FALCON-S: Fixed-wing ground-effect Aerodynamics Simulator and Flight Control Learning Suite
Authors: Matteo El Hariry, Pedro Lima, Andrej Orsula, Matthieu Geist, Miguel Olivares-Mendez
Organizations: Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust (SnT), University of Luxembourg, L-1855 Luxembourg · Earth Speacies Project
We present a modular, high-fidelity simulation framework for the development and benchmarking of flight control strategies in fixed-wing aerial robots operating near the ground. Unlike existing simulators that rely on simplified or hover-oriented dynamics, our framework models full 6DoF rigid-body physics, semi-empirical ground-effect aerodynamics, actuator dynamics, sensor noise, and environmental disturbances. This physical realism, combined with modular component design, enables systematic analysis of low-altitude flight behavior under realistic conditions. The simulator supports both CPU and GPU backends via Torch and NVIDIA Warp, enabling high-throughput parallel execution suitable for large-scale reinforcement learning training and optimal control rollouts. A unified interface accommodates a range of controllers (both RL and optical control algorithms) across tasks such as altitude regulation and trajectory tracking. Cross-validation with X-Plane and JSBSim is also supported to facilitate engineering integration and visual fidelity.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1 : Airship flying in ground effect, rendered in X-Plane.
Feature
Ours
NeuralPlane
QPlane
JSBSim
XPlane
Open-source
✓
✓
✓
✓
–
Physics-based FDM
✓(WIG, 6DoF)
✓(fixed-wing only)
✓(JSBSim/XPlane)
✓
✓
Ground Effect Model
✓(semi-empirical)
–
* (depends on JSBSim)
✓
GPU Acceleration
✓(Warp)
✓(PyTorch)
–
–
–
Multi-agent Support
–
✓
✓
* (via UDP)
Multiple Flight Tasks
✓
✓
✓
TABLE I: Comparison with existing aircraft simulation frameworks. Our platform combines near-ground aerodynamics, modular tasks, advanced controllers, rich sensor and actuator models. [✓] full, [*] partial/optional, [–] not supported.
Fig. 2: Ground-effect fixed-wing simulation architecture. The modular environment models aerodynamics, actuators, ground effect, turbulence, and sensors, while the agent module supports classical and learning-based controllers. Tasks, metrics, and visualization enable extensible benchmarking and training.
Longitudinal
Lateral
Vertical
Filter
Gu(s)=(1+Tus)2σuKu
Gv(s)=(1+Tvs)2σvKv(1+3Tvs)
Gw(s)=(1+Tws)2σwKw(1+3Tws)
Constants
Ku=πU02Lu,Tu=U0Lu
Kv=πU0Lv,Tv=U0Lv
Kw=πU0Lw,Tw=U0Lw
TABLE II : Dryden turbulence velocity spectral filters.
Fig. 3 : Illustration of sensor imperfections supported by the simulator, including noise, bias and scaling.
Backend
Envs
Env-steps/s
Speedup vs. CPU
Python/SciPy (CPU)
1
589
1×
PyTorch (GPU)
16,384
2,586,610
4,390×
Warp (GPU)
16,384
19,461,717
33,029×
Warp (GPU)
262,144
73,640,000
peak
Warp (GPU)
1,048,576
67,070,000
saturated
TABLE III : Simulation throughput by backend and parallel-environment count (mean over 10 trials).
Fig. 4 : Throughput vs. parallel environments for the Warp, PyTorch, and CPU backends (log-log).
Condition
Altitude
Pitch rate
Airspeed
h0=1 m, GE on
0.9999
0.9989
0.9480
h0=1 m, GE off
0.9999
0.9999
0.9999
h0=10 m
1.0000
0.9885
0.9997
h0=100 m
0.9996
0.9975
0.9973
TABLE IV : Pearson correlations between our simulator and JSBSim under identical zero-input free-flight conditions. GE: ground effect.
Metric
Formula / description
Survival
fraction of episodes reaching the horizon without
crash or stall termination
Acquisition
fraction additionally reaching and holding the
target to within δ
RMSE
∣W∣1∑t∈Wet2 over the settled window W
Time-in-band
fraction of scored time with ∣et∣ inside the
TABLE V : Evaluation metrics computed from trajectory and control logs. et is the tracking error at step t , and δ the capture band, 1 m on the altitude task.
Fig. 5 : PPO holding a sequence of altitude targets, Airship V7 (left) and Volantex Ranger (right). Each panel set shows the flight paths, commanded versus achieved altitude for ten episodes, the tracking error over 256 Monte Carlo episodes with its 10–90% band, a side view, and the elevator and throttle traces of one episode. A new target is released only once the current one is held, so each error spike is one acquisition.
Alg.
n
Surv.
Acq.
RMSE (m)
ts (s)
Over. (m)
Airship V7
PPO
200
1.0 ± 0.0
1.0 ± 0.0
0.3 ± 0.0
7.8 ± 0.4
0.8 ± 0.0
SAC
200
0.8 ± 0.2
0.5 ± 0.4
3.5 ± 3.6
6.9 ± 0.7
0.2 ± 0.1
TD3
200
0.9 ± 0.2
0.9 ± 0.2
0.1 ± 0.1
8.3 ± 1.1
0.6 ± 0.4
LQR
50
1.0
1.0
<0.1
10.0
1.9
MPPI
50
0.9 ± 0.0
0.0 ± 0.0
30.7 ± 0.3
—
41.5 ± 0.4
Volantex
PPO
200
1.0 ± 0.0
1.0 ± 0.0
0.0 ± 0.0
7.3 ± 0.0
0.7 ± 0.0
TABLE VI : Altitude acquisition and hold. Surv. is survival rate, Acq. is successful acquisition, RMSE is altitude error, ts is settling time, and Over. is overshoot.
Fig. 6 : Attitude-command interface for Airship V7 (left pair) and Volantex Ranger (right pair). Left: ground tracks across the commanded bank envelopes, coloured by achieved bank. Right: commanded (dashed) and achieved (solid) channels for the steepest sustained turn, normalised by their respective ranges.
Fig. 7 : Bank tracking on Airship V7. Rows show the four maneuvers; columns show the five executors. Dashed lines show commanded bank, with the ±8.6∘ tolerance shaded; panels report RMSE and time-in-band. Faceting reveals LQR departures, SAC tremor, and the TD3 limit cycle, which overlap other traces on shared axes.
Fig. 8 : Completed maneuvers flown by the attitude executor, rendered from the simulator’s 3D visualisation. Rows are the two airframes, columns the four maneuvers, and the track is coloured by bank angle over ±50∘ , blue left and red right. Note the axis scales: a maneuver name denotes a comparable difficulty, not a comparable geometry (Table VII ).
Airframe
Maneuver
ϕmax ( ∘ )
R (m)
n
Airship V7
circle
36.0
110
1.23
figure-8
35.8
111
1.23
helix
21.6
202
1.07
s-turn
25.2
170
1.10
Volantex Ranger
circle
28.0
43
1.13
figure-8
27.9
43
1.13
TABLE VII : Maneuver definitions. Each stream uses the airframe’s own envelope, so ϕmax , turn radius R , and load factor n=1/cosϕmax vary between airframes. Commands are identical for all five controllers.
Alg.
Circle
Fig.-8
Helix
S-turn
Airship V7
PPO
1.8 ± 0.2 (100)
2.2 ± 0.1 (100)
0.8 ± 0.2 (100)
2.3 ± 0.1 (100)
SAC
13.0 ± 1.4 (49)
20.9 ± 12.8 (47)
7.1 ± 2.4 (83)
12.7 ± 4.9 (58)
TD3
23.6 ± 6.4 (18)
18.0 ± 5.6 (33)
11.1 ± 3.2 (49)
12.1 ± 2.1 (49)
LQR
10.6 (76)
9.1 (77)
2.0 (100)
5.2 (100)
MPPI
4.8 ± 6.9 (88)
0.7 ± 0.3 (100)
0.3 ± 0.2 (100)
0.2 ± 0.1 (100)
Volantex
PPO
1.0 ± 0.0 (100)
1.8 ± 0.0 (100)
0.4 ± 0.0 (100)
2.0 ± 0.0 (100)
TABLE VIII : Bank-angle RMSE (deg), mean ± standard deviation, with time-in-band (%) in brackets. Out-of-envelope runs are excluded.
Fig. 9 : Ground effect versus h/b . Left: thrust change for trim (dash-dot), policy (solid), and theory (dotted). Right: settled altitude error with correction on/off (solid/dashed). Colours denote airframes. A0S has no policy curve below h/b=2 .
h/b
h (m)
TGE (N)
TnoGE (N)
ΔT
ΔTπ
Theory
Airship V7
0.25
1.25
54.39
72.89
−25.4 %
−29.1 %
−20.6 %
0.50
2.50
66.32
72.89
−9.0 %
−11.8 %
−6.9 %
1.00
5.00
70.92
72.89
−2.7 %
−3.6 %
−2.1 %
2.00
10.00
72.49
72.89
−0.6 %
−0.8 %
−0.5 %
3.00
15.00
72.81
72.89
−0.1 %
−0.1 %
−0.1 %
6.00
30.00
72.90
72.90
+0.0 %
+0.0 %
+0.0 %
TABLE IX : Ground-effect impact on thrust. ΔT is the thrust change; ΔTπ is the policy-controlled change; Theory is the lifting-line prediction.
Airframe
Disturbance
Nom.
Mild
Med.
Sev.
Airship V7
Sensor noise
1.00/2.0
1.00/2.0
1.00/2.0
1.00/2.0
Sensor delay
1.00/2.0
1.00/7.0
1.00/12.0
1.00/20.6
Action delay
1.00/2.0
1.00/7.2
1.00/14.5
1.00/21.7
Turbulence
1.00/2.0
1.00/7.7
0.75/18.7
1.00/22.0
Volantex Ranger
Sensor noise
1.00/1.3
1.00/1.3
1.00/1.3
1.00/1.4
Sensor delay
1.00/1.3
1.00/1.3
1.00/1.3
1.00/9.7
TABLE X : PPO attitude-executor robustness. Entries are Surv./ ϕ (bank RMSE, ∘ ); values use the true simulator state.
Fig. 10 : Bank RMSE of the PPO executor against disturbance severity, one line per family, for the two airframes. Survival is annotated only where it leaves 1.00.
In this work, we introduce Crazyflow, an accurate, differentiable simulator built on JAX. By leveraging jit compilation via XLA, Crazyflow unifies physics and control into a single differentiable computation graph, enabling massive parallelization on accelerated hardware without sacrificing modeling accuracy. This architecture achieves order-of-magnitude speedups over existing baselines, capable of training deployable reinforcement learning agents in seconds. To highlight its highly modular design, we demonstrate how easily Crazyflow can be extended by integrating a complete, high-fidelity Ultra-Wideband (UWB) and Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) simulation pipeline coupled with a full-state Extended Kalman Filter (EKF). This capability allows for massive parallel controller evaluation under realistic, degraded state feedback with minimal impact on GPU throughput. By combining speed, accuracy, and extensibility, Crazyflow serves as a foundational tool for the next generation of aerial robotics research.
Martin Schuck, Marcel P. Rath, Yufei Hua +3
Learning Systems and Robotics Lab, Technical University of Munich, Germany
The convergence of low-altitude economies, embodied intelligence, and air-ground cooperative systems creates growing demand for simulation infrastructure capable of jointly modeling aerial and ground agents within a single physically coherent environment. Existing open-source platforms remain domain-segregated: driving simulators lack aerial dynamics, while multirotor simulators lack realistic ground scenes. Bridge-based co-simulation introduces synchronization overhead and cannot guarantee strict spatial-temporal consistency. We present CARLA-Air, an open-source infrastructure that unifies high-fidelity urban driving and physics-accurate multirotor flight within a single Unreal Engine process. The platform preserves both CARLA and AirSim native Python APIs and ROS 2 interfaces, enabling zero-modification code reuse. Within a shared physics tick and rendering pipeline, CARLA-Air delivers photorealistic environments with rule-compliant traffic, socially-aware pedestrians, and aerodynamically consistent UAV dynamics, synchronously capturing up to 18 sensor modalities across all platforms at each tick. The platform supports representative air-ground embodied intelligence workloads spanning cooperation, embodied navigation and vision-language action, multi-modal perception and dataset construction, and reinforcement-learning-based policy training. An extensible asset pipeline allows integration of custom robot platforms into the shared world. By inheriting AirSim's aerial capabilities -- whose upstream development has been archived -- CARLA-Air ensures this widely adopted flight stack continues to evolve within a modern infrastructure. Released with prebuilt binaries and full source: https://github.com/louiszengCN/CarlaAir
Tianle Zeng, Yanci Wen, Hong Zhang
1Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Robotics and Computer Vision, Southern University of Science and Technology.
This work presents a control framework that enables a multicopter equipped with a two-axis gimbal to emulate the flight dynamics of a fixed-wing aircraft. The goal is to provide an operationally simple platform for training and simulation that avoids the aerodynamic constraints of fixed-wing vehicles, such as minimum airspeed and nonholonomic constraints. A state-input mapping between the two platforms is derived using dynamic feedback linearization. The framework is evaluated on representative fixed-wing manoeuvres. Results show high-fidelity emulation under nominal conditions. While evaluations are conducted in simulation, the approach establishes a practical path toward hardware deployment for pilot training, autonomy research, and controller benchmarking.
Abdelhakim Amer, Andriy Sarabakha
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Aarhus University, Denmark