Conference 7.286::space

      Would the world be round or flat? Either would be fine but if
    you could simulate worlds in 3d, it would be fun to be able to
    'fly' an Apollo to the moon, land a LEM, takeoff, and return to
    Earth complete with re-entry.
    
      That may be too much, for now, a shuttle would be fine.
    
      George

> Round or flat?

  The surface of the world is flat, but the simulation is 3D.  It's flat
mostly because of the speed problem with double-precision numbers.  So we
use single precision numbers and only get a flight radius of about 750 miles.
Not enough for mother Earth, definitely not enough for a lunar mission.
If we had the precision, the Earth would be a sphere and true orbits would
be possible.  As it is, we simulate gravity (no attenuation with distance).

  You could simulate segments of the mission.  Besides, are you going to
sit in front of a workstation for the days it takes to get to the moon?

John

      I did take time off from school during the big NASA flights but
    your point is well taken. Simulating parts of things would be fine
    and is in the spirit of Simulation.
    
      You know what would be fun, would be to have a simulation of NASA's
    Gulfstream 3 which I think has been modified with large flaps. The
    pilot astronauts use it to practice shuttle landings. The shuttle
    itself would also be interesting.
    
      George

    You could do what "Orbiter" by Spectum Holobyte for the Macintosh does,
    which is allow the user to select varying degrees of "time
    compression". "Orbiter" switches time compression as necessary.  For
    example most of the pre-launch and launch sequence is 1:1, but after
    SRB sep and throttle down it switches to 20:1.  It ends up taking about
    10-15 minutes to achive orbit. 

    If any of you have a Mac and you're into simulation (as opposed to
    gaming), I highly recommend "Orbiter".

    
    Re: .4
    
    >If any of you have a Mac and you're into simulation (as opposedto
    >gaming), I highly recommend "Orbiter".
    
    	Derrell, if you have never tried the Flight simulation upon
    which the .0 suggestion was made, I would highly recommend it.  I have
    flown in many other simulators -- including models designated by
    the FAA as counting for "simulated flight hours" for the instrument
    rating -- and Flight is *far* superior to them all.  A game?  Well,
    you *can* use it for dog-fighting so you could call it a game. 
    I would not accept it being catagorized under "as opposed to gaming"
    though.  Using it, I've improved my landing skills to the point
    where I can regularly land an F15 on what I call "runway 31" at
    Logan.  "Runway 31" is, incidently, the connecting taxiway at the
    northern end of Runway 4R and 4L.  Its not just a game...
    

RE: < Note 357.5 by CRAIG::YANKES >

  Thanks.  Comments like that get to me, too.  Certainly Flight has gamey
elements to it - it's supposed to.  But it's also a very serious simulator.
Which is why I have the guts to propose it to the members of this conference.

John

    Hey, wait a sec folks...  I wan't implying that I thought FLIGHT to be
    simply a game.  The point I was trying to make was that Orbiter was
    more a simulator than a game and that one should not buy it (Orbiter)
    for the wrong reasons.

    I have FLIGHT installed on my VAXstation and I enjoy it greatly.  I
    started flying when I was 16 and I soled at 17.  I think it is an
    excellent simulation and I would love to see it extended to encompass
    the space shuttle.  My note attempted to point out how another
    simulator handled the problems discussed in earlier notes.
    Additionally, I was providing a reference to what I feel is another
    excellent simulation.

    I'm sorry if my wording implied otherwise.  I certainly didn't mean to
    offend those who've worked so hard to bring us FLIGHT.

>    I'm sorry if my wording implied otherwise.  I certainly didn't mean to
>    offend those who've worked so hard to bring us FLIGHT.

  's okay.

  I know where you're coming from.  I'm constantly upsetting people via Notes
just because the particular wording I used didn't carry the tone I implied.
Implications often don't carry in the written word due to lack of inflection,
etc.  Thus, the meaning was misinterpreted.

John

    
    'tis OK here also.  Sorry for the misunderstanding!
    
    						-craig

             <<< TLE::PUBD$:[VAXNOTES]EASYNET_CONFERENCES.NOTE;8 >>>
                       -< EasyNet Conference Directory >-
================================================================================
Note 878.1*                     Flight Simulator                          1 of 1
KING::BUEHLER "What does a stupid question taste li" 11 lines  23-MAR-1988 10:56
                            -< New home on QUEEN:: >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FLIGHT notes conference has been moved to QUEEN.  The command

    NOTES> MODIFY ENTRY FLIGHT/FILE=QUEEN::FLIGHT

    will update your notebook to point to the new location.  The kits for 
  FLIGHT will also be at the new location at QUEEN::FLT$KIT:

    QUEEN's node address is 2.501, or 2549::  Pressing KP7 or SELECT will add
  the conference to your notebook (as QUEEN::FLIGHT).

    John