The Biggest Double-Brainer in the History of Earth

Forgive me for a moment while I bash a hole in the fourth wall and violate the first rule of snarky inside references and actually explain the title of this particular post.

There’s a company that advertises on a number of radio stations that I will hypothetically call "Lenox Financial", since that is their actual name. As part of their pitch to sell mortgages, they suggest that choosing their offerings, coming as they do without up-front closing costs, is, and I quote: "The biggest no-brainer in the history of earth." Now, I love a good bit of hyperbole every bit as much as a billion-trillion other guys, but does refinancing a mortgage with no (and by "no" they really mean "deferred") closing costs really rank higher than food, shelter, heat,  and procreation in the pantheon of the absurdly obvious?

Bad jokes, like so many things, just get funnier the more laboriously you explain them. Right?

Now that we have that out of the way, what exactly is a "Double-Brainer’, other than a friendly nod to my old pal Uumellmahaye? Well, I’ll come to that before long, so read on, or don’t.

A couple of weeks ago, I had the welcome privilege of speaking at Seattle’s Museum of Flight, as part of an event that Microsoft cosponsored in conjunction with the Museum’s sadly temporary exhibit celebrating the inventions of Leonardo da Vinci. I opened the talk by convincing my audience of my expertise on the subject by casually using terms like "codex Madrid", and explaining that Leonardo da Vinci is Italian for "Leonardo of Vinci." After that, I went on to make two main points. Actually, I made three, since I always make three, but I only remember two, and I’m really only interested in discussing one here.

Da Vinci was the archetypal Uomo Universale (literally, the Universal Man), or Renaissance Man, defined as one who tried to embrace all knowledge. Renaissance Men, like da Vinci, were artists and engineers, poets and scientists. In other words, they made equal use of their creative right-brains as well as their logical left-brains. And, of course, no Renaissance Man ever paid closing costs on a mortgage.

Da Vinci, of course, was a painter, an engineer, a sculptor, a scientist, and a writer. And, perhaps most importantly, he wanted to fly. One of his most famous quotes, in fact, is about flying:

For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return.

As I see it, da Vinci’s right brain wanted to go, and he knew that his left brain could be the thing that got him there. Tragically, he was a few centuries too early, but his surviving sketches prove that he had a number of the right ideas. He showed a lot of interest in human-powered ornithopters which have yet to be proven feasible, but most of his designs show excellent proportion, and basic structural methods – like wood ribs and fabric covering, for example – that proved to be key when pioneers like Lilienthal and the Wright Brothers really figured things out some four hundred years later.

It occurred to me some time ago that one of the things I love most about flying is the fact that it does appeal to both sides of the brain. The physics, the engineering, the constant flow of input-analysis-decision-response, the delightful minutiae of detail all keep the left brain ticking along with ruthless contentment. The right brain, on the other hand, err, other brain, is free to enjoy the view, to wax poetic (probably badly poetic) about the shift in perspective, to feel the thrill of aerobatics, or the quiet and gentle finesse of a perfect three-point on a grassy meadow in an airplane old enough to be a grandparent.

So, are all pilots "double-brainers"? No, apparently not. Richard Bach, in his classic collection of stories A Gift of Wings, published a piece entitled "Aviation or Flying? Take Your Pick". In it, he speaks of the aviator as someone who wants their airplane to be fast, comfortable, and efficient – a rational and sensible tool for transportation. A flyer, however, is interested in the sky itself, and the airplane that gets them there. At least loosely speaking, the aviator has left-brain motivations, while the flier’s interests are predominantly right-brained.

I’ve known a number of pilots of both stripes. For example, I met a U.S. Naval aviator who flew F-18 Hornets and then, when he retired, never gave flying or airplanes another thought, because he knew he’d never fly anything that fast again. And I’ve known a number of ultralight pilots, for example, over the years who live only to go up and then come back down.

But the pilots that I’ve admired most have always been a bit of both. My father, who flew airliners with Vulcanesque logic and efficiency for more then 30,000 hours, is also a painter, and possesses a sense of humor that is so painfully awful that it has to be indicative of some kind of creative genius. My temporal alter-ego and dear friend, the writer, budding computer geek, and amateur student of brain chemistry who flies antique biplanes with supernatural finesse. My honorary sister, the actress, writer and dancer who is rebuilding her own several-decade-old airplane for a solo flight across Canada.  My dear friend the champion gymnast turned gifted sculptor who retraced his famous grandfather’s footsteps across the Atlantic 75 years after the fact. My friend the astronaut with more than 5,000 hours in space who is now restoring a 1946 Ercoupe that will fly just about exactly 175 times slower than the space shuttle, at altitudes measured in feet rather than miles. A software engineer, airline pilot, and flight instructor who can return anything, and I do mean anything, to Circuit City for a full refund, and convince them that he’s their best customer in the process. (Trust me – this is an art.)

As it happens, some of my favorite double-brainers aren’t even pilots, or not exactly, though they’d all make good ones. The philosopher and writer who is also a software expert and test scientist. The guitar-playing book-collecting chemical engineer who does PR for video games. The historian toy collector who is a Major in the Army, and his brother, the video engineer who writes music and strange answering machine messages and never met a sequitur he didn’t loathe. The list, like my writing, goes on and on.

In a broader sense, all I need to do is walk the halls at work to find more examples – a visually lush and ridiculously complex product like Flight Simulator needs developers, engineers, artists, writers, designers, and testers, and there’s a lot more crossover in all of those professions than people realize.

Thankfully, while no one in my world would claim to be a da Vinci, and only a few would even admit to reading The Da Vinci Code, there are a number of double-brainers in my world. It’s nicely irrelevant that some of them are women, too – I don’t particularly care for the sound of "Renaissance Person", but Populus Universale has a nice ring to it. Maybe I’ll make some shirts. Whatever I call them, if anything at all, I’m lucky, as there are few things I enjoy in life more than a great conversation with someone whose mind refuses to stick to one side or the other, and prefers to hop all over the map.

As for me, do I consider myself a Renaissance Man? While I’ve been labeled as such once or twice, and I enjoyed it rather more than I cared to admit, the method to this branch of my madness is far simpler. Frankly, I’m just one who uses his myriad interests to try to stay at least three steps ahead of anyone who actually expects me to be good at something.

And I paid closing costs on my last mortgage, I’m sure of it.

Posted in Egocentric | 3 Comments

Sublime …

Fresh from the editing software of someone called TPV71 comes this remarkable tour of FS2004 and FSX enhanced with some fantastic add-ons.

I have to agree with the person called ChrisMOd who says that this should be a commercial for FSX – or, more to the point, should be a commercial for what is possible when building on our platforms. Truly greater than the sum of their parts.

Posted in Flight Sim Centric | 1 Comment

Oh, Come On!

Last night, I watched a bit of Top Ten Bombers on the Military Channel (formerly Discovery: Wings, RIP).

One of the honorees, and rightly so, was the Avro Lancaster. While it was a little surprising that they didn’t mention the "Upkeep" bombs of the famous "Dam busters" raids, that wasn’t the bit that found me sputtering blog-post-titles at the television.

No, the thing that got my hackles in a bunch, to rudely mix metaphors, was the fact that they showed the wrong airplane, twice, trying to pass off a B-24, and then, even more inexcusably, a B-25 as Lancasters.

For those among you who are perhaps less than intimately acquainted with the details of fly-y trivia, here are some photographs taken at AirVenture, in Oshkosh, WI, last summer:

First, the Lancaster, one of just two in flying condition, this one based at the excellent Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum in Hamilton, ON:  

Next, the Commemorative Air Force’s B-24, "Diamond Lil" (this is technically an LB-30, as it was originally slated for the British RAF, but I’m not sure even I care about that):

And, finally, Larry Kelley’s beautiful B-25, "Panchito". (I met Larry at my first AirVenture in 1989, when his UC-78 "Bamboo Bomber", unlike ours, didn’t quite get ready in time for the show):

Now the B-24, at least, is a twin-tailed, 4-engine bomber of similar size to the "Lanc", but the B-25 is much smaller, with only two engines. The Lancaster is a taildragger, like all of the best airplanes, and is a low wing, while the other two are tricycle-gear, shoulder wing aircraft.

Do these airplanes really look so much alike?

Airplane mistakes are to be expected, even savoured, in fictional films. Growing up in the 70’s and 80’s, there wasn’t a single "movie of the week" that didn’t feature an airliner that magically switched identities a few times in flight, nearly always becoming a B-52 for the shot of landing gear retracting after takeoff.

But this was a documentary. They should have just gotten it right.

Oh, and my taxes are too high, my back hurts, and I’m hungry.  

Posted in Fly-y | 3 Comments

Big Rocks and Long Props – Volume II

For anyone who has seen Volume I, then you know that Volume II is a must have. If you haven’t seen either of them, check out this teaser for Volume I:

Even non-pilots can see that this is some remarkable flying. It’s looks a bit crazy at first, but the more you watch, the more you see that these guys just know their airplanes and their own capabilities very, very well. On a base level, I enjoy watching anyone who is supremely competent at what they’re doing – for simplicity’s sake, I call it Gegenschadenfreude – especially, of course, flying.

Be sure to check out their home page here.

Posted in Fly-y | 13 Comments

Service Pack One if By Land, DirectX Ten if by Sea

Recently, one of our MVP’s (Most Valuable Professionals), Nick Whittome (a fellow I’m moderately proud to call a friend to the extent that it gets me generous gifts of whiskey) posted a bit to his blog that I thought I should speak to here. Nick was responding to one of his readers who was asking about whether or not we’re going to release any updates for FSX prior to our planned DirectX 10 update, and, if so, why we haven’t announced anything yet on our official web site.

Nick’s post can be found here.

For those of you that prefer to read without clicking (and I know who you are), or, if you’re simply afraid to go to a site entitled The Naked MVP, here is what I, Microsoft, think are the relevant bits, conspiratorially ripped out of context:

"I tend to agree that it should be more officially noted that an update for FSX is on the way. Maybe a news item or something on the fsinsider.com website.    However, I suspect that the team are simply too busy working on a pre-DX10 update for us all. That said, I have emailed the relevant people and I am making sure they are still listening 🙂 … if you want official clarification that a service pack is on the way, read this post from Paul … "

The posts Nick links to include this comment from our lead Game Designer, Paul Lange:

"Between my cryptic posts, presentations in the Netherlands, and posts from Phil and Adam, it should be common knowledge that we are working on a pre-DX10 update (SP1) or what you will call a patch. People are still speculating about what will be in SP1 but I think we have made it clear we are working on our top issues."

Paul, in turn, mentions our new Senior Graphics PM Phil Taylor, who has posted on public forums, and now on his own blog, the following:

"We are working thru the set of tasks we identified for SP1, are getting closer to closure and a final test pass, and should have more to say as far as details in the next couple of weeks.
The only things I can say is:
a)we are not toning down the experience and
b)we are aiming at a targetted set of perf and content fixes."

To clarify a couple of things in Phil’s comments:

SP1 = "Service Pack 1"

Perf = "Performance", ie, frame rate.

"Things I can say is:" = "Things I can say are:"  🙂

"targetted" = "targeted" – Double-:)

Way back on January 23rd, even I said:

"As far as FSX is concerned, work on Service Pack 1 continues apace, and the early performance benchmarks have me feeling cautiously optimistic. Why cautiously? Because I spent 8+ years as a Test Engineer, and 7 years as a police officer before that, which means I don’t trust anyone or anything at all ever."

Okay …

Clearly, we are working on an update for Flight Simulator X. We’re even going a little nuts and calling it not just a patch or even a Service Pack, but "Service Pack 1".  Does that mean there will be more than one? Not at all, but it doesn’t mean that there won’t, either.

So why are we dropping hints, but not announcing anything formally on the FSInsider website (which, by the by, is due for a re-re-overhaul very soon, which will make the articles that nobody knows we’re publishing regularly far more "discoverable", to use the vernacular of the technoscenti)?

The primary reason is this: Right now, we don’t know exactly what it will include, or exactly when it will be released.

Obviously, we have a rough schedule in mind, but, if we announce a date and miss it, then we’re subject to all manner of conspiracy about why we’re arbitrarily holding it back. If, by some miracle, we announce a date and beat it, well, then we rushed it to market. If we go into too much detail about content or goals for the update, then we run the risk of unwittingly promising something that we don’t yet know we can’t deliver (anyone remember seeing screenshots from E3 of a checkbox in our display settings labeled "Cloud Shadows"?), opening the list of changes to near limitless debate, etc.

Yes, I know that our discussion of the DirectX 10 update seems to fly in the face of this reasoning, but that was a very specific exception, promising to take advantage of new features enabled by the Vista / DX10 platform at some point after it became available.

We’re being as transparent as we can be, but, to be blunt, there’s simply too much noise for us to deal with as a whole if we simply come out and formally announce that we’re doing something before we have much greater confidence in the what and the when.  We’re the ones who have to decide, right or wrong, how much we can do, and when we can release it.

Informally, those that really, really want to know what we’re up to can find out – information around our team these days, with blogs and forum posts and the hidden webcams that Nick has installed in our offices that he doesn’t think we know about, is more available than it has ever been. We’re able to communicate more openly and directly with our customers than at any time in the franchise’s history.

Rest assured, the instant that we can provide more details we will. Beyond what’s been said already, there is one thing I can guarantee with absolute certainty:

Some people will be happy, some people won’t.

And some small percentage of that last group will despise us regardless, perhaps even going so far to agree with the likes of Charlie on AVSIM who accuse us of "…obscene intention(s)" and claim that the battle of customers versus Microsoft is " … every bit as important as our Revolutionary War was to the United States."

Wow.

Keep your eyes open for Paul Revere

Anyway, because Nick’s question is a good one and he and our customer base deserve the best response we can give (and because, as mentioned, he’s good for a bottle of excellent whiskey on occasion) … I will use the magic of copy and paste to reiterate the only thing in this post that’s actually important:

Rest assured, the instant that we can provide more details we will.

It won’t be long before we know a lot more, and we’ll be too excited to keep quiet about it any longer.

Posted in Flight Sim Centric | 9 Comments

FSX-Box!

Had you going there for a second, didn’t I?

Meh, probably not.

Anyway, our friends at CyberPower have built a gorgeous PC case that comes pre-plastered with images of Flight Simulator X goodness – something lovely to look at during those otherwise languid load times:

The FSX case is available as an option when buying a high-end system. In this instance, the "Gamer Infinity" — "Infinity" being the clock speed which should give you at least 20fps at mid-range settings.

I’m kidding again.

We have a pre-release version of this box in our office – they really do beautiful work. And I’m not kidding about that.

Posted in Flight Sim Centric | 10 Comments

Old News, But Still Worth Mentioning

While unpacking boxes from our recent office move, I came across a book I’d meant to write a bit about, but something shiny flashed by and my idea wandered back into the waiting room.

Anyway, if anyone reading this hasn’t read a book called The Starship Diaries, you really should.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The book tells the story of an epic, two-year flight around the world in the sadly orphaned Beech Starship — one of a handful of well-stylized airplanes like the X-3 Stiletto and the XB-70 that will always look like it’s from next week. The author, Dallas Kachan, relates dozens of intriguing anecdotes about his voyage – fuel and mechanical troubles, hostile countries, a long illness – two years of flying and living, and nearly dying, against an ever-changing scenic backdrop.

Overall, Kachan writes well, and any weaknesses in his story telling are easily compensated by the facts of his adventures.

Or, rather, they would be if the flight had actually happened.

As it turns out, it didn’t. At least not in the real world – the author did spend the time flying the flights, but he did so in Flight Simulator.

I’m not sure, but I think this makes him all the more brilliant.

Posted in Flight Sim Centric | 2 Comments

Great Eye Candy, But the Flight Models Suck

Beautiful visuals, highly-detailed aircraft models with huge poly counts, great lighting effects, self shadowing, complex animations … that just don’t fly like real airplanes.

I’m speaking, of course, of the movie Fly Boys, released on DVD tomorrow, which I had the chance to see in very good company at its premiere last July at EAA’s AirVenture.

As popcorn movies go, it’s certainly palatable if A) the popcorn is very, very good, and 2) there are no pilots, history experts, or French prostitutes watching with you to point out the inaccuracies. Like so many films of the vaguely-historical-fiction genre, Fly Boys conjures images of a committee of writers sitting around a table saying something like "Okay … we’ve got a group of volunteers from all kinds of diverse backgrounds who head off to France to risk their lives, fighting in the first widespread aerial battles the world has ever seen … what can we do make this interesting?"  Thankfully, this film doesn’t take nearly as many liberties with history as Pearl Harbor, but, like that film, the CGI non-real flying scenes look almost unbearably … non-real.

Airplanes twist, turn, and skid with absurd power and energy, control surfaces move with terrible exaggeration, and, like seemingly every other computer-generated flying machine we’ve seen on the silver screen, they drift around at impossible angles of attack. We saw this in Pearl Harbor, in King Kong (where ailerons moved backwards at times) – even the pteranadons in Jurassic Park III were guilty. Fly Boys feels worse, somehow, because the director Tony Bill is a pilot and history buff, and a number of notable pilots were involved in the production. Even at least two of the actors, James Franco and David Ellison, already were or became pilots during production. (For a good laugh, check out the flash movie on the official website – watch a Nieuport 17 float around with full left rudder shoot up … another Nieuport 17, also with full left rudder, since it’s a copy of itself … just go look.)

Bill was quoted in an article in Air & Space magazine as saying "I can guarantee you this," he continues. "No one, no matter how expert, will be able to pick the real from the CGI planes much of the time." I wish that were true. But it isn’t, not even close.

With so much expertise around, why does the animated flying look so completely unbelievable? Why didn’t they just ask me to look it over first? I know a thing or two about complaining about simulated flying, after all …

Perhaps a better question to raise is this: If the storyline is weak and predictable, and the the effects so unpalatable … why am I buying it tomorrow?

Well, first of all, I have a problem. I’m a compulsive DVD purchaser. Thankfully, this is the only vice I have, the single flaw that keeps me from blinding the world with utterly boring perfection.

More importantly, I’m buying the movie because of the all-too-scarce real flying. What there is is beautifully done. Breathtaking, at times. There are Nieuport 17 replicas (even the underpowered ultralight versions with the wrong wings are pretty), two Fokker DR1 replicas, a Bristol F.2, Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.5, and even a 1908 Bleriot monoplane. Ken Kellett of Kermit Weeks’ "Fantasy of Flight" (and a gracious host during a week long research trip for Flight Simulator 2004) did a lot of the flying, and the aerial coordination was handled by the sadly late, great Ray Hanna. (For a clip of Ray Hanna doing what he did better than just about anyone – flying a Spitfire low and fast – click here.  If you’re offended by the language at the end of the clip remember that the speaker is British, and that word isn’t the same there as it is in the US, and then ask yourself what you’d say instead.)

So, I suppose the fact that I’m so easily seduced by a few pretty shots of real airplanes that I’ll plunk down my hard(ly)earned shekels for the 2-disc special edition (as I did for Pearl Harbor, and just about any other movie one might describe as fly-y) makes me part of the problem. I’ll try to compensate by watching The Blue Max or Hell’s Angels again. Or maybe I’ll even jump ahead one war, and throw in the one movie whose use of CGI airplanes almost entirely failed to offend me – Tmavomodrý svet (Dark Blue World).

Or, more likely, I’ll buy the best popcorn you can get on a modest Flight Simulator Community Evangelist’s salary, and watch Fly Boys with my wife and cats, none of whom are French prostitutes. And they’re all used to me complaining.

Posted in Fly-y | 7 Comments

It’s an Honor Just to be Nominated

 

 

And we were … FSX was nominated for "Simulation Game of the Year" by the Oscaresque-sounding Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences. As someone who has been credited with working on a number of relevant titles over the years, I am a voting member of the Academy.

We’re up against a PS2 title I’d not heard of called "Tourist Trophy", and "Sid Meier’s Railroads" – Sid’s name is not exactly unknown in the PC world, since he’s been producing games (including a number of combat flight simulators) since 1982, almost as long as FS has been around.

I’ve never used either of the other two titles (so I don’t know what kind of frame rates they get) so I went ahead and voted for Meryl Streep in "The Devil Wears Prada".

Actually, they don’t permit write-ins, which is probably just as well. People like my friend Mike who voted for Ronald Reagan as "Best New Age Pianist" in a Keyboard magazine poll back in the 80’s would be spanners in the works.

Posted in Flight Sim Centric | 2 Comments

Happy Birthday Bob Hoover!

As noted on Aero-News, legendary pilot Bob Hoover turns 85 today. When I was 12 years old, we flew our Cessna T-50 as a camera ship in formation with Hoover flying a de Havilland Fox Moth. My dad gave me the controls for a few moments so that now, 26 years later, I can say "I flew in formation with Bob Hoover".  Consider it said.

I had a nice chat with Hoover at Oshkosh last year – when I reminded him about flying with him, he remembered the Fox Moth immediately (and he wasn’t just being kind – he remembered the unusual orange paint scheme) and told me that the picture that was taken from our airplane hangs in his bar at home.

For more on Hoover, check out the Aero-News writeup here:

If you’ve never seen him fly, there’s a decent look at his justifiably famous "energy management" routine here:

Our Cessna T-50 at Oshkosh in 1989.

To see what a Fox Moth looks like, click here.

Posted in Fly-y | 13 Comments