as a training tool, MS Flt Sim is a farce!!!

[mike popken]

The following was the original comment in this thread:

"See Wired magazine:

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,60830,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_6

People have criticized me in the past for suggesting that someone
could
learn much of the skills of piloting with FS, but it seems that I'm in
good company."
==============

If the poster is suggesting a wanna-be pilot could gain some insight
into ATC, he would be right. And ditto for a little background on
using VOR navigation, and with fs2004, the Garmin GPS. I would agree.
It is also helpful for a wanna-be pilot to experience how fast things
happen when you fly, how mentally quick one must be in order to safely
fly a plane. Here I agree again, but as one who has flown real planes,
I cound not disagree more if the poster is suggesting Microsoft
simulator planes fly like the REAL THING. Microsof FS is an eye candy
entertainment GAME. Got that word there::: G A M E!!!!!!!!
That's all it is, an eye candy game, to entertain people, to keep
their minds off the sewer society we are (and have) slid off into, to
keep people preoccupied with utter nonsense so they won't have time to
write or call their congressmen about what a mess the world is
becoming, so they won't have time to organize war demonstrations, etc.
That is the only purpose of this product. MS airplaines do NOT even
remotely fly like the real thing, and all one need do to prove it for
themselves is go fly a real plane and you'll see for yourself. Then if
you still believe MS simulator planes fly like the real thing, then
you are probably a devoute religious person that belives all those
wierd stories about God destroying His own creations, causing fire n
brimstone, hell, devils, etc. And just think, there are a couple
billion people who believe all this crap, so it does not surprise me
that millions of Flt Sim fans believe Microsoft's simulator planes fly
like the real thing.
BETWEEN EVERY MAN AND REALITY LIE HIS MOST CHERISHED ILLUSIONS.
M.P. Hall

Hope this helps
Mike

[Murphy]

Mike, as someone who spent 35 years in the airline industry you are of
course right when you say that FSIM does not fly like a real plane. But FSIM
DOES fly like a real simulator, eratic, 10 times harder to control than a
real plane and not 100% accurate as far as instrumentation is concerned. But
the purpose of putting flight crews into simulator training on a regular
basis is not to give them a realistic flying experience. It's to get a look
at what they do when certain adverse situations are thrown their way and
test their reaction time among many other things. So for a pilot wannabe it
is a good tool for preparing them when they finally get into a real cockpit
and an excellent tool for an instructor. And YES, a great eye candy game
too!! MURPHY




"mike popken" > wrote in message
om...
> The following was the original comment in this thread:
>
> "See Wired magazine:
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,60830,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_6
>
> People have criticized me in the past for suggesting that someone
> could
> learn much of the skills of piloting with FS, but it seems that I'm in
> good company."
> ==============
>
> If the poster is suggesting a wanna-be pilot could gain some insight
> into ATC, he would be right. And ditto for a little background on
> using VOR navigation, and with fs2004, the Garmin GPS. I would agree.
> It is also helpful for a wanna-be pilot to experience how fast things
> happen when you fly, how mentally quick one must be in order to safely
> fly a plane. Here I agree again, but as one who has flown real planes,
> I cound not disagree more if the poster is suggesting Microsoft
> simulator planes fly like the REAL THING. Microsof FS is an eye candy
> entertainment GAME. Got that word there::: G A M E!!!!!!!!
> That's all it is, an eye candy game, to entertain people, to keep
> their minds off the sewer society we are (and have) slid off into, to
> keep people preoccupied with utter nonsense so they won't have time to
> write or call their congressmen about what a mess the world is
> becoming, so they won't have time to organize war demonstrations, etc.
> That is the only purpose of this product. MS airplaines do NOT even
> remotely fly like the real thing, and all one need do to prove it for
> themselves is go fly a real plane and you'll see for yourself. Then if
> you still believe MS simulator planes fly like the real thing, then
> you are probably a devoute religious person that belives all those
> wierd stories about God destroying His own creations, causing fire n
> brimstone, hell, devils, etc. And just think, there are a couple
> billion people who believe all this crap, so it does not surprise me
> that millions of Flt Sim fans believe Microsoft's simulator planes fly
> like the real thing.
> BETWEEN EVERY MAN AND REALITY LIE HIS MOST CHERISHED ILLUSIONS.
> M.P. Hall
>
> Hope this helps
> Mike

[henri Arsenault]

In article >,
(mike popken) wrote:

> The following was the original comment in this thread:
>
> "See Wired magazine:
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,60830,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_6
>
> People have criticized me in the past for suggesting that someone
> could
> learn much of the skills of piloting with FS, but it seems that I'm in
> good company."
> ==============
>
The critical part of the articvle is the following.
===========
Lacy went on to graduate near the top of his class in flight training,
and the Navy decided to see if using Flight Simulator would help other
students. It found that trainees who used the program did better in
their training, prompting the Navy to issue customized versions of
Flight Simulator to all of its flight students. Flight Simulator also is
used as part of pilot training at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
and FlightSafety International's academy in Vero Beach, Florida.
=============
So one can pooh-pooh all he wants, the bottom line is that FS2004 IS
being used already in flight training, and indications are that it
helps, and there ae competent flight instructors that agree.

========
Even without the FAA's stamp of approval, the Air Safety Foundation's
Landsberg thinks that Flight Simulator could have great benefits for
student pilots, and the foundation is planning a study to quantify those
benefits.

"I'd like to get a group of students and take half of them through
traditional flight training, and half through training where they use
Flight Simulator as a supplement," Landsberg said. "I'll bet you that at
the conclusion, the Flight Simulator group will have saved 25 percent of
the time in the air."
===============
A study is apparentyly under way to determine to what extent FS trining
can help.

Henri

[Tom Moroow]

Damn, I was going to borrow my Dad's Cessna and fly to Catalina island this
weekend based on my Flight Simulatoar experience. Guess 'll take a boat.

"mike popken" > wrote in message
om...
> The following was the original comment in this thread:
>
> "See Wired magazine:
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,60830,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_6
>
> People have criticized me in the past for suggesting that someone
> could
> learn much of the skills of piloting with FS, but it seems that I'm in
> good company."
> ==============
>
> If the poster is suggesting a wanna-be pilot could gain some insight
> into ATC, he would be right. And ditto for a little background on
> using VOR navigation, and with fs2004, the Garmin GPS. I would agree.
> It is also helpful for a wanna-be pilot to experience how fast things
> happen when you fly, how mentally quick one must be in order to safely
> fly a plane. Here I agree again, but as one who has flown real planes,
> I cound not disagree more if the poster is suggesting Microsoft
> simulator planes fly like the REAL THING. Microsof FS is an eye candy
> entertainment GAME. Got that word there::: G A M E!!!!!!!!
> That's all it is, an eye candy game, to entertain people, to keep
> their minds off the sewer society we are (and have) slid off into, to
> keep people preoccupied with utter nonsense so they won't have time to
> write or call their congressmen about what a mess the world is
> becoming, so they won't have time to organize war demonstrations, etc.
> That is the only purpose of this product. MS airplaines do NOT even
> remotely fly like the real thing, and all one need do to prove it for
> themselves is go fly a real plane and you'll see for yourself. Then if
> you still believe MS simulator planes fly like the real thing, then
> you are probably a devoute religious person that belives all those
> wierd stories about God destroying His own creations, causing fire n
> brimstone, hell, devils, etc. And just think, there are a couple
> billion people who believe all this crap, so it does not surprise me
> that millions of Flt Sim fans believe Microsoft's simulator planes fly
> like the real thing.
> BETWEEN EVERY MAN AND REALITY LIE HIS MOST CHERISHED ILLUSIONS.
> M.P. Hall
>
> Hope this helps
> Mike

[Arnold Pieper]

I've been a pilot for 23 years, both airplanes and gliders, and I've also
been a glider instructor for 7 years now.

MS FS has never been a GAME. It's exactly what its name implies : a
SIMULATOR.

I have trained pilots who never saw a simulator before and never been in an
airplane or glider before.
I have also had the fortunate experience of getting students with some
experience in MS FS.
The difference is remarkable.
Bottom-line, from my own experience, MS FS is in fact a good auxiliary tool
for an instructor, and it does teach a new pilot some of the physics
involved in flying, such as making some back pressure on the yoke while
turning otherwise the nose will go down, speed will increase, nose will then
come up...and that whole chain reaction.
MS FS is very accurate in that regard.
Aplying power will raise the nose, reducing power will lower the nose,
trim... all of these things are accurately simulated by MS-FS.

What MS FS can't do is give you the G-force in a 60 degree banked turn (2G),
or the visibility we have in the cockpit, or any of the sensory clues we
have such as noise, mushiness on the controls in a pre-stall, and things
like that.

I disagree with relegating MS FS to the status of a Game. It is not.
It is a SIMULATOR.

Try putting a real hardcore gamer in front of MS FS and you'll see a very
frustrated, bored person trying to master something he doesn't understand.
It's exactly like trying to put someone who never flew (simulator or real
thing) to sit in a cockpit and try to fly the thing off the ground. It just
won't happen.

Arnold

"mike popken" > wrote in message
om...
> The following was the original comment in this thread:
>
> "See Wired magazine:
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,60830,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_6
>
> People have criticized me in the past for suggesting that someone
> could
> learn much of the skills of piloting with FS, but it seems that I'm in
> good company."
> ==============
>
> If the poster is suggesting a wanna-be pilot could gain some insight
> into ATC, he would be right. And ditto for a little background on
> using VOR navigation, and with fs2004, the Garmin GPS. I would agree.
> It is also helpful for a wanna-be pilot to experience how fast things
> happen when you fly, how mentally quick one must be in order to safely
> fly a plane. Here I agree again, but as one who has flown real planes,
> I cound not disagree more if the poster is suggesting Microsoft
> simulator planes fly like the REAL THING. Microsof FS is an eye candy
> entertainment GAME. Got that word there::: G A M E!!!!!!!!
> That's all it is, an eye candy game, to entertain people, to keep
> their minds off the sewer society we are (and have) slid off into, to
> keep people preoccupied with utter nonsense so they won't have time to
> write or call their congressmen about what a mess the world is
> becoming, so they won't have time to organize war demonstrations, etc.
> That is the only purpose of this product. MS airplaines do NOT even
> remotely fly like the real thing, and all one need do to prove it for
> themselves is go fly a real plane and you'll see for yourself. Then if
> you still believe MS simulator planes fly like the real thing, then
> you are probably a devoute religious person that belives all those
> wierd stories about God destroying His own creations, causing fire n
> brimstone, hell, devils, etc. And just think, there are a couple
> billion people who believe all this crap, so it does not surprise me
> that millions of Flt Sim fans believe Microsoft's simulator planes fly
> like the real thing.
> BETWEEN EVERY MAN AND REALITY LIE HIS MOST CHERISHED ILLUSIONS.
> M.P. Hall
>
> Hope this helps
> Mike

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Arnold Pieper" > wrote in message
om...
> What MS FS can't do is give you the G-force in a 60 degree banked turn
(2G),
> or the visibility we have in the cockpit, or any of the sensory clues we
> have such as noise, mushiness on the controls in a pre-stall, and things
> like that.

I agree with you regarding G-force and visibility. However, MS FS wind
sounds are quite useful in perceiving airspeed, as is the control feel (if
you use a force-feedback joystick).

--Gary

[mrhct]

A couple of years ago, my wife's boss's husband called to see if I wanted to
fly up to N.H. with him for lunch. I'd been doing the F.S. deal since MS98
so I jumped at the chance. I was amazed when I got in the cockpit of the
rented 172. I knew what everything was. Tom was using a handheld Garmin GPS,
a really neat unit. I asked why he wasn't using the installed GPS. He said
he really didn't know how it worked, but I did. During the flight up I shot
radials. He asked how the hell I knew all this stuff, I'd never been in a
plane before, I'm sure you all know the answer. So on the flight home, I
took the controls during climbout, flew the radials while he watched on his
Garmin, and flew the approach to the thresh hold. He was shocked and so was
I. Was it the same as F.S.and vice versa? No way. Could I have done what I
did without F.S.? No way. If he had become ill during our flights could I
have kept us from crashing? More than likely! And no it's not a game!
"mike popken" > wrote in message
om...
> The following was the original comment in this thread:
>
> "See Wired magazine:
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,60830,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_6
>
> People have criticized me in the past for suggesting that someone
> could
> learn much of the skills of piloting with FS, but it seems that I'm in
> good company."
> ==============
>
> If the poster is suggesting a wanna-be pilot could gain some insight
> into ATC, he would be right. And ditto for a little background on
> using VOR navigation, and with fs2004, the Garmin GPS. I would agree.
> It is also helpful for a wanna-be pilot to experience how fast things
> happen when you fly, how mentally quick one must be in order to safely
> fly a plane. Here I agree again, but as one who has flown real planes,
> I cound not disagree more if the poster is suggesting Microsoft
> simulator planes fly like the REAL THING. Microsof FS is an eye candy
> entertainment GAME. Got that word there::: G A M E!!!!!!!!
> That's all it is, an eye candy game, to entertain people, to keep
> their minds off the sewer society we are (and have) slid off into, to
> keep people preoccupied with utter nonsense so they won't have time to
> write or call their congressmen about what a mess the world is
> becoming, so they won't have time to organize war demonstrations, etc.
> That is the only purpose of this product. MS airplaines do NOT even
> remotely fly like the real thing, and all one need do to prove it for
> themselves is go fly a real plane and you'll see for yourself. Then if
> you still believe MS simulator planes fly like the real thing, then
> you are probably a devoute religious person that belives all those
> wierd stories about God destroying His own creations, causing fire n
> brimstone, hell, devils, etc. And just think, there are a couple
> billion people who believe all this crap, so it does not surprise me
> that millions of Flt Sim fans believe Microsoft's simulator planes fly
> like the real thing.
> BETWEEN EVERY MAN AND REALITY LIE HIS MOST CHERISHED ILLUSIONS.
> M.P. Hall
>
> Hope this helps
> Mike

[George Lewis]

As a "real" pilot, I enjoy flight sim very much. To be honest, it
keeps me from getting a divorce (by helping remove the temptation to
go and buy a real plane, which would probably make my wife leave me!)
For less than the price of 1 rented hour in a real cessna or piper, I
can buy the sim, and for a little bit more, have realistic controls as
well. Now, that's not a bad deal.

I personally think that the sim is HARDER to fly than a real airplane.
I'd venture to even go so far to say that MOST of the flight training
I undertook was what to do if something went wrong. Flying it is
really pretty easy, it's when something goes wrong that you've got to
react quick and do the right thing.

I personally would have LOVED to have a sim back when I started
learning to fly. I actually got my airplane ride when I was 12 (1977
time frame, Beech 18) and I knew what everything was except the VORs.
That was just from a love of flying and being interested in it - had I
had a sim back then, it would have been so much better. I would have
had a better understanding of things I knew nothing about at the time.

When I took ground school in 1986, there was the Commodore 64 flight
sim version and it was pretty hard to control, and I have to admit it
pretty much wasn't very much help at all. But today's flight sims are
pretty good and while I don't believe that most people that mess with
flight sims will be able to walk into the airport and fly a Boeing
747, I do feel that it WILL help those curious about flying take that
next step, and go into the FBO and take a first flight introduction
and possibly enter flight training, bringing another pilot into
general aviation, and we can never have enough of those!

Also, ground school information retention should be much better, and I
would think that instructors who utilize flight sim as a cheap
alternative for some instruction, could help students visualize what
they are going to do for real in a simulated environment that will
help keep the costs down.

Like I said before, flying the MS flight sims in my opinion, are
HARDER to fly than the real thing - my reasons for this are many - you
don't have frame rate issues in real life, and you can feel the
pressure on the yoke when trimming the aircraft, you can see all
around you and you don't have the ridiculous panel/vision issues like
you have in the sim. The VR cockpit is helping this though, and in
FS9, you can actually set your view and it will stay there when you
look left or right. not perfect, but it's a start.

With all that said, you have your opinion, I have mine. You won't
change my position no matter what you say, nor will any words from me
will change yours.

On 13 Nov 2003 01:26:16 -0800, (mike popken)
wrote:

>The following was the original comment in this thread:
>
>"See Wired magazine:
>
>http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,60830,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_6
>
>People have criticized me in the past for suggesting that someone
>could
>learn much of the skills of piloting with FS, but it seems that I'm in
>good company."
>==============
>
>If the poster is suggesting a wanna-be pilot could gain some insight
>into ATC, he would be right. And ditto for a little background on
>using VOR navigation, and with fs2004, the Garmin GPS. I would agree.
>It is also helpful for a wanna-be pilot to experience how fast things
>happen when you fly, how mentally quick one must be in order to safely
>fly a plane. Here I agree again, but as one who has flown real planes,
>I cound not disagree more if the poster is suggesting Microsoft
>simulator planes fly like the REAL THING. Microsof FS is an eye candy
>entertainment GAME. Got that word there::: G A M E!!!!!!!!
>That's all it is, an eye candy game, to entertain people, to keep
>their minds off the sewer society we are (and have) slid off into, to
>keep people preoccupied with utter nonsense so they won't have time to
>write or call their congressmen about what a mess the world is
>becoming, so they won't have time to organize war demonstrations, etc.
>That is the only purpose of this product. MS airplaines do NOT even
>remotely fly like the real thing, and all one need do to prove it for
>themselves is go fly a real plane and you'll see for yourself. Then if
>you still believe MS simulator planes fly like the real thing, then
>you are probably a devoute religious person that belives all those
>wierd stories about God destroying His own creations, causing fire n
>brimstone, hell, devils, etc. And just think, there are a couple
>billion people who believe all this crap, so it does not surprise me
>that millions of Flt Sim fans believe Microsoft's simulator planes fly
>like the real thing.
>BETWEEN EVERY MAN AND REALITY LIE HIS MOST CHERISHED ILLUSIONS.
>M.P. Hall
>
>Hope this helps
>Mike

[Henry]

Mike ever the Asshole!

Henry

"mike popken" > wrote in message
om...
> The following was the original comment in this thread:
>
> "See Wired magazine:
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,60830,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_6
>
> People have criticized me in the past for suggesting that someone
> could
> learn much of the skills of piloting with FS, but it seems that I'm in
> good company."
> ==============
>
> If the poster is suggesting a wanna-be pilot could gain some insight

[Dashi]

I know that I have learned an incredible amount from FS9.

Dashi

"George Lewis" > wrote in message
...
> As a "real" pilot, I enjoy flight sim very much. To be honest, it
> keeps me from getting a divorce (by helping remove the temptation to
> go and buy a real plane, which would probably make my wife leave me!)
> For less than the price of 1 rented hour in a real cessna or piper, I
> can buy the sim, and for a little bit more, have realistic controls as
> well. Now, that's not a bad deal.
>

[Roger Halstead]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 01:50:29 GMT, "Gary L. Drescher"
> wrote:

>"Arnold Pieper" > wrote in message
om...
>> What MS FS can't do is give you the G-force in a 60 degree banked turn
>(2G),
>> or the visibility we have in the cockpit, or any of the sensory clues we
>> have such as noise, mushiness on the controls in a pre-stall, and things
>> like that.
>
>I agree with you regarding G-force and visibility. However, MS FS wind
>sounds are quite useful in perceiving airspeed, as is the control feel (if
>you use a force-feedback joystick).
>
I agree with everything except the joystick. I use a FF joystick and
it is not realistic in simulating the changes in force with changes in
speed, or the mush just prior to stall.

OTOH, I've found it to be quite realistic in most, but not all other
respects. As a training supplement I think it has some good
possibilities.

I base that on about 1300 hours with over a 1000 in high
performance/complex/retract singles.

I've put about a 1000 hours on this plane in the last 10 years.
www.rogerhalstead.com/833pics.htm

and I'm building a real hotrod if I ever get it finished.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

>--Gary
>

[Paul A. Hoadley]

On 13 Nov 2003 01:26:16 -0800, mike popken > wrote:

> Microsof FS is an eye candy entertainment GAME. Got that word
> there::: G A M E!!!!!!!!

So what?


--
Paul.

mailto:paulh_logicsquad_net (make the obvious substitutions)

[David G. Bell]

On Thursday, in article <bmXsb.333$%b2.8@lakeread05>
"mrhct" wrote:

> A couple of years ago, my wife's boss's husband called to see if I wanted to
> fly up to N.H. with him for lunch. I'd been doing the F.S. deal since MS98
> so I jumped at the chance. I was amazed when I got in the cockpit of the
> rented 172. I knew what everything was. Tom was using a handheld Garmin GPS,
> a really neat unit. I asked why he wasn't using the installed GPS. He said
> he really didn't know how it worked, but I did. During the flight up I shot
> radials. He asked how the hell I knew all this stuff, I'd never been in a
> plane before, I'm sure you all know the answer. So on the flight home, I
> took the controls during climbout, flew the radials while he watched on his
> Garmin, and flew the approach to the thresh hold. He was shocked and so was
> I. Was it the same as F.S.and vice versa? No way. Could I have done what I
> did without F.S.? No way. If he had become ill during our flights could I
> have kept us from crashing? More than likely! And no it's not a game!

My own suspicion is that one of the big differences is that FS
experience tends to discourage head movement. It's certainly a factor
in such as CFS, and the other flight combat products which try for
realism.

--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"History shows that the Singularity started when Tim Berners-Lee
was bitten by a radioactive spider."

[ArtP]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:24:43 +0000 (GMT),
("David G. Bell") wrote:


>My own suspicion is that one of the big differences is that FS
>experience tends to discourage head movement. It's certainly a factor
>in such as CFS, and the other flight combat products which try for
>realism.

While head movement in a combat plane is probably a good thing,
according to the NTSB head movement is what killed Karnahan.

[Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo]

mike popken wrote:
> The following was the original comment in this thread:
>
> "See Wired magazine:
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,60830,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_6
>
> People have criticized me in the past for suggesting that someone
> could
> learn much of the skills of piloting with FS, but it seems that I'm in
> good company."
> ==============
>
> If the poster is suggesting a wanna-be pilot could gain some insight
> into ATC, he would be right. And ditto for a little background on
> using VOR navigation, and with fs2004, the Garmin GPS. I would agree.
> It is also helpful for a wanna-be pilot to experience how fast things
> happen when you fly, how mentally quick one must be in order to safely
> fly a plane. Here I agree again, but as one who has flown real planes,
> I cound not disagree more if the poster is suggesting Microsoft
> simulator planes fly like the REAL THING. Microsof FS is an eye candy
> entertainment GAME. Got that word there::: G A M E!!!!!!!!
> That's all it is, an eye candy game, to entertain people, to keep
> their minds off the sewer society we are (and have) slid off into, to
> keep people preoccupied with utter nonsense so they won't have time to
> write or call their congressmen about what a mess the world is
> becoming, so they won't have time to organize war demonstrations, etc.
> That is the only purpose of this product. MS airplaines do NOT even
> remotely fly like the real thing, and all one need do to prove it for
> themselves is go fly a real plane and you'll see for yourself. Then if
> you still believe MS simulator planes fly like the real thing, then
> you are probably a devoute religious person that belives all those
> wierd stories about God destroying His own creations, causing fire n
> brimstone, hell, devils, etc. And just think, there are a couple
> billion people who believe all this crap, so it does not surprise me
> that millions of Flt Sim fans believe Microsoft's simulator planes fly
> like the real thing.
> BETWEEN EVERY MAN AND REALITY LIE HIS MOST CHERISHED ILLUSIONS.
> M.P. Hall
>
> Hope this helps
> Mike


Hmmm. It also could be said that his/her most cherished 'learning
experiences' are decidedly in that mix! It's always been my view that
the flight simulators PER SE are an excellent 'adjunct' to the real
McCoy and I also believe that this fact has been well established!
Neither the military nor the civilian ATP brethren [et al] are strangers
to the simulator although I'd be the first to admit the obvious
differences between the desk sim and the multi-legged, multi-million
dollar hydraulic varieties. However, they both serve a purpose!
Instruction and direct practical applications that enhances the real thing!

Let's consider a few things: Even on the hydraulic legged multi-million
dollar sims..what is THE essential purpose? Think about it! Is the thing
being used to 'teach' ATP types how to fly? Hardly, because it's de
facto assumed that the ATP taking his/her REQUIRED sim training can fly
and thus the bottom line becomes the adjunct recurrent training in
emergency procedures! This is indeed a beneficial control environment
that can hurl all manner of 'emergencies' at the sim pilot and hence
train and be aware of [Murphy's Law inclusive] for the expected
reaction(s) should it occur in the real thing! It works!

Now...more practical and every day stuff...how many of us have ever
needed or used or hey, rented [Sidebar: Don't ask! My Windstar...profuse
white smoke, water out of the exhaust...yep...blown head gaskets and a
$1600 tab for the fix! :-( ...] ----anyway, a vehicle 'other' than our
own and what happens...the fumbling...where is everything? From the door
latch to the lights to the wipers to the heater/AC controls to whatever
and you-name-it. Get my drift? Familiarity of the controls and gauges!
Simplistic example perhaps but modify same in re the real thing versus
the easily applicable electronic counterparts on the sim! The sim can
duplicate same very nicely and, as a bonus, can be set to just as
UNFORGIVING as the real thing!

This too..the matter of adjunct confidence. Ohhh yes. What, are those
ads in the real McCoy av magazines for commo training or, indeed, SIM
training [other than the MSFS series] any more or less sophisticated
that what we can get from the MSFS series? Last time I looked the
multi-thousand 'fancy' sim stuff was just as DESK-FIXED, if you will, as
the MSFS varieties! This too, am I supposed to suddenly be a better sim
or real McCoy pilot if I use a $850 sim yoke versus a $100 CH ABS
material yoke? Think about it!

In my view, anything that serves as a reasonable learning experience
'adjunct' to the real thing only serves to enhance overall av training
and savvy! It lastly can not be denied that the level of flight sim
sophistication has risen 'dramatically' from the days of Bruce Artwick
and machines to run the sims that are now considered literal dinosaurs!
Now we've reached the point where 'actual' electronic reproduction of
'actual' real thing flight avionics is a reality....and with the
blessings and permissions of the manufacturers because, hey, it's good
business! Do you not think that Garmin ET AL 'welcomes' their avionics
as models for flight sim use? It only helps them commercially while
concurrently serving as the adjunct to learn the proper function of the
avionics in question! It's no secret that some GA types have equipment
in the real McCoy that they don't necessarily savvy 100% ....as they
should...but they don't! Sim training can help that too.

Need I mention additional ad hoc SIM practice with avoiding 'needle
chasing' or simply shooting precision landings. I can't see where it
hurts or detracts from the real thing. And finally---bottom line--- in
the absence of the BIG bucks for one's own plane and the associated BIG
costs to maintain same or those high rental fees, hey, for some folks,
the sim is the closest 'feasible' reality due to pure economics! What's
the old joke or indeed av enthusiast [for the real thong] lament, to
wit, ".... my family has a very bad habit...they like to eat!" ;-)

Doc Tony
[Cessna 150/152/172 vintage]

[Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo]

Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo wrote:
>
>
> mike popken wrote:
>
>> The following was the original comment in this thread:
>>
>> "See Wired magazine:
>>
>> http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,60830,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_6
>>
>> People have criticized me in the past for suggesting that someone
>> could
>> learn much of the skills of piloting with FS, but it seems that I'm in
>> good company."
>> ==============
>>
>> If the poster is suggesting a wanna-be pilot could gain some insight
>> into ATC, he would be right. And ditto for a little background on
>> using VOR navigation, and with fs2004, the Garmin GPS. I would agree.
>> It is also helpful for a wanna-be pilot to experience how fast things
>> happen when you fly, how mentally quick one must be in order to safely
>> fly a plane. Here I agree again, but as one who has flown real planes,
>> I cound not disagree more if the poster is suggesting Microsoft
>> simulator planes fly like the REAL THING. Microsof FS is an eye candy
>> entertainment GAME. Got that word there::: G A M E!!!!!!!!
>> That's all it is, an eye candy game, to entertain people, to keep
>> their minds off the sewer society we are (and have) slid off into, to
>> keep people preoccupied with utter nonsense so they won't have time to
>> write or call their congressmen about what a mess the world is
>> becoming, so they won't have time to organize war demonstrations, etc.
>> That is the only purpose of this product. MS airplaines do NOT even
>> remotely fly like the real thing, and all one need do to prove it for
>> themselves is go fly a real plane and you'll see for yourself. Then if
>> you still believe MS simulator planes fly like the real thing, then
>> you are probably a devoute religious person that belives all those
>> wierd stories about God destroying His own creations, causing fire n
>> brimstone, hell, devils, etc. And just think, there are a couple
>> billion people who believe all this crap, so it does not surprise me
>> that millions of Flt Sim fans believe Microsoft's simulator planes fly
>> like the real thing.
>> BETWEEN EVERY MAN AND REALITY LIE HIS MOST CHERISHED ILLUSIONS. M.P. Hall
>>
>> Hope this helps
>> Mike
>
>
>
> Hmmm. It also could be said that his/her most cherished 'learning
> experiences' are decidedly in that mix! It's always been my view that
> the flight simulators PER SE are an excellent 'adjunct' to the real
> McCoy and I also believe that this fact has been well established!
> Neither the military nor the civilian ATP brethren [et al] are strangers
> to the simulator although I'd be the first to admit the obvious
> differences between the desk sim and the multi-legged, multi-million
> dollar hydraulic varieties. However, they both serve a purpose!
> Instruction and direct practical applications that enhances the real thing!
>
> Let's consider a few things: Even on the hydraulic legged multi-million
> dollar sims..what is THE essential purpose? Think about it! Is the thing
> being used to 'teach' ATP types how to fly? Hardly, because it's de
> facto assumed that the ATP taking his/her REQUIRED sim training can fly
> and thus the bottom line becomes the adjunct recurrent training in
> emergency procedures! This is indeed a beneficial control environment
> that can hurl all manner of 'emergencies' at the sim pilot and hence
> train and be aware of [Murphy's Law inclusive] for the expected
> reaction(s) should it occur in the real thing! It works!
>
> Now...more practical and every day stuff...how many of us have ever
> needed or used or hey, rented [Sidebar: Don't ask! My Windstar...profuse
> white smoke, water out of the exhaust...yep...blown head gaskets and a
> $1600 tab for the fix! :-( ...] ----anyway, a vehicle 'other' than our
> own and what happens...the fumbling...where is everything? From the door
> latch to the lights to the wipers to the heater/AC controls to whatever
> and you-name-it. Get my drift? Familiarity of the controls and gauges!
> Simplistic example perhaps but modify same in re the real thing versus
> the easily applicable electronic counterparts on the sim! The sim can
> duplicate same very nicely and, as a bonus, can be set to just as
> UNFORGIVING as the real thing!
>
> This too..the matter of adjunct confidence. Ohhh yes. What, are those
> ads in the real McCoy av magazines for commo training or, indeed, SIM
> training [other than the MSFS series] any more or less sophisticated
> that what we can get from the MSFS series? Last time I looked the
> multi-thousand 'fancy' sim stuff was just as DESK-FIXED, if you will, as
> the MSFS varieties! This too, am I supposed to suddenly be a better sim
> or real McCoy pilot if I use a $850 sim yoke versus a $100 CH ABS
> material yoke? Think about it!
>
> In my view, anything that serves as a reasonable learning experience
> 'adjunct' to the real thing only serves to enhance overall av training
> and savvy! It lastly can not be denied that the level of flight sim
> sophistication has risen 'dramatically' from the days of Bruce Artwick
> and machines to run the sims that are now considered literal dinosaurs!
> Now we've reached the point where 'actual' electronic reproduction of
> 'actual' real thing flight avionics is a reality....and with the
> blessings and permissions of the manufacturers because, hey, it's good
> business! Do you not think that Garmin ET AL 'welcomes' their avionics
> as models for flight sim use? It only helps them commercially while
> concurrently serving as the adjunct to learn the proper function of the
> avionics in question! It's no secret that some GA types have equipment
> in the real McCoy that they don't necessarily savvy 100% ....as they
> should...but they don't! Sim training can help that too.
>
> Need I mention additional ad hoc SIM practice with avoiding 'needle
> chasing' or simply shooting precision landings. I can't see where it
> hurts or detracts from the real thing. And finally---bottom line--- in
> the absence of the BIG bucks for one's own plane and the associated BIG
> costs to maintain same or those high rental fees, hey, for some folks,
> the sim is the closest 'feasible' reality due to pure economics! What's
> the old joke or indeed av enthusiast [for the real thong] lament,

Whoops! Did I really type that real 'thong' [!] typo? Hmmmm. Let's
change that quickly to 'real THING'. Done. What's that? So I was looking
at the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition... the ladies looked, shall
we say, 'revealing' in their outfits ... what, a problem? ;-)


> to
> wit, ".... my family has a very bad habit...they like to eat!" ;-)
>
> Doc Tony
> [Cessna 150/152/172 vintage]
>

[George Lewis]

Yeah they like to eat, and my wife likes to buy shoes too! ;) I know
I can't afford to buy an airplane that will carry THAT kind of a
payload! (shoes are heavy!)


On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:33:53 -0500, "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo"
> wrote:

>Need I mention additional ad hoc SIM practice with avoiding 'needle
>chasing' or simply shooting precision landings. I can't see where it
>hurts or detracts from the real thing. And finally---bottom line--- in
>the absence of the BIG bucks for one's own plane and the associated BIG
>costs to maintain same or those high rental fees, hey, for some folks,
>the sim is the closest 'feasible' reality due to pure economics! What's
>the old joke or indeed av enthusiast [for the real thong] lament, to
>wit, ".... my family has a very bad habit...they like to eat!" ;-)
>
>Doc Tony
>[Cessna 150/152/172 vintage]

[Dashi]

""David G. Bell"" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Thursday, in article <bmXsb.333$%b2.8@lakeread05>
> "mrhct" wrote:
>
> > A couple of years ago, my wife's boss's husband called to see if I
wanted to
> > fly up to N.H. with him for lunch. I'd been doing the F.S. deal since
MS98
> > so I jumped at the chance. I was amazed when I got in the cockpit of the
> > rented 172. I knew what everything was. Tom was using a handheld Garmin
GPS,
> > a really neat unit. I asked why he wasn't using the installed GPS. He
said
> > he really didn't know how it worked, but I did. During the flight up I
shot
> > radials. He asked how the hell I knew all this stuff, I'd never been in
a
> > plane before, I'm sure you all know the answer. So on the flight home, I
> > took the controls during climbout, flew the radials while he watched on
his
> > Garmin, and flew the approach to the thresh hold. He was shocked and so
was
> > I. Was it the same as F.S.and vice versa? No way. Could I have done what
I
> > did without F.S.? No way. If he had become ill during our flights could
I
> > have kept us from crashing? More than likely! And no it's not a game!
>
> My own suspicion is that one of the big differences is that FS
> experience tends to discourage head movement. It's certainly a factor
> in such as CFS, and the other flight combat products which try for
> realism.

Good IFR training for the VFR pilot who ventures into IMC.

Dashi

[Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo]

George Lewis wrote:
> Yeah they like to eat, and my wife likes to buy shoes too! ;) I know
> I can't afford to buy an airplane that will carry THAT kind of a
> payload! (shoes are heavy!)
>


;-) ... Well, I still recall my wife saying some moons ago something
along the lines of ... ".... why would you want to have a hand-held
radio that 'only' gets the air band?" Hey! Maybe our friends at Sporty's
heard her and 'that' is why, inter alia, they came out with their air
band hand-held that 'also' gets AM/FM but then will cut to the action
when it's show time in the air! This way, the old line... ehhhh ....make
that 'reasoning' to one's wife can be the benefits of a 'multi-band'
hand-held for those emergency times when house power is lost in re
storms or whatever cause ... or any related excuse that is handy...and
at least plausible! ;-)

Doc Tony
;-)


Of course, selling the purchase of a classic [read: old] C-172 or Piper
'cousin' so to speak becomes somewhat more difficult!

But then, the pitch becomes the proverbial duck soup thing when you
announce you'll hold on the real McCoy for practical [read: economic]
reasons and for a mere fraction of what a decent set of plugs would cost
[forget the labor charge for installation!] on the real thing, hey,
there's this great new sim..... ! Cue the 'do the math' bit! ;-)




>
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:33:53 -0500, "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Need I mention additional ad hoc SIM practice with avoiding 'needle
>>chasing' or simply shooting precision landings. I can't see where it
>>hurts or detracts from the real thing. And finally---bottom line--- in
>>the absence of the BIG bucks for one's own plane and the associated BIG
>>costs to maintain same or those high rental fees, hey, for some folks,
>>the sim is the closest 'feasible' reality due to pure economics! What's
>>the old joke or indeed av enthusiast [for the real thong] lament, to
>>wit, ".... my family has a very bad habit...they like to eat!" ;-)
>>
>>Doc Tony
>>[Cessna 150/152/172 vintage]
>
>

[Don Parker]

mike popken wrote:
> ==============
long tirate snipped
>===============

Jeezz Mike, cut back on the coffee or double up the med's.........
(;->))

Cheers'n beers.. [_])
Don

[George Lewis]

My response to most computer upgrades is "hey, it could be a major
overhaul on a real airplane engine - this video card is only a couple
hundred bucks!"

new sound card and speakers - "hey, do you know much a set of david
clark headsets go for? this is a steal!"

so far so good...


On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 11:59:35 -0500, "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo"
> wrote:

>
>
>George Lewis wrote:
>> Yeah they like to eat, and my wife likes to buy shoes too! ;) I know
>> I can't afford to buy an airplane that will carry THAT kind of a
>> payload! (shoes are heavy!)
>>
>
>
>;-) ... Well, I still recall my wife saying some moons ago something
>along the lines of ... ".... why would you want to have a hand-held
>radio that 'only' gets the air band?" Hey! Maybe our friends at Sporty's
>heard her and 'that' is why, inter alia, they came out with their air
>band hand-held that 'also' gets AM/FM but then will cut to the action
>when it's show time in the air! This way, the old line... ehhhh ....make
>that 'reasoning' to one's wife can be the benefits of a 'multi-band'
>hand-held for those emergency times when house power is lost in re
>storms or whatever cause ... or any related excuse that is handy...and
>at least plausible! ;-)
>
>Doc Tony
>;-)
>
>
>Of course, selling the purchase of a classic [read: old] C-172 or Piper
>'cousin' so to speak becomes somewhat more difficult!
>
>But then, the pitch becomes the proverbial duck soup thing when you
>announce you'll hold on the real McCoy for practical [read: economic]
>reasons and for a mere fraction of what a decent set of plugs would cost
>[forget the labor charge for installation!] on the real thing, hey,
>there's this great new sim..... ! Cue the 'do the math' bit! ;-)
>
>
>
>
>>
>> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:33:53 -0500, "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Need I mention additional ad hoc SIM practice with avoiding 'needle
>>>chasing' or simply shooting precision landings. I can't see where it
>>>hurts or detracts from the real thing. And finally---bottom line--- in
>>>the absence of the BIG bucks for one's own plane and the associated BIG
>>>costs to maintain same or those high rental fees, hey, for some folks,
>>>the sim is the closest 'feasible' reality due to pure economics! What's
>>>the old joke or indeed av enthusiast [for the real thong] lament, to
>>>wit, ".... my family has a very bad habit...they like to eat!" ;-)
>>>
>>>Doc Tony
>>>[Cessna 150/152/172 vintage]
>>
>>

[Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo]

Question is, George, will it fly for that ATI 9800 Pro? Although, just
for those reading, there are some good deals floating around on a more
reasonable alternative and I got the Nvidia GeForce FX5600 AGP 8X
w/256megs of on-board DDR video and thus far it's worked well. Caveat:
The 'secret' to that Nvidia card, and I'll put this out to, is the
Nvidia DRIVER! Free at the Nvidia website but the latest drivers will
prevent that color 'smearing' effect in the gauges of the sims that the
earlier drivers caused. Not a bad card at least in terms of the
discounted price. Sure, I'd like that ATI Radeon 9800 Pro but the tag
for same [$375-$400 is the lowest I've seen] is right up there! But
then, like everything else, I just jumped from PC2100 DDR to PC3200 DDR
memory and the prices are excellent! Brand stuff to boot and 2.5 CAS!!

Doc Tony

PS-- FYI--- saw a debate between a few sim enthusiast folks and it was
the old classic..IN ORDER..what would give the [alleged] best 'overall'
[viz., visual, minimize the jumps and stalls or temp freeze frames, etc.
etc.] sim effect and the discussion came down to...and in order of
importance...[subject to debate to be sure].... 1. Machine memory [Note:
that's 'machine' memory and 'not' video card memory although the
presumed 'standard' for 'video card' memory was 128 megs on-board !]
--and-- the machine memory associated CAS timing with 2.5 CAS
recommended and 2.0 the best CAS...if you can even get 2.0] 2. Overall
CPU speed and FSB size 3. HD speed with 7200RPM spin considered a
'must' 4. The video card ENGINE.

And yet to think back...the then Commodore folks and their now classic
C-64, the 'daddy' to the equaly classic VIC-20 and Commodore says, "The
new C-64 will provide enough on-board memory for 'all' [sic!] the needs
which an average family [as opposed to bizz use machines] 'will ever
need' [sic!] in a home computer." Right. Sort of like when we were told
that 9600K/BPS was the 'end of the line' for dial-up phone speeds as the
wires [without moving to ISDN set-ups] 'simply will not handle anything
faster than 9600' ... ."

There you have it. And I'm told a 4 'GIG' CPU is 'just around the bend!'


Doc Tony




George Lewis wrote:
> My response to most computer upgrades is "hey, it could be a major
> overhaul on a real airplane engine - this video card is only a couple
> hundred bucks!"
>
> new sound card and speakers - "hey, do you know much a set of david
> clark headsets go for? this is a steal!"
>
> so far so good...
>
>
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 11:59:35 -0500, "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>George Lewis wrote:
>>
>>>Yeah they like to eat, and my wife likes to buy shoes too! ;) I know
>>>I can't afford to buy an airplane that will carry THAT kind of a
>>>payload! (shoes are heavy!)
>>>
>>
>>
>>;-) ... Well, I still recall my wife saying some moons ago something
>>along the lines of ... ".... why would you want to have a hand-held
>>radio that 'only' gets the air band?" Hey! Maybe our friends at Sporty's
>>heard her and 'that' is why, inter alia, they came out with their air
>>band hand-held that 'also' gets AM/FM but then will cut to the action
>>when it's show time in the air! This way, the old line... ehhhh ....make
>>that 'reasoning' to one's wife can be the benefits of a 'multi-band'
>>hand-held for those emergency times when house power is lost in re
>>storms or whatever cause ... or any related excuse that is handy...and
>>at least plausible! ;-)
>>
>>Doc Tony
>>;-)
>>
>>
>>Of course, selling the purchase of a classic [read: old] C-172 or Piper
>>'cousin' so to speak becomes somewhat more difficult!
>>
>>But then, the pitch becomes the proverbial duck soup thing when you
>>announce you'll hold on the real McCoy for practical [read: economic]
>>reasons and for a mere fraction of what a decent set of plugs would cost
>>[forget the labor charge for installation!] on the real thing, hey,
>>there's this great new sim..... ! Cue the 'do the math' bit! ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:33:53 -0500, "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Need I mention additional ad hoc SIM practice with avoiding 'needle
>>>>chasing' or simply shooting precision landings. I can't see where it
>>>>hurts or detracts from the real thing. And finally---bottom line--- in
>>>>the absence of the BIG bucks for one's own plane and the associated BIG
>>>>costs to maintain same or those high rental fees, hey, for some folks,
>>>>the sim is the closest 'feasible' reality due to pure economics! What's
>>>>the old joke or indeed av enthusiast [for the real thong] lament, to
>>>>wit, ".... my family has a very bad habit...they like to eat!" ;-)
>>>>
>>>>Doc Tony
>>>>[Cessna 150/152/172 vintage]
>>>
>>>
>

[Dashi]

There are also a lot of complaints about the lack of decent drivers for the
ATI 9800 series of video cards. It appears that they don't work very well
with FS9.

Be happy that you didn't buy one.

The latest mid range Nvidia card is the FX5700 and has received excellent
reviews, just in time for Xmas!

Dashi

"Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" > wrote in message
...
> Question is, George, will it fly for that ATI 9800 Pro? Although, just
> for those reading, there are some good deals floating around on a more
> reasonable alternative and I got the Nvidia GeForce FX5600 AGP 8X
> w/256megs of on-board DDR video and thus far it's worked well. Caveat:
> The 'secret' to that Nvidia card, and I'll put this out to, is the
> Nvidia DRIVER! Free at the Nvidia website but the latest drivers will
> prevent that color 'smearing' effect in the gauges of the sims that the
> earlier drivers caused. Not a bad card at least in terms of the
> discounted price. Sure, I'd like that ATI Radeon 9800 Pro but the tag
> for same [$375-$400 is the lowest I've seen] is right up there! But
> then, like everything else, I just jumped from PC2100 DDR to PC3200 DDR
> memory and the prices are excellent! Brand stuff to boot and 2.5 CAS!!

[Roger Halstead]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 13:43:26 -0500, George Lewis
> wrote:

>My response to most computer upgrades is "hey, it could be a major
>overhaul on a real airplane engine - this video card is only a couple
>hundred bucks!"

Major on a Lycombing 300 HP with dynamic balancing and flow balancing
is about $26,000 US

>new sound card and speakers - "hey, do you know much a set of david
>clark headsets go for? this is a steal!"

Mine are Telex ANRs. One set would have been more than enough to
purchase DCs for all 4 seats.

>
>so far so good...
>
>
>On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 11:59:35 -0500, "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>George Lewis wrote:
>>> Yeah they like to eat, and my wife likes to buy shoes too! ;) I know
>>> I can't afford to buy an airplane that will carry THAT kind of a
>>> payload! (shoes are heavy!)
>>>
>>
>>
>>;-) ... Well, I still recall my wife saying some moons ago something
>>along the lines of ... ".... why would you want to have a hand-held
>>radio that 'only' gets the air band?" Hey! Maybe our friends at Sporty's

They've had HTs that also received the 2-meter ham band, for some
time, but air band is AM, 2-meters is narrow band FM and the broadcast
band is wide band FM.

>>heard her and 'that' is why, inter alia, they came out with their air
>>band hand-held that 'also' gets AM/FM but then will cut to the action
>>when it's show time in the air! This way, the old line... ehhhh ....make
>>that 'reasoning' to one's wife can be the benefits of a 'multi-band'
>>hand-held for those emergency times when house power is lost in re
>>storms or whatever cause ... or any related excuse that is handy...and
>>at least plausible! ;-)

Mine cover from around 30 to 40 MHz to nearly 1 gig in frequency for
receive. My biggest complaint is the ones that cover air band have
such small battery capacity. My camera has over 2000 mah capacity
while my HT has less than half that.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

>>
>>Doc Tony
>>;-)
>>
>>
>>Of course, selling the purchase of a classic [read: old] C-172 or Piper
>>'cousin' so to speak becomes somewhat more difficult!
>>
>>But then, the pitch becomes the proverbial duck soup thing when you
>>announce you'll hold on the real McCoy for practical [read: economic]
>>reasons and for a mere fraction of what a decent set of plugs would cost
>>[forget the labor charge for installation!] on the real thing, hey,
>>there's this great new sim..... ! Cue the 'do the math' bit! ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:33:53 -0500, "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Need I mention additional ad hoc SIM practice with avoiding 'needle
>>>>chasing' or simply shooting precision landings. I can't see where it
>>>>hurts or detracts from the real thing. And finally---bottom line--- in
>>>>the absence of the BIG bucks for one's own plane and the associated BIG
>>>>costs to maintain same or those high rental fees, hey, for some folks,
>>>>the sim is the closest 'feasible' reality due to pure economics! What's
>>>>the old joke or indeed av enthusiast [for the real thong] lament, to
>>>>wit, ".... my family has a very bad habit...they like to eat!" ;-)
>>>>
>>>>Doc Tony
>>>>[Cessna 150/152/172 vintage]
>>>
>>>

[Don Parker]

Dashi wrote:
> There are also a lot of complaints about the lack of decent drivers
> for the ATI 9800 series of video cards. It appears that they don't
> work very well with FS9.
>
> Be happy that you didn't buy one.
>
It's not the lack of "decent" drivers, it's the lack of "perfect" drivers!
I have the 9800 128 non-pro and have excellent video, my only problem is
limited to MIP mapping at 4-5, while everything else is maxed! And I've not
heard if NVIDIA allows any better.
I bought one and am happy so (|-p))

Cheers'n beers... [_])
Don

(;->))

<<G>>

[George Lewis]

I'm running 2.8 P4 (not 800 MHz FSB though), 1 GB RAM and a GeForce 4
MX video card. oh yeah, the HDs are 7200 rpm and big. My next
"upgrade" is an Nvidia FX 5600 Ultra from Gainward. I'm debating the
one with the heat sink versus the cooling fan. There's like 4
different 5600 ultra models depending on this and memory. I'll
probably realistically settle on the one with a fan on it. You can
never have your stuff too cool!

I'm not an ATI Radeon fan. I've been with Nvidia systems ever since
the 2 series came out. I wanted to upgrade my Ultra 2 to a nice
ti4600 but I got the MX because it was still faster than the Ultra 2
and the FX was coming out at any time.


On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 17:06:40 -0500, "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo"
> wrote:

>Question is, George, will it fly for that ATI 9800 Pro? Although, just
>for those reading, there are some good deals floating around on a more
>reasonable alternative and I got the Nvidia GeForce FX5600 AGP 8X
>w/256megs of on-board DDR video and thus far it's worked well. Caveat:
>The 'secret' to that Nvidia card, and I'll put this out to, is the
>Nvidia DRIVER! Free at the Nvidia website but the latest drivers will
>prevent that color 'smearing' effect in the gauges of the sims that the
>earlier drivers caused. Not a bad card at least in terms of the
>discounted price. Sure, I'd like that ATI Radeon 9800 Pro but the tag
>for same [$375-$400 is the lowest I've seen] is right up there! But
>then, like everything else, I just jumped from PC2100 DDR to PC3200 DDR
>memory and the prices are excellent! Brand stuff to boot and 2.5 CAS!!
>
>Doc Tony
>
>PS-- FYI--- saw a debate between a few sim enthusiast folks and it was
>the old classic..IN ORDER..what would give the [alleged] best 'overall'
>[viz., visual, minimize the jumps and stalls or temp freeze frames, etc.
>etc.] sim effect and the discussion came down to...and in order of
>importance...[subject to debate to be sure].... 1. Machine memory [Note:
>that's 'machine' memory and 'not' video card memory although the
>presumed 'standard' for 'video card' memory was 128 megs on-board !]
>--and-- the machine memory associated CAS timing with 2.5 CAS
>recommended and 2.0 the best CAS...if you can even get 2.0] 2. Overall
>CPU speed and FSB size 3. HD speed with 7200RPM spin considered a
>'must' 4. The video card ENGINE.
>
>And yet to think back...the then Commodore folks and their now classic
>C-64, the 'daddy' to the equaly classic VIC-20 and Commodore says, "The
>new C-64 will provide enough on-board memory for 'all' [sic!] the needs
>which an average family [as opposed to bizz use machines] 'will ever
>need' [sic!] in a home computer." Right. Sort of like when we were told
>that 9600K/BPS was the 'end of the line' for dial-up phone speeds as the
>wires [without moving to ISDN set-ups] 'simply will not handle anything
>faster than 9600' ... ."
>
>There you have it. And I'm told a 4 'GIG' CPU is 'just around the bend!'
>
>
>Doc Tony
>
>
>
>
>George Lewis wrote:
>> My response to most computer upgrades is "hey, it could be a major
>> overhaul on a real airplane engine - this video card is only a couple
>> hundred bucks!"
>>
>> new sound card and speakers - "hey, do you know much a set of david
>> clark headsets go for? this is a steal!"
>>
>> so far so good...
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 11:59:35 -0500, "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>George Lewis wrote:
>>>
>>>>Yeah they like to eat, and my wife likes to buy shoes too! ;) I know
>>>>I can't afford to buy an airplane that will carry THAT kind of a
>>>>payload! (shoes are heavy!)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>;-) ... Well, I still recall my wife saying some moons ago something
>>>along the lines of ... ".... why would you want to have a hand-held
>>>radio that 'only' gets the air band?" Hey! Maybe our friends at Sporty's
>>>heard her and 'that' is why, inter alia, they came out with their air
>>>band hand-held that 'also' gets AM/FM but then will cut to the action
>>>when it's show time in the air! This way, the old line... ehhhh ....make
>>>that 'reasoning' to one's wife can be the benefits of a 'multi-band'
>>>hand-held for those emergency times when house power is lost in re
>>>storms or whatever cause ... or any related excuse that is handy...and
>>>at least plausible! ;-)
>>>
>>>Doc Tony
>>>;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>Of course, selling the purchase of a classic [read: old] C-172 or Piper
>>>'cousin' so to speak becomes somewhat more difficult!
>>>
>>>But then, the pitch becomes the proverbial duck soup thing when you
>>>announce you'll hold on the real McCoy for practical [read: economic]
>>>reasons and for a mere fraction of what a decent set of plugs would cost
>>>[forget the labor charge for installation!] on the real thing, hey,
>>>there's this great new sim..... ! Cue the 'do the math' bit! ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:33:53 -0500, "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo"
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Need I mention additional ad hoc SIM practice with avoiding 'needle
>>>>>chasing' or simply shooting precision landings. I can't see where it
>>>>>hurts or detracts from the real thing. And finally---bottom line--- in
>>>>>the absence of the BIG bucks for one's own plane and the associated BIG
>>>>>costs to maintain same or those high rental fees, hey, for some folks,
>>>>>the sim is the closest 'feasible' reality due to pure economics! What's
>>>>>the old joke or indeed av enthusiast [for the real thong] lament, to
>>>>>wit, ".... my family has a very bad habit...they like to eat!" ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>Doc Tony
>>>>>[Cessna 150/152/172 vintage]
>>>>
>>>>
>>

[Dashi]

"Don Parker" > wrote in message
...
> Dashi wrote:
> > There are also a lot of complaints about the lack of decent drivers
> > for the ATI 9800 series of video cards. It appears that they don't
> > work very well with FS9.
> >
> > Be happy that you didn't buy one.
> >
> It's not the lack of "decent" drivers, it's the lack of "perfect" drivers!
> I have the 9800 128 non-pro and have excellent video, my only problem is
> limited to MIP mapping at 4-5, while everything else is maxed! And I've
not
> heard if NVIDIA allows any better.
> I bought one and am happy so (|-p))

Oh, OK!

I was mostly thinking about the guy on the other newsgroup, trying to run
FS9 with an ATI 9800XT and getting blockly redraws.

But if you are happy, then hey... ;-)

Man you must be loaded with money! :)

Dashi

>
> Cheers'n beers... [_])
> Don
>
> (;->))
>
> <<G>>
>
>

[John Hall]

The latest drivers, the 3.9's, fixed all of the issues in FS9. It looks and
runs great on my 9800 pro.

JK

"Dashi" > wrote in message
...
> There are also a lot of complaints about the lack of decent drivers for
the
> ATI 9800 series of video cards. It appears that they don't work very well
> with FS9.
>
> Be happy that you didn't buy one.
>
> The latest mid range Nvidia card is the FX5700 and has received excellent
> reviews, just in time for Xmas!
>
> Dashi
>
> "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Question is, George, will it fly for that ATI 9800 Pro? Although, just
> > for those reading, there are some good deals floating around on a more
> > reasonable alternative and I got the Nvidia GeForce FX5600 AGP 8X
> > w/256megs of on-board DDR video and thus far it's worked well. Caveat:
> > The 'secret' to that Nvidia card, and I'll put this out to, is the
> > Nvidia DRIVER! Free at the Nvidia website but the latest drivers will
> > prevent that color 'smearing' effect in the gauges of the sims that the
> > earlier drivers caused. Not a bad card at least in terms of the
> > discounted price. Sure, I'd like that ATI Radeon 9800 Pro but the tag
> > for same [$375-$400 is the lowest I've seen] is right up there! But
> > then, like everything else, I just jumped from PC2100 DDR to PC3200 DDR
> > memory and the prices are excellent! Brand stuff to boot and 2.5 CAS!!
>
>

[Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo]

Sometimes I think it's a giant crap shoot [choice of video card] of
sorts because there are so many variables involved. Machines, in terms
of their innards and peripherals, are so widely diverse that one
person's sim nirvana can be another person's nightmare! The ATI vs
Nvidia thing [read: which is better argument] often reminds me of the
old boxing glove icons as to Billy G's IE browser versus Netscape.
Remember that one many moons ago? For example, at least with my system
and back to video cards, one noticeable difference was moving from MS's
8.2 series of DIRECT X to Direct X 9A and then 9B. With the Nvidia 5600,
the 9B seemed to have the edge of 9A while the 8 series caused smearing.
Yet [and someone please correct me if I'm in error here], there was a
sale on the ATI 9700 [not 9800 but 9700] but I don't believe that was
Direct X 9a or B compatible and using 9 was not as good as the 8.2
Direct X. So too, sometimes...I say sometimes...moving up to the
'latest' and MS hawked allegedly 'greatest' new Direct X series
[depending on one's system and what is in there and thus what interacts
with what considering the 'whole' system s a cohesive unit] can be a
step backward!

On the other hand and having had ATI cards previously, [although not the
9800 series], I saw no noticeable [operable word] difference, view wise,
in the ATI Radeon card 128 megs on-board DDR memory versus my present
Nvidia with 256 megs on-board DDR video.

But then, a change in memory SPEED made a big difference. Here's a tip
and I mention this because I simply didn't know it. When my motherboard
came out [Soyo P4X4000 Ultra Platinum] and its accompanying manual, the
'manual' speaks of the MAX memory speed being PC2100 DDR but, ahhh,
guess who didn't keep up with the SOYO website where an UPDATE not so
much of the board but rather manufacturer memory updates showed that the
same motherboard could handle PC3200 DDR memory! Thus, when the prices
remained low, I went from PC2100 to PC3200 and the difference was
dramatic! So too, my board permits 'tinkering' with the BIOS and thus I
was able to get away with setting a lower memory CAS and it worked fine.
The board had the memory set for 3.0 CAS and I lowered it to 2.5 and it
still worked without problems. Ditto the CPU where I upped the P4 Intel
2.4B chip to 2.6 without incident. I just ordered a 2.8 gig CPU however
because the prices have fallen dramatically on that too.

Ahhhh, there are so many variables that one can go nuts trying to get
the most beneficial settings! But I'm quite satisfied if the sim flies
without the stutters or frame freezes. BTW, again this just me, if you
can't see a noticeable difference and I mean 'noticeable' difference in
using anti-aliasing, dump it because what you save NOT using same will go
towards better frame rates and overall performance. I find that for
every extra 'make-it-better' video card setting, there is generally a
price to pay at the expense of 'overall' card performance!

Doc Tony


Dashi wrote:
> There are also a lot of complaints about the lack of decent drivers for the
> ATI 9800 series of video cards. It appears that they don't work very well
> with FS9.
>
> Be happy that you didn't buy one.
>
> The latest mid range Nvidia card is the FX5700 and has received excellent
> reviews, just in time for Xmas!
>
> Dashi
>
> "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" > wrote in message
> ...
>[i]
>>Question is, George, will it fly for that ATI 9800 Pro? Although, just
>>for those reading, there are some good deals floating around on a more
>>reasonable alternative and I got the Nvidia GeForce FX5600 AGP 8X
>>w/256megs of on-board DDR video and thus far it's worked well. Caveat:
>>The 'secret' to that Nvidia card, and I'll put this out to, is the
>>Nvidia DRIVER! Free at the Nvidia website but the latest drivers will
>>prevent that color 'smearing' effect in the gauges of the sims that the
>>earlier drivers caused. Not a bad card at least in terms of the
>>discounted price. Sure, I'd like that ATI Radeon 9800 Pro but the tag
>>for same [$375-$400 is the lowest I've seen] is right up there! But
>>then, like everything else, I just jumped from PC2100 DDR to PC3200 DDR
>>memory and the prices are excellent! Brand stuff to boot and 2.5 CAS!!
>
>
>

[Dashi]

"Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sometimes I think it's a giant crap shoot [choice of video card] of
> sorts because there are so many variables involved.

That's true, you just have to buy what you think is best for your system at
that particular time.

Dashi

[Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo]

Dashi wrote:
> "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Sometimes I think it's a giant crap shoot [choice of video card] of
>>sorts because there are so many variables involved.
>
>
> That's true, you just have to buy what you think is best for your system at
> that particular time.
>
> Dashi
>
>



FYI...for the thread...and those using Nvidia cards...I just downloaded
the latest Nvidia driver from their website... 52.16 ... about
8.58MB...results were excellent! They claim this latest version better
interacts with Direct X and, at least in my case, the visual
enhancements are rather obvious. You can read the tech stuff right on
the website.

Caveat: Two schools of thought here. Nvidia itself [and some computer
mags] generally seem to urge that you take out the existing driver first
and 'then' apply the new driver but I find [using a trial machine] that
if you already have an Nvidia driver in the system, just run the new
driver exe file and it will install itself with no problems and carry
along any existing Nvidia files. For example, I have the E-glasses and
those who use same know that certain files are added to the driver files
to make the E-glasses work so when I used the exe file on the latest
driver [52.16] which I was updating from a previous Nvidia 45.20 driver,
the update went flawlessly and carried all files into the update. So
too, had things gone wrong, I could have immediately reverted [if you're
using XP anyway]back to the old driver using XP's return to previous
driver option. A nice thing to have should things not work out and that
was another reason I didn't delete the original driver because then you
have to go through hoops to get it back plus any add on files to the
original driver file! 52.16 is sharp and moves along nicely whether it's
the sims or simply webpage browsing.

I also like getting the latest driver from Nvidia itself because while I
have nothing against the Guru website where folks go to seek the latest
drivers for 'whatever' peripheral, hey, once there [Guru] you are
literally bombarded with 'multiple' ad spamming PER PAGE like sharks
having a feeding frenzy!

Doc Tony

[Tlewis95]

I disagree with anyone who says FS cant be a useful training tool. I learned
@least 1/2 I know about flying on the Sim. You can pratice approches,
manuveres, etc.
+ it looks real! It might not handel real but you can get to understand how
stuff workes the fun and cheap way!

[John Hall]

Our local community college has contracted with a small local airline to
provide flight training for people who want to be pilots. It was featured
on a local TV news show and when they went into the classroom to show all
the snazzy computers that were being used for flight training, what did I
see; you guessed it: they were all running FS2002.

JK

"Tlewis95" > wrote in message
...
> I disagree with anyone who says FS cant be a useful training tool. I
learned
> @least 1/2 I know about flying on the Sim. You can pratice approches,
> manuveres, etc.
> + it looks real! It might not handel real but you can get to understand
how
> stuff workes the fun and cheap way!

[kalijaa]

It's possible that a community college might offer such a course and call it
"flight training," but even if they did, it would be a poor recommendation.
Never mind about whether the course was related to primary or instrument
flight, FS2002 would be inappropriate for either one. However, a small
local airline receives a contract and some publicity, a community college
fills a classroom with students who pay to be entertained by computer games
and everybody concerned feels good for a while. Your community college at
work!

The originator of this thread was right. MS flight simulators are worse
than useless in primary contact (VFR) flight training and can only be made
useful for IFR practice by eliminating their prime attraction: The external
view. This kind of simulator is a toy, not a real-world flight training
device. Those of you who deny and protest the most are the ones most firmly
and irrevocably deluded.

Kalijaa

"John Hall" > wrote in message
ble.rogers.com...
> Our local community college has contracted with a small local airline to
> provide flight training for people who want to be pilots. It was featured
> on a local TV news show and when they went into the classroom to show all
> the snazzy computers that were being used for flight training, what did I
> see; you guessed it: they were all running FS2002.
>
> JK
>
> "Tlewis95" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I disagree with anyone who says FS cant be a useful training tool. I
> learned
> > @least 1/2 I know about flying on the Sim. You can pratice approches,
> > manuveres, etc.
> > + it looks real! It might not handel real but you can get to understand
> how
> > stuff workes the fun and cheap way!
>
>