The Most Exciting Game Of The Season Flight Simulator Game

What is the better way to find a game where you can get the feel of flying a real flight. Compared with other games, flight simulator game is manning the controls of an amazing flight simulator. Now you can just fly to London just by playing this exciting game. Flight simulator is otherwise a multi-million dollar machine, now they are offering this amazing game for their customers.

The name itself implies the same as the simulator, this game is a great feel for all those people who are excited to feel the experience of flying a plane. Although it is not an easy task to fly a plane and it is not possible for you to get a training and license to sit in the pilot’s seat. So, your dream was going to be unfulfilled otherwise, not anymore. Flight simulator game will let you fly the flight and that too according to your convenience.

Why Are These Games So Exciting And Getting So Much Of Attention?

This game is identical to a real cockpit in every detail. The windows are actually video screens which is programmed to show you the airport terminals, runways, taxiways, topographical features and weather conditions.
Even with the pods tilting and lurching, they try to recreate real-life conditions and speakers broadcast sounds like jet and wind noise, the thud of landing, landing gear and flap movement and even the sound of the tires bumping along the taxiway.
The software is programmed for a bright sunny day with a quick adjustment to the weather feature so that it could be switched to turbulent, cloudy, or rainy. The simulated windshield wipers are switched on, incase the simulated rain starts. They provided the complete ambience with sound effects.
After you start to play this game, you will understand that there is nothing called as a ‘completely automated take-off or landing’. Using the autopilot doesn’t mean everything is automated. At the very least you have to lower the landing gear and for doing that, you still have many manual operations required.

The most popular question asked by the games of Flight Simulator Game is that “Can we actually learn flying like a professional civil aviation pilot?” and “Is it preferable to shoot down other airplanes and have aerial fights with other players in combat mode?” So, if your wish of flying plane has been left unfulfilled, this might be your chance.

Flight simulator game can even be like the crash course for you before actually joining the airline training academy. It is good to know the basics while you are joining on something. It will help you to mark an impression and make good for yourself. So are you ready to begin playing the game?

For more kukecase consult the experts at

Simulation Software: How Simio Objects Differ From Other Object-oriented Modeling Tools

The general idea of object-oriented modeling is not new – in fact the first object oriented modeling tool – Simula – was introduced over 50 years ago and provided the core ideas in use today in object-oriented modeling tools. There are a number of object-oriented modeling tools on the market day. When using these tools a user selects objects from a library and places them in a model. A general consensus from many users of these tools is that they work well on simple models, but for complex applications they are difficult to use because they either lack flexibility (users cannot add or modify objects), or achieve flexibility by requiring the user to write complex code in a programming language such as C++ or Java. Either option is a barrier to the user in terms of rapidly modeling complex systems. This has been a key constraint on the widespread acceptance of object-oriented modeling tools.

Simio differs from other object-oriented modeling tools in that Simio objects are process-based rather than code-based. A Simio object is defined by creating a set of graphical process flows that describe the object’s behavior. A process is a flowchart that describes a sequence of activities and decisions that are made by the object. A process may span time and may be constrained by limited resources. A simple example of a process that is familiar to many users of process-oriented modeling tools is: SEIZE-DELAY-RELEASE. In this process the object waits to seize a resource, delays by an activity time, and then releases the resource. Note that this activity spans time and the time to execute the process is dependent on both the availability of the resource and the specified delay time.

In other tools the objects are code-based and implemented in a programming language. If the tool supports user-defined objects, then the user must implement any new objects in the same programming language. The user must have mastered the basic concepts of object-orientation (e.g. encapsulation, inheritance, polymorphism, etc.), and also be skilled in the required programming language. As a result the creation of a new object requires an expert programmer in a specific programming language. The process-based objects in Simio have a number of important advantages over the code-based objects in other tools. The first and most obvious advantage is that objects are much easier to create since they do not require programming skills in a specific language. In addition since the logic for a Simio object is defined by graphical process flows and is visible to the user they are easier to understand and to modify. Most importantly, however, the object behavior in Simio is defined using high-level process modeling constructs that span time. This greatly simplifies the task of building objects.

In most object-oriented modeling tools the user is able to embellish the provided objects with custom logic for a specific application. For example it might be necessary to count the number times that a customer completes service on a specific server and then use this count in some way within the model logic. This type of user-added logic is very important to be able to flexibly model a wide range of systems. Tools will typically provide a way to add such logic at predefined points in the objects that are provided in their standard library.

The process-based objects in Simio again have some unique and important advantages over code-based objects when it comes to adding custom logic to existing objects. A code-based object will have logical “hooks” to make calls to a user-supplied function that is executed at selected points in the object. The user must code this function in the specified programming language (e.g. C++ or Java). In some cases a simplified scripting tool is provide as an alternative to do simple things such as assignments without coding, however the flexibility and power of the scripting tools are very limited. In either case, however, the inserted logic must fully execute at that specific point in simulated time. The logic cannot delay for a specified time, wait for a resource to become available or relocate, wait for a tank to reach a specified fill level, or perform other types of complex logic that spans simulated time. In contrast the process-based objects in Simio provide a feature called “add-on” processes that are executed at specific logical points in the object. These are the counterparts to the function calls in code-based objects but are much more powerful since they have the full power of Simio processes and can span time as necessary. For example there is an add-on process for the Server object in Simio that is run whenever the Server fails. This process could be created by the user to include logic to wait to seize the repairman, and also wait for the repairman to arrive at the Server before returning control back to the object. This is an extremely powerful capability.

In summary, the process-based objects in Simio provide a number of important advantages over the more traditional code-based objects found in other object-oriented modeling tools. These advantages include both ease-of-use by eliminating the requirement to be an expert programmer, as well as modeling flexibility by allowing objects to be defined and embellished using processes that span time as opposed to coded functions that must execute without a simulated time- advance. In short, the process-based objects in Simio (patent pending) are both simpler and more powerful than the code-based objects in other modeling tools.

Closer to Virtual Reality: Extraterrestrials and the Simulation Hypothesis

I believe that the Simulation Hypothesis – a hypothesis that we ‘live’ as virtual beings inside a simulated landscape inside a computer – is the most probable hypothesis when it comes to choosing between differing possibilities of reality. However, the key word revolves around what I “believe”. I cannot prove that the Simulation Hypothesis is the be-all-and-end-all of our reality – not yet at least though I’m working on that. Thus, I must keep an open mind to the possibility that our reality isn’t virtual but really real. In the meantime my pontificating on the aliens-are-here, the UFO extraterrestrial hypothesis and related, is to be examined here in that virtual reality scenario.

# Virtual Aliens: If the Simulation Hypothesis is correct, what would it mean for aliens to be here? It would mean no more and no less than what would it mean for a simulated couch to be in your simulated living room or a simulated tree in your simulated front yard or a simulated crook to pickpocket your simulated wallet. You’re asking a question about the motivation of whoever programmed into our simulated landscape the this, and the that and the next thing too including the concept of simulated anomalous lights in the sky and simulated extraterrestrials having their wicked way with a select few of us. I have no idea what their motivation might be.

I suggest though that one needs to perhaps look at things through the eyes of our very own simulated beings part-and-parcel of our simulated landscapes in our video games. What would these virtual beings that we have programmed think of all the bits-and-pieces that we have included in their virtual world? Why is this guy shooting at me? Why is this monster lurking in the shadows? Why is this Little Green Man abducting and raping my daughter? Do we not include aliens, and all manner of alien interactions in our own video games? Have we not created video games that revolve around “Star Trek” and “Star Wars” and their associated extraterrestrials? So, if we do it, what’s the issue with what someone (or something) might include in the programming of our simulation and simulated landscape?

Okay, that’s hardly a question that discounts the existence of aliens in the here and now in what you would call our really real reality.

# The Supreme Programmer: It could well be the fact that as far as our Supreme Programmer – the he / she / it / them responsible for creating our virtual reality – is concerned, we are just trivia. If this Supreme Programmer has designed hundreds or thousands of simulated universes and landscapes, then yes, we’re trivial. But then so to is any simulation or video game that we create. You buy an off-the-shelf video game and isn’t really all of the contents really trivial? But back to simulated aliens. Since we have programmed hundreds of video games that feature aliens, and produced hundreds of movies and TV episodes (cinema being just another form of simulation) that featured ET, some made even before the start of the modern UFO era, why should we (Royal We) and why should you (as in just you) raise eyebrows at the thought that our Supreme Programmer(s) featured aliens? Many forms of what passes for entertainment is trivial. Our science fiction novels and short stories feature aliens by the bucketful who don’t “have to travel through space, time, space-time, or even a mental space to get “here”.” Well actually they have to travel via a mental space – the author’s mental space or the film producer’s mental space or the programmer’s mental space. So maybe we’re just entertainment for the Supreme Programmer, the “we’re” including aliens and UFOs all rounding out the Supreme Programmer’s cosmic landscape.

If we could talk to our video game or simulation characters (or characters written into a novel or who appear on the silver screen) – and as you note, we can’t, yet – they might ask questions very similar to what must exist in the minds of readers here about why we (the Royal We), their creators, programmed this or that or the next thing in creating their simulated landscape. We (the Royal We) might respond that that’s the way we wanted it, even if it was trivial, or absurd.

I need point out when addressing the Simulation Hypothesis that no free will exists. The characters in our novels have no free will; the characters in our films have no free will; the characters in our video games have no free will. If we’re the creation of a Supreme Programmer, we have no free will. We might have no free will when we boldly go, but as long as we think we have free will then we (Royal We) can be convinced of our boldly going prowess. That by the by could equally apply even if we exist in a really real reality.

But if anyone has digested anything I’ve ever posted about the Simulation Hypothesis, they’d be aware there is one vast difference between my postulated Supreme Programmer and a supernatural deity, or God if that word floats your boat. My postulated Supreme Programmer is a fallible SOB and ‘oops’ happen and absurdities happen. God, being omni this and omni that and omni the next thing wouldn’t create any oops or absurdities.

It is important to contrast a creation by a perfect being, an omni-God, whose creation logically would be perfect – no anomalies, no absurdities – and an imperfect being like a mortal flesh-and-blood computer programmer whose programming would not always be perfect and would probably contain anomalies and absurdities. The proof of that pudding is it the constant updates and upgrades you get for your PC as well as the news stories that surface from time to time about security programming flaws in software that allow the less than ethical among us to do relatively nasty things to our privacy, our bank accounts, our databases, our private and public institutions, like hacking into the NSA or the CIA, or having the NSA and the CIA hack into our PC’s.

But by the by, if anyone were to wish to call the Supreme Programmer, the software/computer programmer responsible for our Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe “supernatural”, that’s fine by me as long as it’s not an omni-supernatural he / she / it / they. But what this nitpicking actually contributes to the subject of E.T. and whether or not aliens are, or are not here, in our postulated virtual reality quite escapes me. I doubt if the readers here give a damn whether or not a computer programmer can be defined as someone “supernatural”.

# The Twilight Zone: Whoever, whatever, programmed our cosmos and our local landscape had a sense of the absurd. Perhaps that’s our Supreme Programmer’s sense of humour coming to the fore. What absurdities? Quantum physics is absurd. The fact that we just can’t come up with a Theory of Everything is absurd. An accelerating expansion rate for the cosmos is absurd. Dark Energy and Dark Matter are absurd concepts. Crop circles are absurd (but they’re here). The Loch Ness Monster is absurd (but people report seeing it or them). Long Delayed Echoes are absurd (but verified). Transient Lunar Phenomena are absurd (but verified). Those Martian rock ‘anomalies’ like lizards, rats and skulls are absurd (but they have been photographed). Biblical ‘miracles’ are absurd but millions believe they happened. The SETI “WOW” signal is an absurdity but it happened. There are all manner of archaeological absurdities, but I’ll mention just one – The Temple of Jupiter at Baalbek in modern day Lebanon. There are many things that are absurd when it comes to the human species: here’s one – humans are the only species where the saying “don’t shoot until you see the whites of their eyes makes actual sense. If photons cannot escape from a Black Hole then neither can gravitons. Gravitons convey the gravitational force which means that Black Holes exert no gravity. A Black Hole without gravity is therefore an absurdity. Then you have quasars that appear linked but have vastly differing red shifts which is also an absurdity. The missing satellite of Venus, Neith, is another absurdity as in how can satellites vanish? You have physical constants that apparently aren’t – constant that is. Time travel to the past is both theoretically possible (General Relativity) and theoretically impossible (paradoxes) – it’s an absurdity to have both something that can be and not be at the same time. Ghosts are absurd yet there are probably more sightings of ghosts going back to ancient times than there have been sightings of UFOs. Perhaps UFOs, the “Greys” and related are also absurdities, but they exist in good company with the rest of what passes for our simulated cosmic ‘Twilight Zone’.

Here are a few more absurdities to ponder over. There are three generations of elementary particles, yet only one plays any significant role in the cosmos. The other two contribute nothing of substance and structure, so why is there a second and a third generation of the elementary particles? In archaeology, the Mesoamerican Olmec massive multi-ton stone heads scream out ‘made in Africa’ or ‘we’re African’, yet there should not have been any cross-cultural contact between Africa and Central America way back in Olmec days. Such a scenario is deemed an absurdity. Lastly, turning again to human anomalies, we alone in all the animal kingdom have a bipedal gait without benefit of a balancing tail. A bipedal gait without any balancing mechanism makes us very unstable on our feet. We’re very easy to knock over. We can lose our balance, fall down and do ourselves a mischief very easily relative to the rest of the animal kingdom. That Mother Nature would select for such an absurdity, is, well, an absurdity.

Exceptions to the rule, like the human bipedal gait, require extra special scrutiny since at first glance lone exceptions appear highly out-of-place and anomalous. Another example is with respect to velocity. Velocities can be added and subtracted with one exception – the speed of light. Why is this so? Nobody knows.

Now from the inside of the computer looking out, as virtual beings, we could never know for absolute certain that anomalies or absurdities weren’t designed deliberately or built into the system. But that doesn’t mean we (Royal We) can’t damn well have suspicions, especially when the anomalies or the absurdities just keep on mounting up. So there is no such thing, as some might suggest, of a proven ‘oops’, but there certainly can be suspicions that something is screwy somewhere. There couldn’t logically be such suspicions if an omni-God (or equivalent) were the only option regarding our creation, something that was the case in ancient times before computer programming and software simulations was conceived of in anyone’s philosophy. An omni-God is no longer the only creation scenario game in town.

I repeat, our Universe might be deliberately designed to be a ‘Twilight Zone’ cosmos, but the odds seem to favour some unintentional “oops” caused by lapses in the programming that was done by my postulated Supreme (but fallible) Programmer. Given the absolute complexity of designing a simulated cosmos from scratch, it is logical to suspect that anyone who isn’t an omni-God would goof a few things up. No one can prove that, but one certainly can suspect that not all is right with the cosmos; one can have one’s doubts! The bottom line is that anomalies and absurdities most certainly argue against an omni-God but support the idea of a fallible creator, like a computer programmer.