A couple of things that didn't make it into the video:

- 0:12 the F-18 crash is documented by the US Naval Aerospace Research Laboratory, see page 10-7: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADP013854.pdf
- 6:57 notice how when the roll gets washed out back to neutral, it returns slower than the initial excitement. This makes sure that the pilots feel the initial roll (rate), but won't sense the platform going back to zero roll.
- 13:04 the reason it's easier to compute aerodynamic and thrust forces is because these need to be calculated anyways to simulate and model the aircraft. For example, X-Plane has an option for directly outputting the aerodynamic/thrust forces along the aircraft's axes, which I could use as inputs for the animations. Computing gravity and acceleration would require determining angles and geometry, which makes the whole thing more convoluted.
- 14:16 since we now have a solution for specific force in both directions (forward and side-ways), this means we can replicate specific force in the entire horizontal plane through a linear combination of both directions. However, in the vertical direction, it's only possible to replicate short, high-frequency movements, since the simulator can't be tilted to sustain long-term forces in the vertical direction (which is in-line with gravity). For sustained vertical g-force, some sort of centrifuge would be required, like in this simulator: https://desdemona.eu

It astonishes me that a pilot would take off at night, over the ocean, with everything pitch black, and not be fixated on the attitude indicator.

"yumans"
"hyumans"
"newmans"
what a journey

And here I was thinking this was going to be a clickbait video. Now I don't even trust gravity anymore. Thanks for that.

watches video on airplanes
"In 2001"
"ah shit, here we go again"

0:28 gotta get this for DCS

I had worked for a simulation manufacturer in the late 80s and early 90s in Tampa Florida and we had some pretty cutting edge technology back then. This is next generation stuff here. Exceptional video.

Einstein already said that you cannot distinguish between gravity and acceleration without a reference. Very well done!

FlyByMax: “If gravity and acceleration are in some sense the same…”

Einstein: “Excuse me? In some sense?”

This is the best piece I have ever seen on flight simulation. I have written software for flight simulators for 30+ years; both games and actual full flight simulators. Thank you for making a video that I can use to explain the rather obscure and mysterious magic behind pilot training.

Bro speaks perfect English except for literally one word. Remarkable.

I’m an ex pilot (H) and used to skate vert half pipes. Love how you made that connection and it made me realise something I’d never thought about as an adult. Cheers.

10:35 Gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable because they're basically the same thing. That's Einstein's equivalence principle

As someone who trains in sims regularly as a professional pilot, my experience is thus: usually the first time back in a sim after it's been awhile my brain knows "something" is wrong, and I tend to just be a little disoriented and maybe a bit queasy for the first 30 minutes. However, after a while my brain recalibrates and adapts to the sim and it becomes really cool how well it just "accepts" it. The motion is pretty well matched with the inputs and visuals. Especially that surge axis is perfect for quick jolts like turbulence or landings. Not for nothing too, having a perfectly replicated cockpit inside helps a lot, because you're leaning/reaching/turning your head in exactly the same way you would in the real airplane, and all of this motion is completely independent of the orientation of your body, so the illusion remains even when you're not sitting perfectly in the chair looking straight ahead.

When I was a miltary pilot, we had two sims : one like this one, the other was a simple set just put on the ground. No moving parts, just a fake cockpit and some 3D rendering on a 180° screen. You know what, just watching the scenery move while you are simulating the flight gives your brain the sensation that the whole thing is moving. While we were tied to the ground, there was no hydraulic systems, no moving parts or whatever.

Visual senses are really powerful to trick you in believing your're moving while you're not ^^

Motion base simulators are great for lower dynamic aircraft like passenger/cargo jets & bombers, but not great for high dynamic aircraft like fighters.  Pilots can be taught that if they pull hard G's long enough, the G-force will eventually reduce - which is NOT correct.  Back in the 1980s, we used an air-driven G-seat & G-suit in the simulator that would give the correct cues for a fighter pilot.  We also used the visual system to give tunnel vision at very high Gs.

when you used to fly VFR for a long time, then took the instrument course, the first time you find yourself flying at night with only instrument to guide you is scary as hell.

I’ll never forget being on break at  flight school, I asked one of the other pairs of students if their instructor let them go in motion. They answered with an affirmative ‘yes’. I was surprised, mine didn’t. Their instructor poked his head out of his office and said ‘no we weren’t’. The visuals tricked their bodies into thinking their simulators were on motion!

I didn’t even know we had this simulator… And I’m a student at the faculty of aerospace engineering of the TU Delft haha 😅

10:09 is no on gonna talk about how sick that transition was?