Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Man Builds Fully-Functional Boeing 737 Flight Simulator In His Son's Bedroom

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the those-magnificent-men-in-their-flying-machines dept.

Idle 128

laejoh writes "An aeroplane enthusiast has taken his obsession a step further than most after using his son's bedroom to build a Boeing 737 flight simulator that exactly mimics the real thing. Laurent Aigon, 40, from Lacanau in France, has spent the last five years collecting and buying components from around the world with best friend and fellow enthusiast (obviously) Jean-Paul Dupuy. The pair spent thousands of euros on internet orders for bits and pieces to construct the simulator – which is so realistic that the Institute of Aircraft Maintenance at Bordeaux-Merignac Airport asked him to give a lecture on his achievement. Mr Aigon has since schooled himself in all the procedures for take off and landing and says he is able to fly his 'plane' just like a real-life pilot."

cancel ×

128 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I'm not going to read thef ucking artice (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44452761)

But what fucking software?!?!?!!?!

Also! FIrst post for .. This guy that built this shit!

Re:I'm not going to read thef ucking artice (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44452821)

I want to know as well. What fucking software is the guy running this with?

Re:I'm not going to read thef ucking artice (2, Funny)

HideyoshiJP (1392619) | about a year ago | (#44452967)

Microsoft Flight Simulator '98

Re:I'm not going to read thef ucking artice (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44453659)

Hey c'mon man.. At least he got the damn thing out of the garage [slashdot.org]

Can't That Get You Marked as a Terrorist, Now? :-) (4, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#44452773)

But aside all that, what a GREAT dad!

Pretty cool. Guess after SFO, he's glad it wasn't a 777.

Re:Can't That Get You Marked as a Terrorist, Now? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44452841)

The SFO crash was a 737, not a 777.

Re:Can't That Get You Marked as a Terrorist, Now? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44452851)

It was a 747-100, idiot.

Re:Can't That Get You Marked as a Terrorist, Now? (0, Flamebait)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#44452987)

Wee To Low [huffingtonpost.com]

Re:Can't That Get You Marked as a Terrorist, Now? (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#44452971)

737?

url:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/06/sfo-airport-asiana-crash_n_3555482.html

Re:Can't That Get You Marked as a Terrorist, Now? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44453241)

It was an Airbus 757.

Re:Can't That Get You Marked as a Terrorist, Now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44453265)

It was an Airbus 757.

It came in like a bus bus.

Re:Can't That Get You Marked as a Terrorist, Now? (-1, Offtopic)

john.r.strohm (586791) | about a year ago | (#44453577)

There's no such thing as an "Airbus 757". Boeing builds the 7x7 airplanes. Airbus builds the A3xx birds.

I'm scheduled to take my first-ever Airbus ride in November (maybe sooner). I almost took one back in March, but Cathay Pacific put me on the earlier flight, which was on a 767.

I'm not really looking forward to it.

Re:Can't That Get You Marked as a Terrorist, Now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44453623)

Pretty sure that 'Airbus 757' was a joke.

You probably won't be able to tell that you're on an Airbus, unless one of the pilots does something that invisibly alters the autopilot settings.

Re:Can't That Get You Marked as a Terrorist, Now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44453963)

Don't worry, Airbuses have better safety track than Boeings. You'll be fine.

Re:Can't That Get You Marked as a Terrorist, Now? (1)

mjwx (966435) | about a year ago | (#44453977)

Don't worry, Airbuses have better safety track than Boeings. You'll be fine.

This,

The biggest difference between the A330 and the B777 is that the B777 crams in an extra seat per row.

Airline and pilot are the big factors in determining if a plane is safe or not.

I've got my first flight in an A380 coming up and I _am_ looking forward to that (just not the other 500 passengers I'll have to be around).

Re:Can't That Get You Marked as a Terrorist, Now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44453647)

It was an Airbus 757.

Now, that post really calls for adding a +5 Troll rating to the mod system. Applause.

Oh, and we'd better arrest this obvious terrorist training camp instructor, and water-board him till he sings.

Re:Can't That Get You Marked as a Terrorist, Now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44453499)

Aha, I've been on the internet for too long to fall for tricks like that.

Re:Can't That Get You Marked as a Terrorist, Now? (3, Informative)

john.r.strohm (586791) | about a year ago | (#44453567)

It was a Boeing 777.

VERY good airplane. (Direct quote from an American Airlines 777 First Officer: "Sweetest-flying airplane I ever flew!" Direct quote from a very senior American Airlines 777 Captain: "10 years in 757/767. First time I got in the 777, I realized they'd fixed things I hadn't realized had been bugging me.")

Re:Can't That Get You Marked as a Terrorist, Now? (4, Funny)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#44454325)

It was a Boeing 777.

VERY good airplane. (Direct quote from an American Airlines 777 First Officer: "Sweetest-flying airplane I ever flew!" Direct quote from a very senior American Airlines 777 Captain: "10 years in 757/767. First time I got in the 777, I realized they'd fixed things I hadn't realized had been bugging me.")

****** A+++++ Wuld fly again

Re:Can't That Get You Marked as a Terrorist, Now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44454521)

Get a pilot with more experience, one that flew both Boeing and Airbus and I'll believe you, until then, it sounds like very lame advertising.

Re:Can't That Get You Marked as a Terrorist, Now? (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about a year ago | (#44454633)

But aside all that, what a GREAT dad!

Yes, he built a cockpit in his son's bedroom. What TFA didn't say is that the entry door is located in his own bedroom.

Awesome dad (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44452799)

Now witness the capabilities of this fully operational 737 flight simulation!

Re:Awesome dad (1, Funny)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about a year ago | (#44453835)

Just better hope he's not middle eastern, otherwise homeland security might confiscate it.

(Yeah I know, a very un-PC joke, I level them all the time against my Iranian friend so I'm used to it.)

Re:Awesome dad (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year ago | (#44454213)

He's... French. In France. Please tell me that's sleep deprivation talking or something.

Re: Awesome dad (1)

Ricwot (632038) | about a year ago | (#44454385)

They're not all white Catholics, you know.

Re: Awesome dad (2)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year ago | (#44454421)

Oh, I know—although the name is somewhat suggestive of it. More importantly, Homeland Security isn't exactly a major presence in France.

just like a real-life pilot (-1, Flamebait)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about a year ago | (#44452815)

Tail first, into the ground I assume.

Exactly mimics the real thing? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44452827)

I didn't see any hydraulics for mimicking the pitch, yaw, and roll.

Re:Exactly mimics the real thing? (2)

camperdave (969942) | about a year ago | (#44453097)

Well, yes... for certain values of "exactly".

Re:Exactly mimics the real thing? (1)

MiG82au (2594721) | about a year ago | (#44453585)

You do realise that there's a big difference between simulating the sensations vs the motions of the aircraft? The motion platform does not roll with the plane because in a coordinated turn there is no sideways acceleration in the pilot's coordinate frame, just a small increase in "gravity". The smooth way airliners are flown, the only axis that is of much use is the pitch.

Re: Exactly mimics the real thing? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44454483)

What do you mean ? When I fly (passenger) I feel the take off and landing up/down dip and the left / right after take off

Re: Exactly mimics the real thing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44454909)

Hence "the only axis that is of much use is the pitch". You may want to brush up on your 6 degrees of freedom.

As the captcha was "patriots", I should mention these degrees of freedom do not appear in the US constitution.

Re: Exactly mimics the real thing? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#44455033)

Hence "the only axis that is of much use is the pitch". You may want to brush up on your 6 degrees of freedom.

He just gets done saying that he can feel both pitch and roll and your response is "yes, I said you only need pitch"? Fail, fail.

Re:Exactly mimics the real thing? (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | about a year ago | (#44455087)

That's if it's flown correctly. If you don't make coordinated turns,you'll feel it. Without the simulator on a moving platform, you wouldn't know the difference.

Re:Exactly mimics the real thing? (1)

johnw (3725) | about a year ago | (#44454127)

I didn't see any hydraulics for mimicking the pitch, yaw, and roll.

That was my first thought too, but then I thought about naval simulators. I've been in a few of those, which are very much just large rooms with a lot of screens, and usually some raked seating at the back. They don't move at all, but it's funny to watch those standing on the "bridge" as they sway from side to side to keep their feet in rough seas. Yes, real simulators move around, but a lot can be achieved without.

Re:Exactly mimics the real thing? (1)

tverbeek (457094) | about a year ago | (#44454783)

I doubt it offers a fully-functional simulation of a crash landing, either.

No Stewart platform... (2)

johnny cashed (590023) | about a year ago | (#44452859)

It doesn't even incorporate a Stewart platform in its implementation, lame.

Re:No Stewart platform... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44453535)

Exactly. Without a Stewart platform to provide mechanical feedback, this is just a flight simulator with a few extra buttons.

Re:No Stewart platform... (4, Interesting)

john.r.strohm (586791) | about a year ago | (#44453601)

Not really.

It was proven decades ago that you didn't need a motion base under a flight simulator if your visual scene generator was good enough.

What is interesting is that the visual scene doesn't have to be all that good.

Re:No Stewart platform... (4, Interesting)

multisync (218450) | about a year ago | (#44453989)

It was proven decades ago that you didn't need a motion base under a flight simulator if your visual scene generator was good enough.

Quite true. There was an attraction at Disneyland when I was a kid called Circle-Vision 360. It was basically a round room with screens arranged in a circle around you. They shot scenes with a 360 degree camera setup, often from the top of a car or a plane, and played them on the screens. You really felt the sensation of motion.

The fun part was watching people leaning left and right as the motion in the scene went the other direction. There were actually hand rails for people to hang on to so they didn't topple over.

Re:No Stewart platform... (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44454169)

well technically you don't "need" the real buttons either.. but the motions is what I think of as being the qualifier for fully functional, because then it would have functional parity with full fledged commercial simulators.

Re:No Stewart platform... (4, Insightful)

stroos (723226) | about a year ago | (#44454673)

It was proven decades ago that you didn't need a motion base under a flight simulator if your visual scene generator was good enough.

Don't need it to do what? To train pilots to operate the flight management system you don't need motion much, but you don't need an outside visual for that either. Manual control behaviour on the other hand has been shown again and again to benefit from motion cues. What you claim to have been proven long ago is in fact not settled at all in the simulation community. Regulations also still require a motion system for high-end training simulators and there's a reason for that.

isn't that child abuse? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44452899)

...using his son's bedroom to build a Boeing 737 flight simulator that exactly mimics the real thing.

5 years of noisy jet takeoffs.

ground: "say type aircraft" (2)

NikeHerc (694644) | about a year ago | (#44452915)

Interesting that they chose a Boeing a/c rather than an Airbus!

Re:ground: "say type aircraft" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44453369)

On an Airbus, the controls are simply tied to LCD and haptic feedback devices. An Airbus simulator and a real Airbus cockpit are exactly the same thing--a really expensive joystick connected to an XBox. What's the fun in that?

Re:ground: "say type aircraft" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44453579)

Interesting that they chose a Boeing instead of a Lockheed-Martin Raptor.

Re: ground: "say type aircraft" (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about a year ago | (#44453651)

I'm sure it is a lot harder to find matching parts and know what the cockpit looks like and what features it has... when those things are likely secrets, if not classified.

Re: ground: "say type aircraft" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44454781)

Google image search "F-22 cockpit", there are tons of images. There aren't too many things that could really be secret, aside from maybe communications frequencies, armament and stealth factor, none of which would affect making a flight sim.

Re:ground: "say type aircraft" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44454361)

If I were to spend that much time building a flight simulator, I'd build something which would (1) be much more interesting to fly and (2) that I couldn't try out otherwise as well for a fraction of the cost. Some airlines occasionally have reasonably-priced hours (around $ 100 per hour) in their flight simulators for the general public with one of their pilots helping you out to experience what the job is like. There are also some companies (in at least in Germany IIRC) that have slightly less sophisticated and thus cheaper "fly for fun" simulators you can buy hours in but those too are modern aircraft. If I were to build a simulator of my own, I would probably build a DC-3 simulator - it's such a classic workhorse of the skies and your only chance to fly one even as a passenger is in the third world or at an old aircraft air show. Now a decent simulator like that with the primitive navigation aids of the time would be real fun. Especially if somebody were to also create time-appropriate scenery...

I guess all I need is three times the spare time that I barely have to do everything I want to do but I can plan my retirement when I see this kind of projects :)

Re:ground: "say type aircraft" (3, Interesting)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about a year ago | (#44454983)

The choice was probably driven largely by availability of cockpit parts. There is an impressive amount of 737s out there in various states of operation.

I'm sure I'll hit my posting limit soon (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44452917)

I'm the guy that posted the frosty and the reply where I acted like a different person. So far, I see nothing but posts making jokes and mocking this guy's work. No mention of the software used anywhere and no speculation.

This site is full of nothing but lame ass faggots. This site is no longer mentally stimulating like it used to be. I used to learn something new here every day. Now, this place is just like reddit.

Re:I'm sure I'll hit my posting limit soon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44453443)

Suggest an alternative or STFU.

Re:I'm sure I'll hit my posting limit soon (3, Insightful)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#44453873)

No mention of the software used anywhere and no speculation.

One of the pictures looks like a windows desktop, so one would assume one of the Flight Simulator programs, most likely Flight Simulator X. Anyone who messes with the stuff would probably have assumed that from the setup. It's like speculating that the fuel in your car's gas tank is unleaded. It may be a technical detail, but uninteresting and a foregone conclusion anyway.

That's cool and all... (5, Interesting)

black3d (1648913) | about a year ago | (#44452919)

But haven't dozens of people already done this over the years? For example - http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/04/18/2036248/man-builds-737-simulator-in-a-garage [slashdot.org]

I had a good friend who was the chief engineer for a major multi-national telecommunications company, who laid out around half a million building a fully functional 747 cockpit in his basement - and that was back in '99. Even had a seat and controls for the navigator.

Re:That's cool and all... (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year ago | (#44452961)

Exactly what I was thinking. The only thing new about this is the setting.

Re:That's cool and all... (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year ago | (#44453337)

But haven't dozens of people already done this over the years?

I reckon this demonstrates French waiters [gizmodo.com] may have the same technical prowless as US private pilots [mercurynews.com]
(and heaps more than a bunch of /.-ers how call themself geeks but all they can do is attempts of lame humor... vous defier dire ce n'est pas comme ca...
G'day, mate, good on you!)

Re:That's cool and all... (1)

black3d (1648913) | about a year ago | (#44453371)

There was no attempt at humor in my post. BTW, the person I just referenced who built one in his basement is both a geek and a Slashdotter, so really not sure what point you're trying to make? That french waiters, private pilots, AND geeks, have the same potential technical prowess? That's exactly what I was pointing out - this isn't really news as it's been done by a large variety of people already. Pretty much anyone with the time, money and passion could throw this together. But all you're pointing out is it takes a Frenchman to displace his son in the process..

Re:That's cool and all... (2)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year ago | (#44453469)

The main info I added: he's a waiter with no formal training and no direct flight experience.

There was no attempt at humor in my post. BTW, the person I just referenced who built one in his basement is both a geek and a Slashdotter, so really not sure what point you're trying to make?

No, indeed, you didn't. My apologies for "riding" on your post with my rants
(feelings got mixed into my main point, I realise now it was a wrong place to express my displeasure to post like:
* Authenticity [slashdot.org] - questioning the authenticity of the seats cover
* Too much time in his hands [slashdot.org] - questioning his sex life
* Re: what software [slashdot.org] - implying he doesn't know what flight simulator he uses
* Figures [slashdot.org] - complaining a photo frame isn't straight
and these even ignoring AC posts)

Re:That's cool and all... (1)

black3d (1648913) | about a year ago | (#44453487)

I see - yes, those comments do seem extremely petty in the context of what is a fairly remarkable feat of dedication, and certainly to the individual involved would be a major milestone.

Re:That's cool and all... (1)

Maow (620678) | about a year ago | (#44453611)

In fairness, the one about "Authenticity" of the sheepskin covers had a reply with a link showing a cockpit with seemingly-similar seat covers, so I learned something there.

And the one about which software it ran was ok for Slashdot, although the reply to it, "He probably doesn't even know" was snotty.

Re:That's cool and all... (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#44453879)

really not sure what point you're trying to make?

Perhaps that the French tip well?

Re:That's cool and all... (1)

John Pfeiffer (454131) | about a year ago | (#44453721)

Yeah, and didn't some guy in Japan build a 737 or 747 cockpit sim with such a complete cabin interior that he was asked to loan the use of it to a TV drama for a set? I remember reading something to that effect several years ago...

Lot of work (4, Funny)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#44452951)

This makes me feel lame - I haven't even finished redoing the bathroom.

Authenticity (1)

idontusenumbers (1367883) | about a year ago | (#44452959)

How authentic are the fur seats?

The sad part is... (1)

Kaenneth (82978) | about a year ago | (#44452965)

His son has no interest in airplanes, and his dad is forcing it on him.

I remember my dad taking the family to the airport to watch the planes take off and land for hours at a time; thank god they closed the observation area after 9/11.

Re:The sad part is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44453071)

If true, he's saying to his son, "Move aside. I'm going to use your bedroom for something else, something more important to me than you."

Re:The sad part is... (1)

Macgrrl (762836) | about a year ago | (#44453363)

This is pretty much how I interpret his actions after reading the article. It's not like he's using the son's room after the boy moved out, the kid still sleeps in a bunk bed in the corner of the room - when his dad isn't using it to show off.

Re:The sad part is... (3, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#44453959)

Just like model trains and boobs... claimed to be for the kids, but the dads are playing with them.

what a jerk (3, Funny)

RedHackTea (2779623) | about a year ago | (#44452995)

"Use your own bedroom, Dad!"

Re:what a jerk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44453107)

"Use your own bedroom, Dad!"

Blatently "Mum" said no ;)

Re:what a jerk (1)

dontclapthrowmoney (1534613) | about a year ago | (#44453449)

No... there's no way this guy is still married.

Re:what a jerk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44453555)

If he really wanted his son to get a good night's sleep he should have built a high speed train simulator.

Not one of the better DIY jobs (4, Insightful)

EmagGeek (574360) | about a year ago | (#44453011)

The display in particular is pretty shoddy. I've seen much much better out there in terms of DIY flightsims.

Oh, and to this line in TFA:

"He also has interest from a couple of major aircraft manufacturers who want to use his creation to simulate various scenarios."

No, he doesn't. Aircraft manufacturers have no interest whatsoever in this.

Re:Not one of the better DIY jobs (3, Funny)

Deadstick (535032) | about a year ago | (#44453375)

Mod parent up. Every airline has massively better simulators.

Re:Not one of the better DIY jobs (1)

MiG82au (2594721) | about a year ago | (#44453531)

I suspect that "major" might actually mean small manufacturers of GA aircraft in his vicinity which don't have their own simulators. The software on this simulator is probably much more flexible than a professional simulator, allowing you to fly anything albeit with an inaccurate cockpit.

Re:Not one of the better DIY jobs (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about a year ago | (#44455005)

All of the various scenarios tend to wreak havoc on the simulation equipment, they'd like to test the fire extinguishers on his rig instead of theirs.

Re:Not one of the better DIY jobs (2)

JWSmythe (446288) | about a year ago | (#44455121)

That's what I was thinking too. It looked like the guy was the single source of information. He probably tells everyone the same things..

Boeing would be the only aircraft manufacturer interested in using a Boeing simulator. They can make better ones themselves, since they have the engineers, the parts supply, and the budget, to do it right. Theirs also wouldn't include a bunk bed jammed in the corner, nor the trivialized child.

Too much time on his hands (0)

mendax (114116) | about a year ago | (#44453169)

This guy definitely has too much time on his hands. But given that this fellow seems to have this incredible obsession, how did he managed to find the time to have sex to even have a son to put in a bedroom that the poor kid can't even use except for sleeping.

Re:Too much time on his hands (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#44453181)

son to put in a bedroom that the poor kid can't even use except for sleeping

What are you talking about, this kid has got the world's greatest toy in his bedroom!

Re:Too much time on his hands (2)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#44453489)

Well, it *COULD* have been a great toy... if his son seemed to show any interest in the simulator, or airplanes in general. According to TFA, it's "unclear" what his son thinks.

As it sits right now, it's a toy for the dad. He should have constructed this in his garage... not his son's bedroom unless the boy was actively interested in this sort of thing.

Re:Too much time on his hands (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#44453965)

You really think he lets his son even get near that?

Your dad obviously was not obsessed with model trains. Friend of mine had to suffer from one, he had the coolest model train kit on earth (dedicated a whole room to it), but his kids were not allowed in there, he was afraid they could "ruin" it.

Re:Too much time on his hands (1)

jelizondo (183861) | about a year ago | (#44454173)

to have sex to even have a son

A likely question from uncultured Americans!

menage a trois is a peculiarly French custom. (accents omitted on account of /. horrible unicode support.) The man doesn't need time, he just needs a partner.

What software? (1)

gr8_phk (621180) | about a year ago | (#44453171)

Does it run Flightgear?

Re:What software? (1)

Deadstick (535032) | about a year ago | (#44453383)

Undoubtedly, but he probably doesn't know that.

Figures (1)

AndyKron (937105) | about a year ago | (#44453189)

He can build a flight simulator, but can't straighten the pictures on the wall for an internationally circulated photograph. Figures.

Re:Figures (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44453221)

They were knocked loose by turbulence. Geez.

Simulated.. yeah (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44453219)

Now he is just like all of those with various IT certifications but no actual experience. Useless.

Call the N S A (1)

Delirium Tremens (214596) | about a year ago | (#44453225)

Call the NSA. He is obviously trying to aid the enemy. He even hid his terrorist training equipment in his son bedroom. What a horrible father. Take his son away! Think of the children!

Re:Call the N S A (1)

doug (926) | about a year ago | (#44453249)

Aid the enemy? He's French. Doesn't that make him the enemy?

Re:Call the N S A (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44453471)

No problem then, they can just send him a plane ticket and he will come and surrender.

captcha: inbound

Obligatory South Park quote (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44453255)

"Congratulations! You... Are... Fags!

Ya, well... (4, Funny)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about a year ago | (#44453621)

I was going to re-build my 787 simulator, but the fire department won't let me.

Re:Ya, well... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44454315)

You fucking asshole! Now my keyboard and monitor was sprayed with my morning coffee....

Sheesh, I'm glad my dad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44453705)

My dad built me a train layout. And he built it in the GARAGE. it didn't push me out of my room...

Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44453725)

So what. I've got a fully functional 737, 747, 757, 767, and 787 simulators right in my building. They come complete with mechanics and engineers. All you need to fly them is a little bit of budget. OK... a lot bit of budget.

How soon before... (0)

John Pfeiffer (454131) | about a year ago | (#44453731)

And then Asiana contacts him about training their pilots on the cheap(er)? Hehe.

Big FS projects (3, Interesting)

Alioth (221270) | about a year ago | (#44454403)

I've seen several of these flight sim projects. One part of me understands completely why the people who build them build them (I have enough hobbies that others think are a complete waste of time and money to understand entirely why people building flight sims like this want to do it), but another part of my brain is saying "for the money and time invested, you can actually build your own real, flying aircraft you can pilot yourself, and the graphics and frame rate are a lot lot better!".

Kind of reminds me. About a year before they closed Meigs in Chicago (which used to be the default start airport in Microsoft Flight Simulator), I flew in there for real in my elderly Cessna 140. I was kind of surprised when the frame rate didn't slow to about 10 fps when all the buildings of Chicago hoved into view :-)

Qualifiers (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44454519)

...that exactly mimics the real thing....which is so realistic that the Institute of Aircraft Maintenance at Bordeaux-Merignac Airport asked him to give a lecture on his achievement....He also has interest from a couple of major aircraft manufacturers who want to use his creation to simulate various scenarios...

I maintain and build flight simulators and synthetic trainers all over the world, from France to China and the same again for approvals with regulators. This thing wouldn't even reach class C let alone class D so exactly mimics is bullshit, even class D can't exactly mimic everything. Even if you follow manuals to the letter, things like control workflow and timings are always off, that's why you can even get class C equipment approved even if some of the cockpit control workflow is actually wrong. There are about one hundred of these sorts of in-house setups like this in homes around the world now, even more if you include those which don't use actual cockpit components. Hardware isn't the problem these days with flight sims and synth trainers, hell, I've seen 6DOF motion class C trainers (with projected wrap-around SPOV visuals, none of this monitor crap) that run off one Core i7 system with all I/O (including motion, excluding visuals) being handled by USB! The real problem is the software, that's where all the limitations lie as too much of it is off the shelf software or components all hobbled together, even the stuff from multi-billion dollar US defence contractors whose names I'd love to spill but alas...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?