :)

Regarding your first point: X-Plane is an advanced commercial flight simulator package available for Linux, Mac OS, and Windows. It should compare favorably with MS Flight Simulator.

Don't be bitter.

for flight sim I recommend Xplane. It's cross platform and you can try it for free.

You can create UT2k4 mods just fine in Linux. Did you want to be more specific? Do you know of one that won't run in a vm?

We can forgive you for not knowing that any PC that can play games is a general purpose PC. You are a victim of marketing. The thing you don't know is that "anything a program can do, another program can do." It's part of the basic premise of computing.

There will be a gap where Windows owns gaming. The gap is closing. We're changing paradigm from texture mapping to ray tracing, and the ray tracing architecture must be open, seeing as how it was invented 50 years ago. Texture mapping was a stopgap to get us through the period where processors weren't fast enough to do ray tracing. That time is over.

Instead of Flight Simulator, have you tried X-plane?

http://www.x-plane.com/demo.html

Linux 8.64

Installer-123 Linux

http://dev.x-plane.com/update/installers/X-PlaneInstaller123Linux.zip

http://www.x-plane.com/demo.html

Linux 8.64

Installer-123 Linux

http://dev.x-plane.com/update/installers/X-PlaneInstaller123Linux.zip

My biggest problem with flight gear has always been the UI. If I'm going run a flight sim on Linux, I prefer X-Plane.

You can use X-Plane to study up on orbital physics and escape velocity, you can even fly the space shuttle on Mars if you'd like... http://www.x-plane.com/features.html

Very nice, but their flight sim is very basic, I think they should deal with someone who's done good in the flight sim business. My first thought is that guy who made X-Plane, I think they should hire some of his services to make Google Earth Flightsim a fully fledged flightsim that would compete with MS's flightsims

I'm a private pilot, and the other simulators disappoint.

Even X-Plane?

You wouldn't believe how hard it is to escape earth's gravity... You can try it with X-Plane, http://www.x-plane.com/

--
The fact that there's no air in space might be a problem too.

Not so well... but it's theoretically possible.

A 747 wouldn't do you much good on Mars either, since the atmosphere there is much thinner.

There is a decent (if outdated) overview of this at X-Plane's site -- X-Plane is a flight simulator based on Blade Element Theory, and its principal author is an effusive geek.

Plus shall we mention this is the first time this has been done in a game?

Far from it: Microsoft flight simulator

X-Plane

Weather Channel Golf

And there has been weather integration in Second Life as well...

Mars has a lower gravity; but no atmosphere, so No planes, no choppers, ... only rockets will keep you up.

Mars does indeed have an atmosphere, albiet a thin one. So planes designed for Mars can actually fly: http://www.x-plane.com/mars.html

X-Plane also has a Linux version. Any flight sim that lets you fly on a terrain- and physics- accurate model of Mars is king in my book ;).

Megascenery (www.megascenery.com ) has got Google Earth beat, and although expensive, does a very good job of providing photorealistic scenary for Flight Simulator. They have most of the interesting locations in the US.

With X-Plane you can simulate re-entries as well. Not sure how realistic they are, but it's an otherwise very interesting sim - worth a look. It's also available for Win, OS X and Linux.

It should be pointed out this isn't just Microsoft Flight Simulator they are playing. These are motion-controlled capsules that simulate the realities of an aircraft's movement.

They're playing X-Plane! Seriously - you do need full-motion sim hardware, but the software is $50 OTS.

Disclaimer, yes, I do own a copy.

... but even with the speed, flying an SR-71 is a pain (at least in the sim) -- drives like a boat. I'd much rather fly an F-22.

MS Flight Sim? Pfah! X-Plane kicks its ass. MS just duplicates performance characteristics of planes - X-Plane has a real physics model. Hook it up to simulator hardware and the FAA accepts X-Plane time as simulator hours. Engineers use X-Plane to try out aircraft designs. You can do the same thing yourself, design your own airplanes and fly them. And yeah, I think it has multi-head support.

The guy who makes X-Plane has a space sim up that does what you're talking about. It's a simulation, and a very difficult one. There are scenarios in there where you have to, say, chase a comet.

It's not really fun.

The guy who makes X-Plane has a space sim up that does what you're talking about. It's a simulation, and a very difficult one. There are scenarios in there where you have to, say, chase a comet.

It's not really fun.

X-Plane works nicely with multiple monitors.. Not as graphically pretty as the MS offering, but as far as being a 'realistic' simulation of flying a plane, it knocks the pants off the MS sim (I do both, sim and real flying).

X-Plane is an awesome "game" that was actually used in the testing of this prototype and that of the Carter Copter. The amount of work that's gone into it is astounding. It's got the ability to run a motion control systems (even full-motion ones), span views across multiple monitors, and has even recieved certification for airline pilot training. And it runs on Linux! Anyone who's interested in flight simulators should check it out.

Let's hope Jack doesn't find out about X-Plane...

What's interesting, and perhaps addressed in your link, is that flying on Mars is completely different from flying on Earth. With low gravity it may seem easier, but at only 1% of Earth's atmosphere there is not enough air viscosity for a standard airplane to fly. It cannot generate lift nor maneuver once in the air.

X-Plane (http://www.x-plane.com/) provides a simulated Mars flight and includes a couple of airplanes that are designed to fly on Mars, but even those planes still do not provide enough control over the craft for it to be useful.

You're reading too much into that article. The Space Shuttle is fully automated for 99% of the reentry and landing. The only time that control is given back to the pilot is when it's time to deploy the landing gear. The reason why this phase is manual is so that the computer doesn't accidently deploy the gear early. If that happened, there would be no way to lift the gear during flight. The scenarios that could occur because of this are:

1. The shuttle could burn up due to too much drag.
2. The shuttle could undershoot its landing field.
3. The landing gear could be damaged by the stresses, making landing impossible.

So the "touch-down" they're referring to is merely the final stage of the landing. In all cases except one, the shuttle has re-entered on automatic.

I love this page, and it seems to be an opportune moment.

Land the shuttle yourself you macho.

By loading up X-Plane and flying the Space Shuttle to a nice successful landing.

Pity X-Plane won't simulate the launch... or the ISS, but oh well.

By loading up X-Plane and flying the Space Shuttle to a nice successful landing.

Pity X-Plane won't simulate the launch... or the ISS, but oh well.

There's a number of Mars flying issues. So far I consider X-Plane - Mars Chronciles the definitive layments guide.

Basics:
There is only 1% the atmosphere of earth.
~33% gravity.

Trying to stop is pretty much impossible. Propellers are pretty much useless.
On the plus side, rocket hydrogen gliders should work pretty damned well... least till they have to land.

I'm not sure whether you're voluntarily closing your eyes or if you really can't see that not all kind of games do run on consoles.In my personal case, i love simulators.

Tell me, which console offers me *one* flight simulator? And please, i *mean* simulator, i don't mean 'a game featuring a plane'. Where are the equivalents to MS Flight Simulator, X-Plane or FlightGear?

I do also appreciate submarine simulations. Where are Jane's 688 games or the Silent Hunter titles? Nowehere near.

I also happen to play wargames. I *mean* wargame here, not RTS. What the heck on a console comes close to the Combat Mission series?

Even when looking at game styles also present on consoles, there *are* huge differences. I enjoyed a lot the first game of Thief series and the first Deus Ex. I hated the last Thief, and the second Deus Ex. Guess what? Both titles were designed to *also* sell on consoles. In both cases, the games have been dumbed down. The gaming style seemingly did not fit to the mainstream console public.
I could go on to find more examples, but i suppose you get the point. Consoles do *not* provide everything. And please don't think i have anything against consoles: i have very good times playing FIFA/NBA/etc sports game, as well as GTA:SA on my PS2, and i'll probably buy some next-generation console. But there is no way i can ditch the PC as a gaming platform, and i'm far from being alone in that case. It *does* provide lots of games which simply have no equivalent on consoles. Do you really think that PC gamers are stupid enough not to buy a console instead of a PC if it was *really* doing the same thing?

It's probably not that modern consoles can't accomodate such games, as they now are gaming-oriented full computers. It is more of a decision by the game editors/designers. You don't find every genre on a console, and even in the same genre, the gaming style sometimes vary as the public is not the same...

Of course they do. Most major games at least have a seperate box for the Mac version available. Blizzard is notable because every piece of software they've ever created (including World of Warcraft) has a Mac version -- in fact, WoW in particular even comes on hybrid discs, so even if you bought the "Windows" version, you can install it on Mac just fine too. Shadowbane and probably other MMORPGs do this as well. Bioware is typically fairly Mac friendly, although there was a lot of grumbling that they never released the NWN toolset for Mac. Many of the smaller-run games don't have ports, but anything major will very likely run on Mac. And don't discount the Mac-developed games either. X-Plane is a fantastic flight sim that puts Microsoft's to shame. EV Nova is a remarkably deep and enjoyable game. Chromatron is a great little quickie puzzle game to play (beware, addictive!) although it gets not-so-quick and in fact quite boggling at the higher levels. And hell, if you're really stuck for games, there are emulators for just about every console you can imagine. In a most of them, they even run as fast or faster than an equivalently priced PC since the re aren't any byte-order headaches to deal with.

No, the Mac isn't as great for games as a PC, but it's not as bad as people make it out to be. There's less selection, but just as much quality in my opinion. If you want to bring all your current PC games across, you're gonna be in trouble, but if you just want to buy a Mac and have lots of great games available to play, you'll do okay.

And here is an actual link because the parent poster is a lazy cunt: http://www.x-plane.com/

MS Flight Simulator can't hold a candle to X-Plane $50 and you can have flight simulator software that is used to train commercially

"For example, do you know about FAR - one of the best file managers in the world?"

Total Commander is better.

"Or how about RAR?"

7-Zip is better.

"And certainly you haven't heard about the superb mailer "The Bat!""

Other poster pointed out that it isn't Russian.

"Besides, lots of software is written in Russia: Microsoft Flight Simulator"

X-Plane is better.

"IDEA (the best Java IDE)"

JCreator is better.

Those Russians might have the most powerful mafia and some really hot chicks, but their programmers are obviously ass.

Considering that it would take 500 mph to take off in the best designed glider, those anemometers better be awfully lightweight.

Flight Simulator Experience On Mars

Nuff Said.

From the X-Plane site: "Fidelity Flight Simulation has obtained FAA approval (documented here) to train pilots towards their COMMERCIAL CERTIFICATE, INSTRUMENT RATING, and AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT CERTIFICATE. This training is done in a full-motion simulator, using X-Plane 6.12 as the simulator software!...Now, actually LOGGING this time requires you to be in a Motus full-motion sim (price tag: about $150,000.00) with an instructor."

Course, MSFS ain't certified for squats under ANY circumstances...it's just a game.

Why didn't they use X-Plane as the flight simulator??

Somebody buy these guys a copy of X-Plane!. If not for the better environments and the fully customizable aircraft, then at least for the fact that the entire simulation can be controlled remotely over UDP.

X-Plane is usable for instrument, commercial, and airline pilot cert training (linky). Of course, "actually LOGGING this time requires you to be in a Motus full-motion sim (price tag: about $150,000.00) with an instructor" - but still, MSFS isn't rated for jack shit. It's just a game.

X-Plane is usable for instrument, commercial, and airline pilot cert training (linky). Of course, "actually LOGGING this time requires you to be in a Motus full-motion sim (price tag: about $150,000.00) with an instructor" - but still, MSFS isn't rated for jack shit. It's just a game.

In that case, possibly a better example for BitTorrent could be X-Plane. Austin distributes the demo, betas and updates for the software using BT and he has done since the early 7.x releases. It may not have the tens of thousands of users, but it is a substantial legal use...

I remember some dude that had created Mars planes on a simulator, using real NASA-supplied data.

His findings: low gravity and ultrathin atmosphere are bitches.

For one, the ultrathin atmosphere (air density 1% of the Earth's) requires huge wings and a very high speed to generate enough lift.

Taking-off and landing are almost impossible. The planes needs a speed of 400 knots to take off. Landing is very... hard because low gravity prevents you from using brakes, and low air density from using reverse thrust.

Of course, the Gashopper isn't supposed to take off or land (it could not anyway). However, it'd still need massive horsepower and huge wings - all of which make it hard to cram the Mars plane into a space probe.
Bottom line: if the plane has been successfully tested on Earth, it is unlikely to work on Mars.

Disclaimer: I am not a Mars aerospace engineer. But that guy's findings were definitely interesting.

http://www.x-plane.com/FTD.html