Build Your Own Boeing 737 Simulator

crux6rind writes "This guy built his own Boeing 737-700 simulator in his garage. The simulator uses elements of a retired Continental B-737-100 along with other genuine Boeing 737 avionics and system components. The simulator will be of the fixed-base variety (no motion, just outside visuals), using Microsoft Flight Simulator 2000, interfaced with R&R Electronics' EPIC system. This system allows you to interface switches, lights, buzzers, gauges, digital readouts with virtually any PC flight simulator out there."

Re:Kaboom

[NETHED]

spare him!!

Uploading the gallery right now
MIRROR HERE [cofc.edu]

One year ago.

[bflame]

Iwas just over a year ago /. had another article just like this about a guy who built a 747 cockpit. [slashdot.org]

Check it out.

You have to try X-Plane

[hh1000]

http://www.x-plane.com [x-plane.com]

This program has FAA endorsement, unlike that other toy I used to use ...

Been going on for a while.

[mnemonic_]

This isn't any more of a full blown simulator than any of the other cockpit building projects. Flight sim enthusiasts have been building their own cockpits using EPIC cards for years- one person even used an old F-15 nose section that was rotting away at a museum and refurbished it completely.

Building F-16 cockpits is pretty popular, interfaced with Falcon 4.0 which is easily the most realistic combat sim all around (yes, Flanker 2.5 and Il-2 probably have better flight models). Here are some current F-16 cockpit projects:
http://www.f16cockpit.net/
http://home .earthlink.net/~bluumax/
http://virtualf16.20m.co m/

One convenient thing about building an F-16 cockpit is the Thrustmaster Cougar HOTAS joystick & throttle, which are exact replicas of the HOTAS system used in the F-16; all metal and accurate down to the lettering next to the buttons.

Again, this is not an uncommon thing in the flight sim world. Some go as far as purchasing flight suits and helmets to wear while flying in their virtual worlds.

Re:Boat

[mnemonic_]

The B-2 Spirit would probably have inferior handling characteristics to a 737 in terms of top speed, turning rate and radius, and climbing rate. It probably has a higher maximum altitude and no doubt much longer range, inherent to the flying wing design. The F-117 Nighthawk would probably be a bit snappier, though I've heard it's pretty "wobbly" ("Wobblin' Goblin").

Neither would compare to flying a supersonic fighter.

about flightgear

[bsussman1988]

it will run on linux, mac, and of course the hated and feared os ms windows. it is free to d/l but is 23$ a disk for a copy of all the variations, documentation, and as much north american sceenery as possible. $15 for one of the sceenery disks and $70 for the set of 8

another mirror

[polished look 2]

mirror [soggytrousers.net]

Re:Just one of many crazies

[dmerchant]

http://www.f15sim.com

Fortran + Ada = Core host SW

[KezMaefele]

I work in the flight sim business developing software. I was in the commercial side of things (Lear, Cessna, 777, etc) for a couple of years and most of the host software is written in Fortran. Now I am in the military side of things (Apache, Commanche, F18, etc.) Fortran and Ada form the basis for much of the host code. It is an ugly depressing world down in the bowels of the host code for these high tech sims. The Visuals, networking (HLA), and newer systems are starting to propogate towards newer code. It is interesting to see the mish-mash build for such huge projects. CGF (computer generated forces), SAF, IOS (instructor operating staions), are typically of a more modern paradigm, but they interface with Ada and Fortran code that drives the host simulation. You have never seen so many global variables in you life. GOTO's abound. It is a wonder to me at times how the systems work at all. But diligence and hours and hours of trainer time seem to work out most of the bugs. I usually get 10 or so hours a week on a trainer and most of the time don't even fire up the engines and fly it around. At first it is the ultimate video game, but after a while, it is just a job and deadlines have to be met and my code must work. Flight Sims are amazing engineering projects involving hundred of engineers and millions of lines of code. It is imposible for one engineer to know the inner working of all the systems (although I think my cubie might). It is definately an exciting and satisfying industry to get into as a young engineer or software geek, but be prepared to get out that old FORTRAN book from your freshman year in college because you will need it. Oh yeah, and brush up on your Ada. And you better know Unix/Linux. Windows don't play in the real time sim world. All of our systems are progressing from proprietary Unix systems (SGI-IRIX) and the like to Linux (RedHat). Host, visual, IG, networking. All of it eventually will be Linux based PC systems. The cost savings are too important to ignore. And we have the inhouse know-how to run on any system. Why not the cheapest?

Re:How realistic is it?

[Realistic_Dragon]

This is the area which has made Airbus popular enough to unseat Boeing (in terms of aircraft shipped per year, I think it was either last year or this year that they went ahead for the first time).

Because they had the advantage of starting from scratch fairly recently nearly all of their aircraft have common cockpits, common handling characteristics, common spares and other things designed to save the operator money when running a mixed airbus fleet.

This is great for people like BA and American who operate short and long haul fleets, as it gives them the chance to be able to interchange pilots, mechanics and some parts between the A318 (tiny, ~100 seats) and the A380 (huge, ~800+ seats) without retraining.