TRAINZ SIMULATOR 2006 ADDONS SOFTWARE
Simulators which have a 1:1 copy of the cockpit and use the software from Lockheed Martin (based on a very old MS Flight Simulator software, I think originally 2006). He said that pilots right now use two different kind of simulators for training.ġ. I talked to a certified German pilot about that. * It can't handle bridges: you'll see cars drive right through the bridge and along the terrain underneath it. You'll see that same glossy sheen cutting a straight line over the terrain, while the photographed stream meanders back and forth. You'll fly over the desert and see a glossy sheen of reflective water where the sim thinks there should be a waterway, but it's quite obvious that no water was present when photos were taken. Marinas in particular look bad, because they fade out as they get away from shore. Again, they're rendered as flat images on the water. You would see them as flat, projected images on the landscape with no 3d asset.
TRAINZ SIMULATOR 2006 ADDONS GENERATOR
* The generator couldn't handle windmills. I don't fly it often, but when last I flew: As soon as you start flying VFR outside those points, the generated terrain shows its limits.
If you only ever plan to fly airliners between handcrafted payware cities, it will look pretty great. The problem is that it's a global simulator: this is a major part of its appeal and marketing. I think the video highlights FS2020 at it's best, and it looks very good to me. I'm frankly shocked nobody has done that yet even though the models exist from xplane. If any modders are reading this, I'd pay good money for a well done version of KSQL and KPAO. I was not prepared for the importance of physical sensations, or frankly the sensory overload due to the higher frame rates, "graphics", and physical sensations or flying IRL and it stuck with me the entire night.Īt the risk of bad habits or missing important details or legal stuff, I'm now reasonably comfortable copying an ifr clearance on vatsim, basic ATC phraseology, airspace restrictions, reading various charts, and flying a pattern. My muscle memory messed me up a bit when flying IRL on a discovery flight due to how used I am to all my Virpil Mongoose throttle bindings since I fly in VR, but I still knew where just about everything was in the da40 cockpit and how it worked. I've navigated IRL on a discovery flight based on knowledge from the sim. I can see my house complete with car in the driveway. And when I'm frustrated I try to remind myself how good this experience could be 5 years from now, especially as VR FOV and OLED -driven contrast improvements pick up. It is jaw dropping at times, and frustratingly close at others. I'm a huge MSFS nerd with lots of hardware and play exclusively in VR (albeit on a Q2) with a 30x. There’s nothing to do with this information The main issue with the simulation argument is that it doesn’t matter if it were true if the simulation is done correctly, it’s indistinguishable from not-simulation - and you presumably only exist within the simulation so there’s no matrix-style breakout. Let’s say to compute the ultimate question to the universe.Īnd the Who, ultimately, exists outside of our universe, and thus presumably cannot be identified (just as your sims character does not know of you… he can only detect your impact on his world - if you impact it). There could be a real reason… but it doesn’t really matter if there is or isn’t. Why is also not really a requirement either we already know that “for its own sake” and “because I could” has been sufficient justification for many of our concoctions. More generally, there’s no requirement that a complex/comprehensive simulation must reflect some reality - it just needs to be internally consistent. Video games are all simulations of universes of varying complexity and laws, only some of which corresponding to our reality.
0 kommentar(er)
