MS Flight Sim As a Training Tool

[Jay Honeck]

Okay, I know this one has been beaten up before -- but my eyes are now
wide open to the possibilities a sim can provide. Here are a few data
points for discussion:

1. IFR Flight
Today I visited a friend (and fellow pilot) who heard about our new
flight sim, and has set up MS Flight Sim 2004 (not the new version) to
serve as an advanced instrument flight trainer. He owns an Aerostar,
and has downloaded add-ons to the original program that precisely
recreate his panel equipment, as well as the flight model of the
Aerostar itself.

He has installed this on a very fast computer, with a very nice 22"
wide screen monitor. The results are quite amazing. I shot a full
approach into Cedar Rapids (CID) terminating in an ILS to Rwy 9 at
minimums. By the time I broke out, after flying the published
procedure, I was sweating! This thing was just plain as real as it
gets, and (in my rusty, haven't practiced instrument flight in a long
while) I was working my butt off.

He has it programmed to start with the aircraft out of trim, and with
variable crosswinds throughout the approach. It's diabolically
difficult, and authentic as hell. He says he uses it all the time to
maintain proficiency -- and I think it would be helpful for any pilot.


2. Formation Flying
He then showed me a scenario he has created with a second aircraft, the
task being to fly formation with it throughout the various phases of
flight. Again, the experience was as real as it could get, and quite
difficult. He has attended formation school, and says that this
program and scenario are dead on.

Inspired, I went back to the hotel, fired up our "Kiwi" (see it here:
http://alexisparkinn.com/the_kiwi_is_born.htm ) and started downloading
various enhancements. First was an enhanced terrain mesh that brings
the detail down to 38 meters, nationwide. (This is double the detail
of the default program's terrain.) Then I added another program that
corrects and enhances bodies of water, roads, and lights, which are
often inadequately rendered in FS2004.

These two programs have allowed me to kick up the realism even higher,
to the point where I can quite literally taxi to my own hangar, or fly
through realistic mountain passes. Runway markings, wind socks,
rotating beacons, radar (if applicable) -- it's all there now, and with
a frame rate of over 55 frames per second (thanks to the new computer),
the flight model is absolutely seamless and realistic.

3. Emergency Procedures
I have downloaded the AOPA Cherokee Six sim model (which utilizes an
exact flight model replica of a Cherokee Six), and have been using it
(in lieu of a Pathfinder, which I haven't yet found on the net) to
practice emergency procedures.

Wow, what an amazing eye-opener THAT is. With full cockpit controls, a
photo-realistic panel (on a dedicated monitor), and butter-smooth
control response, it is possible to perfectly simulate engine-out
scenarios that you would NEVER be able to practice in your real
airplane.

Specifically, I've been practicing the dreaded "return to the airport
after engine failure" on takeoff, killing the engine completely at
various heights and in different wind conditions. The results are
truly stunning, and anyone who has flown this scenario will never, EVER
try to initiate the 180-degree-turn to land that has killed so many.
I'm here to tell you that it will result in a stall-spin scenario,
every time...

What's great is that you can actually turn the engine off -- something
you can never do in a real plane -- and it's astounding the difference
that makes. That idling engine is still making some power, and it's
enough to completely throw off your perception of flight.

Same goes with how far you THINK you can stretch your glide, with an
engine out. With the engine at flight idle, you can glide MUCH farther
than you can with the engine off -- and this is something that can only
be demonstrated in the sim.

4. Primary Flight Training
Here's where many pilots object, and I used to agree -- until we set up
the Kiwi. With the 104" projection of the world, a second monitor of
the panel, and authentic flight controls, I'm now prepared to say that
this thing is valuable for showing newbies what flying is all about.

I've been using our hotel's night manager (a fellow we've taken flying
a couple of times, but who has no flight training experience) as a
guinea pig, and he has really progressed nicely in just a few days of
practice. Not only is he now able to land the sim reliably, but he has
learned an awful lot about basic flight procedures and conditions
during various portions of flight -- without burning a gallon of avgas.


I think you could probably shave several hours off of your Private by
practicing in the Kiwi -- and it will be invaluable to me as an
instrument procedures trainer.

Besides just being a helluva lot of fun, of course!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Okay, I know this one has been beaten up before -- but my eyes are now
> wide open to the possibilities a sim can provide.

Careful ... those are fighting words in this newsgroup.

> I shot a full approach into Cedar Rapids (CID) terminating in an ILS
> to Rwy 9 at minimums.

I collapsed the nose gear landing at KCID just last night, after an
ILS approach to runway 27. The winds were incredibly gusty. I kept
getting pushed up and down as I landed. I touched down but a gust
picked me back up a few feet. I got down again, landing rather hard
on the main gear, but the nose gear hit a lot harder and collapsed.

Only a few days earlier, in similarly gusty weather, I lost all the
gear landing in fog at Logan International.

I'm beginning to wonder if all the East and Midwest have winds like
this all the time, or if I've just had bad luck with the weather, or
if there is some mystery setting in MSFS that I've accidentally turned
on that is creating unrealistic gusts of substantial strength. The
weather was otherwise clear with scattered clouds at around 2600 feet
last night, and a 9-knot wind from the west.

Maybe with practice I'll get better.

> Specifically, I've been practicing the dreaded "return to the airport
> after engine failure" on takeoff, killing the engine completely at
> various heights and in different wind conditions. The results are
> truly stunning, and anyone who has flown this scenario will never, EVER
> try to initiate the 180-degree-turn to land that has killed so many.
> I'm here to tell you that it will result in a stall-spin scenario,
> every time...

I've tried engine failures on a number of occasions, although mostly
in the Baron. That and attempts with failures in a single-engine
plane have taught me that engine failures need to be avoided at all
costs. Particularly with just one engine, there's a good chance that
you won't make it, period. At least that what simulations have told
me.

> 4. Primary Flight Training

Now you are definitely training on dangerous ground.

> I think you could probably shave several hours off of your Private by
> practicing in the Kiwi -- and it will be invaluable to me as an
> instrument procedures trainer.

Oh dear. But as long as I'm here to attract most of the fire, you'll
probably be moderately safe.

> Besides just being a helluva lot of fun, of course!

That's the worst part. You're not supposed to say it's fun.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Steve Foley]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...

> I've been using our hotel's night manager (a fellow we've taken flying
> a couple of times, but who has no flight training experience) as a
> guinea pig, and he has really progressed nicely in just a few days of
> practice. Not only is he now able to land the sim reliably, but he has
> learned an awful lot about basic flight procedures and conditions
> during various portions of flight -- without burning a gallon of avgas.

What would it cost to duplicate the kiwi? How much gas could one buy for
that?

[Jon Kraus]

Oh really. Have you flown in any clouds so you can make that statement
honestly? In my always humble opinion there is a huge difference
between flying IMC for real and playing a computer game. If MSFS were
"as real as it gets" then why can't your time playing be logged?

Jon

Jay Honeck wrote:
> This thing was just plain as real as it gets, and (in my rusty, haven't practiced instrument flight in a long
> while) I was working my butt off.
>

[Judah]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:1165207605.867323.172810@
73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com:

> Okay, I know this one has been beaten up before -- but my eyes are now
> wide open to the possibilities a sim can provide. Here are a few data
> points for discussion:
>
> 1. IFR Flight

Here I have to agree with you. I found my sim time to be very valuable with
respect to Instrument training and currency. I think it's too easy to
"cheat" in real life because if you stop scanning for a moment, and the
plane starts drifting, you usually get "seat of the pants" cues to remind
you to keep up your scan. Even if the cues are the wrong direction, they
bring you out of your coma and get you back on your scan.

The simulator doesn't give you that, so if you stop your scan, it starts
drifting, and it becomes very clear that you and your plane have drifted
and demonstrates just how important it is to keep your scan going.

OTOH, I find the most disorienting part of IMC flight to be takeoff - I
believe that the same factors that cause left turning tendency also create
seat of the pants feelings that are innacurate and distracting. Combine
that with the fact that your most likely to be "out of practice" when you
first take off in IMC (as opposed to landing, when you've probably spent
some amount of time getting re-acquainted with your scan), and I think it's
easiest to get yourself into trouble on takeoff in IMC. I find that I have
to consciously make an effort to focus on my scan during takeoff in IMC,
and after the first time I found myself having trouble, I actually tell
myself outloud to stay on scan if I know I'm taking off into soup...

I think it's hard to simulate that without a full motion simulator...

[[email protected]]

It's not a matter of logged or not... the reality is that MSFS on your
everyday home computer will cost you 50 bucks... (or 5 bucks if you buy
the previous one) and the overall introduction that you get to seeing
how the instruments work and trying things that you're told about from
your instructor at home can save you thousands on flight training.

Can you log it? No, for one the flight models are rubbish.

Is it worth paying 5 bucks to a student who can take flight simulator
and see what they can do about flying approaches, especially DME arcs
etc on a sim, which they can pause and see whats going on, instead of
doing it cold turkey in an airplane the first time burning valuable
time and too busy doing the next thing before they grasp the last
thing? Yeah, the 5 bucks goes a long way.

[Jay Honeck]

> What would it cost to duplicate the kiwi? How much gas could one buy for
> that?

Good question. Since this is a prototype for the sim(s) we're planning
to build at the Iowa Children's Museum (Google for the Big Kids Toy
Show that I helped organize last spring, and you'll see why), I've been
trying to keep costs as rock-bottom as possible.

I haven't come to a final figure yet, but it really depends on how you
slice it. For example, the projection system was something we needed
for our meeting room. If that was something you bought for your home
theater, would you count it as part of the sim price? Same goes for
the computer -- if you've got one in your home now, should you count
*that* as part of the sim? And the stereo system?

I don't think so, for the purpose of this discussion.

So, if we eliminate those three (admittedly big) items, we're down to
the "fuselage", the flight controls, and the various extra cables
(which are NOT insignificant, BTW). The flight controls are around
$200. The fuselage...is anyone's guess. My A&P thinks he can build
one a day, when the time comes, so figure eight hours at his shop rate,
so call it $480. I scavenged the seat out of my Mustang, but any seat
will do, really, and I had the 12 volt power supply (for the electric
seat) sitting in my workshop for a decade. Figure an extra $100 for
cables, and various other stuff I'm not thinking about.

So, for around $780, you can build yourself a world-class flight sim.
Eliminate the "fuselage" (you *can* sit at a desk) and you're down to
$200 - $300.

Add everything in, including computer, projection system, etc, and
you're probably over $3500, cheapest. Basically, for 2/3rds the price
of installing a GNS-430, you've recreated the world, and every aircraft
in it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Personally, I've been saving some money (in the line of several
thousands) to make a complete mock-up of a stationary flight simulator
for an ATR-42 and ATR-72.

Why? Pure fun I guess, plus it's a great way to get people interested
in aviation. If you are interested in seeing what can be done using
just flight simulator as a tool take a look at a company called project
magenta (google it to find their website), if you were to add a
hydraulic system to what they do it could be considered the same sort
of full motion simulator I did my Dash-8 training on.

[Jay Honeck]

> Oh really. Have you flown in any clouds so you can make that statement
> honestly? In my always humble opinion there is a huge difference
> between flying IMC for real and playing a computer game. If MSFS were
> "as real as it gets" then why can't your time playing be logged?

I'm not really sure, but I think it's because the sim set-up is too
widely variable from person to person. For example, flying MSFS on my
laptop at work using a mouse would *NOT* recreate flight in a way that
would be truly meaningful. Flying the Kiwi (and some step in between)
is.

Since the FAA can't delineate between the two experiences, they simply
disallow it. Makes sense to me, really.

Basically the only way I will ever convince you is for you to come fly
the damned thing. You'll be amazed, I think.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Logging has nothing to do with the realism of the simulator. We have
an ancient piece of crap at the FBO which is approved for logging
time. I consider most PC simulators to be far more realistic, but they
cannot be logged. Logging has nothing to do with realism.


Jon Kraus wrote:
> Oh really. Have you flown in any clouds so you can make that statement
> honestly? In my always humble opinion there is a huge difference
> between flying IMC for real and playing a computer game. If MSFS were
> "as real as it gets" then why can't your time playing be logged?
>
> Jon
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> > This thing was just plain as real as it gets, and (in my rusty, haven't practiced instrument flight in a long
> > while) I was working my butt off.
> >

[Jay Honeck]

> Can you log it? No, for one the flight models are rubbish.

Actually, I've found this is NOT true. What I *thought* were bad
flight models was actually the computer lagging just a split
millisecond behind my control inputs. It was imperceptible, and
everything *looked* smooth -- but it was obviously there.

When we hooked everything up to a truly world-class computer, the
impact was immediate and everyone noticed it. Suddenly, the "flight
models" were dead-on, because the controls were finally responding in
real time.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Really?

Spin the plane, stall it and put it in a spin... the models are not
full, it won't do a spin.

[fromTheShadows[_3_]]

wrote:
> Really?
>
> Spin the plane, stall it and put it in a spin... the models are not
> full, it won't do a spin.
>

I'm not a pilot, but there add-on aircraft that according to their
developers will spin. The description for the (free) RealAir Cessna 172
specifically states that "it will side-slip and spin".

[[email protected]]

fromTheShadows wrote:
> wrote:
> > Really?
> >
> > Spin the plane, stall it and put it in a spin... the models are not
> > full, it won't do a spin.
> >
>
> I'm not a pilot, but there add-on aircraft that according to their
> developers will spin. The description for the (free) RealAir Cessna 172
> specifically states that "it will side-slip and spin".

Great I'm getting into one of these arguments...

Anyway, the only readily available simulator that can be bought at a
store that simulates aerodynamics "properly" is x-plane, in fact the
engine that is used to simulate the physics of an airfoil does so
completley without using benchmarks of real world aircraft, just their
virtual models, and does it accuratley. X-plane is also endorsed by the
FAA as a PCATD... or something along those lines, I don't remember
exactly what, but it's a lot better (from a physics standpoint) than
Microsoft's release.

[fromTheShadows[_3_]]

wrote:
> Great I'm getting into one of these arguments...
>

I'm not trying to be argumentative at all. You said that MSFS aircraft
won't spin, and that isn't necessarily true. I even went so far as to
state that I'm not a pilot and so am only going off what the developers say.

[Mxsmanic]

Jon Kraus writes:

> Oh really. Have you flown in any clouds so you can make that statement
> honestly? In my always humble opinion there is a huge difference
> between flying IMC for real and playing a computer game.

MSFS isn't exactly a computer game, although the latest version tries
to be.

> If MSFS were "as real as it gets" then why can't your time playing
> be logged?

For the same reason you can't just install any replacement lamp in
your aircraft.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> I think it's hard to simulate that without a full motion simulator...

For IFR, a simulator with no motion would also be useful. You may
have to learn to ignore distracting sensations, but it's also useful
to learn to fly with no sensations at all. After all, in IMC you may
not have distracting sensations--you may simply feel that your in
comfy, level flight, even as the plane turns or does other unwanted
things. I've seen a lot of discussion of spatial disorientation, but
none of simply losing all cues altogether, even though that would be
quite an issue in IMC flight.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"fromTheShadows" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> Great I'm getting into one of these arguments...
>>
>
> I'm not trying to be argumentative at all. You said that MSFS aircraft
> won't spin, and that isn't necessarily true. I even went so far as to
> state that I'm not a pilot and so am only going off what the developers
> say.

It's my understanding is that MSFS has no Physics engine it is table based
where as X-Plane does have a Physics engine. The better add-on planes for
MSFS just have more data in the tables but still there is no way a table
based simulator can have every possible combinations.

Even X-Plane's physics engine isn't as good as that in some of the more
complex games such as "Half Life." It really surprises me that someone
hasn't come along and used a modified Half-Life engine in a flight sim.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Can you log it? No, for one the flight models are rubbish.

This changes with a few expensive add-ons. The standard MSFS aircraft
are compromises, but you can but add-ons that are just like the real
thing ... so much better, in fact, that it's not unlike having a
completely new simulator.

> Is it worth paying 5 bucks to a student who can take flight simulator
> and see what they can do about flying approaches, especially DME arcs
> etc on a sim, which they can pause and see whats going on, instead of
> doing it cold turkey in an airplane the first time burning valuable
> time and too busy doing the next thing before they grasp the last
> thing? Yeah, the 5 bucks goes a long way.

You can also analyze your flights in MSFS, to see just how closely you
followed your intended course or pattern. I do that all the time.
You can see how consistent your climbs and descents are, how smooth
your turns are, how well you can stay in a holding or traffic pattern,
how well you can hold a course over a long distance, etc.

You can also dial up whatever weather you want, including weather that
would be far too dangerous to train in in real life. Want to see if
you can land in a 40-knot crosswind? No problem. Want fog so thick
you can't see the nose of your own aircraft? Coming right up. Have a
particular blend of IMC or VMC that you'd like to try out but that
never seems to actually occur in your neck of the woods? That's easy
to do, too.

Do you need to learn how to use a GPS? The GPS simulations in some
add-on aircraft are _identical_ to the real thing: you can literally
step away from the sim and use the real GPS on a real aircraft without
missing a beat. A great many other instruments behave identically.

Flight models can be very accurate if you purchase add-ons that are
optimized to match the real aircraft as closely as possible. If you
want to spend ten minutes starting the engines on a 737, that's
possible, too. If you like programming an FMS and then watching it
fly the aircraft for you, you can do that.

All of this would be cripplingly expensive and time-consuming--and
sometimes impossible--in a real aircraft. If you've spent tens of
thousands of dollars on real flight, why deprive yourself of
simulation that you could have for just a few dollars more?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Actually, I've found this is NOT true. What I *thought* were bad
> flight models was actually the computer lagging just a split
> millisecond behind my control inputs. It was imperceptible, and
> everything *looked* smooth -- but it was obviously there.

The sensitivity adjustments in MSFS produce a lag. That is, when you
set the control sensitivity low, what MSFS actually does is lag the
response to controls, so they seem less "sensitive." If you want
instant response, dial the sensitivity up to maximum on all controls.

> When we hooked everything up to a truly world-class computer, the
> impact was immediate and everyone noticed it. Suddenly, the "flight
> models" were dead-on, because the controls were finally responding in
> real time.

I suppose that's a factor, too. If you are getting less than 25
frames per second, the controls are probably lagging to some extent,
although the frame lag is worse.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Really?
>
> Spin the plane, stall it and put it in a spin... the models are not
> full, it won't do a spin.

Add-ons will spin. I don't know about the built-in planes.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Anyway, the only readily available simulator that can be bought at a
> store that simulates aerodynamics "properly" is x-plane, in fact the
> engine that is used to simulate the physics of an airfoil does so
> completley without using benchmarks of real world aircraft, just their
> virtual models, and does it accuratley.

There are many ways to accurately model flight.

> X-plane is also endorsed by the FAA as a PCATD... or something along
> those lines, I don't remember exactly what, but it's a lot better
> (from a physics standpoint) than Microsoft's release.

When you do remember exactly what you're talking about, come back and
explain it again.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[John Theune]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Anyway, the only readily available simulator that can be bought at a
>> store that simulates aerodynamics "properly" is x-plane, in fact the
>> engine that is used to simulate the physics of an airfoil does so
>> completley without using benchmarks of real world aircraft, just their
>> virtual models, and does it accuratley.
>
> There are many ways to accurately model flight.
>
>> X-plane is also endorsed by the FAA as a PCATD... or something along
>> those lines, I don't remember exactly what, but it's a lot better
>> (from a physics standpoint) than Microsoft's release.
>
> When you do remember exactly what you're talking about, come back and
> explain it again.
>
The details are here ( http://www.x-plane.com/FTD.html ) Found them in
10 seconds as you could have if you bothered at least a little bit to
look things up on your own.

[N2310D]

>>> Anyway, the only readily available simulator that can be bought at a
>>> store that simulates aerodynamics "properly" is x-plane, in fact the
>>> engine that is used to simulate the physics of an airfoil does so
>>> completley without using benchmarks of real world aircraft, just their
>>> virtual models, and does it accuratley.
>>
>> There are many ways to accurately model flight.
>>
>>> X-plane is also endorsed by the FAA as a PCATD... or something along
>>> those lines, I don't remember exactly what, but it's a lot better
>>> (from a physics standpoint) than Microsoft's release.

Except for:

"Now, with X-Plane, we have a flight sim that can be used for logging time
towards your instrument rating, Commercial Certificate, or even your AIRLINE
TRANSPORT CERTIFICATE! Actually LOGGING this time requires you to be in a
Motus full-motion sim (price tag: about $150,000.00) "

More properly stated, X-Plane is a component "part" of a certified PCATD, it
is NOT a PCATD.

Big difference.

That said, the X-Plane reviews for the home PC are pretty darn good.

[Jon]

John Theune wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > writes:
> >
> >> Anyway, the only readily available simulator that can be bought at a
> >> store that simulates aerodynamics "properly" is x-plane, in fact the
> >> engine that is used to simulate the physics of an airfoil does so
> >> completley without using benchmarks of real world aircraft, just their
> >> virtual models, and does it accuratley.
> > [...]
> >> X-plane is also endorsed by the FAA as a PCATD... or something along
> >> those lines, I don't remember exactly what, but it's a lot better
> >> (from a physics standpoint) than Microsoft's release.
> > [...]
> The details are here ( http://www.x-plane.com/FTD.html )

Nice stuff. We used it one of the demos in our booth at the recent ATCA
conference in DC.

> Found them in 10 seconds as you could have if you bothered at least a little bit to
> look things up on your own.

Wot? And waste all that valuable time telling us what's up?

Just a 21st century variation on an old theme: "we were given two ears
and one mouth and...."

[Jose[_1_]]

> Basically the only way I will ever convince you is for you to come fly
> the damned thing. You'll be amazed, I think.

I'd like to see what Mx would think. :)

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Masino]

I think I have to agree with Jon. Flying a non precision approach in
heavy rain, down to minimums, knowing that every decision you make might
kill you and your passenger... that's real. Flying a simulator in your
conference room is just helpful for learning procedures, not matter how
"real" you try and make it. That said, practicing the procedures is
probably well worth it.


Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > Oh really. Have you flown in any clouds so you can make that statement
> > honestly? In my always humble opinion there is a huge difference
> > between flying IMC for real and playing a computer game. If MSFS were
> > "as real as it gets" then why can't your time playing be logged?
>
> I'm not really sure, but I think it's because the sim set-up is too
> widely variable from person to person. For example, flying MSFS on my
> laptop at work using a mouse would *NOT* recreate flight in a way that
> would be truly meaningful. Flying the Kiwi (and some step in between)
> is.
>
> Since the FAA can't delineate between the two experiences, they simply
> disallow it. Makes sense to me, really.
>
> Basically the only way I will ever convince you is for you to come fly
> the damned thing. You'll be amazed, I think.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

--

Jay Masino "Home is where My critters are"
http://www.JayMasino.com
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

[Jon]

Judah wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:1165207605.867323.172810@
> 73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Okay, I know this one has been beaten up before -- but my eyes are now
> > wide open to the possibilities a sim can provide. Here are a few data
> > points for discussion:
> >
> > 1. IFR Flight
>
> Here I have to agree with you. I found my sim time to be very valuable with
> respect to Instrument training and currency. I think it's too easy to
> "cheat" in real life because if you stop scanning for a moment, and the
> plane starts drifting, you usually get "seat of the pants" cues to remind
> you to keep up your scan. Even if the cues are the wrong direction, they
> bring you out of your coma and get you back on your scan.
>
> The simulator doesn't give you that, so if you stop your scan, it starts
> drifting, and it becomes very clear that you and your plane have drifted
> and demonstrates just how important it is to keep your scan going.
>
> OTOH, I find the most disorienting part of IMC flight to be takeoff - I
> believe that the same factors that cause left turning tendency also create
> seat of the pants feelings that are innacurate and distracting. Combine
> that with the fact that your most likely to be "out of practice" when you
> first take off in IMC (as opposed to landing, when you've probably spent
> some amount of time getting re-acquainted with your scan), and I think it's
> easiest to get yourself into trouble on takeoff in IMC. I find that I have
> to consciously make an effort to focus on my scan during takeoff in IMC,
> and after the first time I found myself having trouble, I actually tell
> myself outloud to stay on scan if I know I'm taking off into soup...
>
> I think it's hard to simulate that without a full motion simulator...

ISTR a (former?) regular on this group that ran one of those out of PA.
Haven't seen him post on here in ages, though. Nice guy. Richard
(sorry, last name escapes me right now)...

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

I used to practice spins on MSFS on the default Cessna 182 many years
ago. I don't know if real 182's will spin or not, but this one did
quite nicely and realistically.


fromTheShadows wrote:
> wrote:
> > Really?
> >
> > Spin the plane, stall it and put it in a spin... the models are not
> > full, it won't do a spin.
> >
>
> I'm not a pilot, but there add-on aircraft that according to their
> developers will spin. The description for the (free) RealAir Cessna 172
> specifically states that "it will side-slip and spin".

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Masino writes:

> I think I have to agree with Jon. Flying a non precision approach in
> heavy rain, down to minimums, knowing that every decision you make might
> kill you and your passenger... that's real.

Spoken like someone who hasn't been in a good simulator.

Someone who has actually done this in a simulator a few times will be
a lot better equipped to face it in real life, should he ever have to.
Someone who shuns simulators because he thinks the experience doesn't
count unless he's sick with fear is going to be caught completely off
guard when bad things happen, and not only will he be terrified of
making the wrong move, he won't know what the right move is supposed
to be.

Besides, as I've already said, the best pilots are the least emotional
pilots. If you're frothing at the mouth with emotion in some delicate
situation aloft, you're going to make mistakes no matter how good you
are.

Contrary to what you might think from watching movies or reading
novels, the more emotional you are in an emergency, the more likely
you are to die.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> It's my understanding is that MSFS has no Physics engine it is table based
> where as X-Plane does have a Physics engine. The better add-on planes for
> MSFS just have more data in the tables but still there is no way a table
> based simulator can have every possible combinations.

There are multiple ways to achieve the same goal.

Nether X-Plane nor MSFS tracks every molecule of air flowing around
the aircraft. Therefore neither of them accurately models aircraft
behavior.

> Even X-Plane's physics engine isn't as good as that in some of the more
> complex games such as "Half Life." It really surprises me that someone
> hasn't come along and used a modified Half-Life engine in a flight sim.

You don't install code just to meet someone's arbitrary expectations
of what type of code is required, you install it to accomplish your
purpose. It doesn't matter what kind of engine you have, as long as
the results are correct.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

John Theune writes:

> The details are here ( http://www.x-plane.com/FTD.html ) Found them in
> 10 seconds as you could have if you bothered at least a little bit to
> look things up on your own.

I don't look things up to help others support their arguments, I look
them up to support mine. Others are free to do the same.

Besides, without a link to an explanation of the details of the MSFS
flight engine, knowing how X-Plane does it doesn't help much.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Masino writes:
>
>> I think I have to agree with Jon. Flying a non precision approach in
>> heavy rain, down to minimums, knowing that every decision you make might
>> kill you and your passenger... that's real.
>
> Spoken like someone who hasn't been in a good simulator.
>
>

Tell us Anthony, Have you EVER been in a certified flight training device or
is your personal experience limited to PC flight simulators?

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> At the risk of starting an old dispute up again, try making a
> "rudder only" turn before claiming that the flight models are
> accurate.

What is the difference between such a turn in MSFS and such a turn in
real life?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> It's my understanding is that MSFS has no Physics engine it is table
>> based
>> where as X-Plane does have a Physics engine. The better add-on planes for
>> MSFS just have more data in the tables but still there is no way a table
>> based simulator can have every possible combinations.
>
> There are multiple ways to achieve the same goal.
>
> Nether X-Plane nor MSFS tracks every molecule of air flowing around
> the aircraft. Therefore neither of them accurately models aircraft
> behavior.
>
>> Even X-Plane's physics engine isn't as good as that in some of the more
>> complex games such as "Half Life." It really surprises me that someone
>> hasn't come along and used a modified Half-Life engine in a flight sim.
>
> You don't install code just to meet someone's arbitrary expectations
> of what type of code is required, you install it to accomplish your
> purpose. It doesn't matter what kind of engine you have, as long as
> the results are correct.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

A physics engine can take the necessary variables and create a simulated
reality that can be significantly more flexible than a table based system.
And just because the game you choose to play hasn't adopted a technology
that is very popular in the gaming world for the very reason of enhanced
reality once again shows the "Anthony knows best" thought process we have
all come to know and love.

Many of those of us that actually fly aircraft have told you many times that
MSFS doesn't correctly simulate real flight correctly. What's arbitrary in
that?

[Jay Honeck]

> Really?
>
> Spin the plane, stall it and put it in a spin... the models are not
> full, it won't do a spin.

Interesting statement. I've stalled and spun the AOPA Cherokee Six in
half a dozen times, trying to return to the runway after the engine
stalled.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Tell us Anthony, Have you EVER been in a certified flight training device or
> is your personal experience limited to PC flight simulators?

I've used only MSFS, which is a good flight simulator. It hasn't been
in any certified configuration.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[N2310D]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> At the risk of starting an old dispute up again, try making a
>> "rudder only" turn before claiming that the flight models are
>> accurate.
>
> What is the difference between such a turn in MSFS and such a turn in
> real life?

A lot.

Yes, I do own and operate MSFS, and I fly a real airplane also, and I
have done both.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> A physics engine can take the necessary variables and create a simulated
> reality that can be significantly more flexible than a table based system.

True, which is why something like X-Plane can work for craft that
aren't ordinary airplanes. But for ordinary airplanes, you can take
shortcuts and get identical results.

Apply your reasoning to the average pilot's understanding of stalls.
Pilots worry a lot about "stall speeds," when there is no such
thing--only angle of attack determines stalls. But the illusory
notion of a stall speed works just as well within the constraints of
normal flight that concern pilots, and it's easier to measure than
angle of attack, so it is used.

> Many of those of us that actually fly aircraft have told you many times that
> MSFS doesn't correctly simulate real flight correctly. What's arbitrary in
> that?

Many of those who fly aircraft have little or no experience with
flight simulation. I think it's a macho thing.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Tell us Anthony, Have you EVER been in a certified flight training device
>> or
>> is your personal experience limited to PC flight simulators?
>
> I've used only MSFS, which is a good flight simulator. It hasn't been
> in any certified configuration.
>

So you're not even knowledgeable on flight simulators. You can't even
compare, with any authority, the value of MSFS against its competitors much
less against the flight characteristics of real aircraft.

You are just proving to be more useless than even I thought.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> A physics engine can take the necessary variables and create a simulated
>> reality that can be significantly more flexible than a table based
>> system.
>
> True, which is why something like X-Plane can work for craft that
> aren't ordinary airplanes. But for ordinary airplanes, you can take
> shortcuts and get identical results.
>

This might be true if MSFS only tried to simulate one or two aircraft in a
limited amount of flight evelopes but it doesn't. It cuts corners so it can
simulate everything from an ultalight to a 747.

And because it trys to model so many aircraft MSFS would be the best example
of where a well designed physics engine would be useful. The problem is MS
for some reason I can't quite figure out wnats to use all the CPU cycles to
run the graphics and not just the physics of the enviroment but much of the
rendering as well. Instead of designing the software to offload the graphics
to a dedicated graphics card.


>> Many of those of us that actually fly aircraft have told you many times
>> that
>> MSFS doesn't correctly simulate real flight correctly. What's arbitrary
>> in
>> that?
>
> Many of those who fly aircraft have little or no experience with
> flight simulation. I think it's a macho thing.
>


Well this doesn't apply to me. I've owned every version of MSFS, except for
X, since the one I bought the day I bought an Apple IIe.

I did download the X demo and I was really unimpressed. Since there were so
few planes on the Demo I tried out the ultralight which I had never done on
any of the other versions for some reason. I set the realizam to full and
the weather as bad as possible and was still able to fly the little guy. It
should have ripped the thing apart or at very least blown me over.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Many of those of us that actually fly aircraft have told you many
>> times that MSFS doesn't correctly simulate real flight correctly.
>> What's arbitrary in that?
>
> Many of those who fly aircraft have little or no experience with
> flight simulation. I think it's a macho thing.
>
Some of us have a lot more sim experience than anyone whose sim experience
began with the use of personal computers. And, we, too have told you that
MSFS isn't all that correct in its representation of flight. Yes, it's can
be fun, interesting and useful to those who also fly real planes, but
that's a different matter altogether.

Neil

[gatt]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...

> I shot a full approach into Cedar Rapids (CID) terminating in an ILS to
> Rwy 9 at minimums. By the time I broke out, after flying the published
> procedure, I was sweating! This thing was just plain as real as it gets,
> and (in my rusty, haven't practiced instrument flight in a long
> while) I was working my butt off.

Yep. I often shoot practice approaches on FS2004 before doing the exact
approaches in the actual airplane, or if the weather isn't complaint
(Columbia Gorge winds, usually) and I have to cancel a practice flight.


-c

[gatt]

"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
...
> Oh really. Have you flown in any clouds so you can make that statement
> honestly?

Yes.

I agree with Jay. I used MFS2004 to practice a VFR flight from TTD to Paine
Field, and then set it to real-time weather (IFR) to fly back.

The next day, I made the actual flight. The flight sim didn't model the C-7
that I got to see popping out of one cloud and disappearing into another or
possible spatial disorientation issues, but on the IFR panel on the sim you
have to ignore physical stimulus (lack thereof) and you're pretty much under
the hood.

-c

[gatt]

> wrote in message
ps.com...
> Really?
>
> Spin the plane, stall it and put it in a spin... the models are not
> full, it won't do a spin.

Neither will the Arrow II that I fly. At least, it's not approved for
spins. So what's the difference?

-c

[gatt]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
.. .

> Some of us have a lot more sim experience than anyone whose sim experience
> began with the use of personal computers. And, we, too have told you >that
> MSFS isn't all that correct in its representation of flight.

Okay. I'm IFR rated and on occasion when I can't fly, I take my approach
plates and shoot them in FS2004 in the Mooney or C-172.

It allows me to remember to set and ident freqs, follow the instruments,
time the approach (I use my kneeboard and timer), plan the course with an
E6B and fly it with a sectional. Teaches reliance on the instruments (you
can simulate instrument failures), reinforces use of checklists such as
GUMPS and procedures for radio navigation as well as remain sharp on
concepts such as reverse sensing and maintaing course headings.

My flying experience began in high school on the first MS Flight Simulator.
It helped me through groundschool and my private because I was already
familiar with navigating using one or two VORs and quickly interpreting and
responding to instruments.

I highly recommend it. It won't make you, say, IFR current, but it'll sure
polish your edge for much less than it costs to shoot practice approaches
each month.

I guess that's why they have flight simlators.

-c

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>> Really?
>>
>> Spin the plane, stall it and put it in a spin... the models are not
>> full, it won't do a spin.
>
> Neither will the Arrow II that I fly. At least, it's not approved for
> spins. So what's the difference?
>
> -c
>

It is an example that there is a problem with the flight model. If there is
a problem there where else is there a problem.

[Jay Honeck]

> That said, the X-Plane reviews for the home PC are pretty darn good.

If it makes you feel any better, we're running X-plane on the Kiwi,
too.

I find it no different to "fly" than MS FS2004 in most ways -- but
much, much harder to use. The user interface is simply inferior, which
(I suppose) is due to the awesome flexibility it offers.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>> Some of us have a lot more sim experience than anyone whose sim
>> experience began with the use of personal computers. And, we, too have
>> told you >that MSFS isn't all that correct in its representation of
>> flight.
>
> Okay. I'm IFR rated and on occasion when I can't fly, I take my approach
> plates and shoot them in FS2004 in the Mooney or C-172.
>
> It allows me to remember to set and ident freqs, follow the instruments,
> time the approach (I use my kneeboard and timer), plan the course with an
> E6B and fly it with a sectional. Teaches reliance on the instruments
> (you can simulate instrument failures), reinforces use of checklists such
> as GUMPS and procedures for radio navigation as well as remain sharp on
> concepts such as reverse sensing and maintaing course headings.
>
> My flying experience began in high school on the first MS Flight
> Simulator. It helped me through groundschool and my private because I was
> already familiar with navigating using one or two VORs and quickly
> interpreting and responding to instruments.
>
> I highly recommend it. It won't make you, say, IFR current, but it'll
> sure polish your edge for much less than it costs to shoot practice
> approaches each month.
>
> I guess that's why they have flight simlators.
>
> -c

Gatt this thread and many others lately are here because of posts written by
an idiot named Anthony aka msxmaniac who not only has never flown and
aircraft and has no desire to, thinks that most of us that do fly don't know
what the hell we are talking about because our real world experience doesn't
jive with his playing of MSFS.

There is no doubt that MSFS is great for use as you describe but it doesn't
make anyone an aviation expert as Anthony thinks it does.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> That said, the X-Plane reviews for the home PC are pretty darn good.
>
> If it makes you feel any better, we're running X-plane on the Kiwi,
> too.
>
> I find it no different to "fly" than MS FS2004 in most ways -- but
> much, much harder to use. The user interface is simply inferior, which
> (I suppose) is due to the awesome flexibility it offers.
> --


Jay, where you will really se the difference between the two is when the
"aircraft" is outside the normal envelope. You mentioned the AOPA Cherokee 6
model in an earlier post. This is an example of a plane that has been well
simulated in MSFS.

On the other hand I came across a model of the 601XL like I'm building and
when ever you stall it the engine quits and won't restart. And it doesn't
matter if it is a power on or power off stall. I talked to the guy that
designed it and he can't for the life of him figure out why it does it.

[Jay Honeck]

> Gatt this thread and many others lately are here because of posts written by
> an idiot named Anthony aka msxmaniac who not only has never flown and
> aircraft and has no desire to, thinks that most of us that do fly don't know
> what the hell we are talking about because our real world experience doesn't
> jive with his playing of MSFS.

Ahem -- not THIS thread. I haven't been reading MX's stuff much,
lately, so if this thread seem to be echoing his thoughts, it's purely
coincidence.

As a pilot with over 1600 hours in the logbook, over the last 12 years,
I think I'm qualified to state that the Kiwi reproduces flight in every
way possible, short of full motion. Until you take a few turns around
the patch in the Kiwi, I don't think you can quite appreciate the level
of realism this thing can produce. With the real world projected in
full scale, and the panel reproduced in actual scale size, real flight
controls, and a lightning-fast computer, it's quite amazing.

I'll be glad to let you fly it for an hour or three, absolutely free,
if you ever get in my neighborhood. (Just don't show up on Tuesday
night -- Movie Night -- or you might have to stand in line... :-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose[_1_]]

> [MSFS] allows me to remember to set and ident freqs, follow the
> instruments, time the approach (I use my kneeboard and timer)

How do you set and ident the freqs? Using the mouse on the radio stack
and the OBS is pretty lame, and (at least for FS 2002) I can't find a
better way. So, I just have them preset and fly the approach.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> As a pilot with over 1600 hours in the logbook, over the last 12 years,
> I think I'm qualified to state that the Kiwi reproduces flight in every
> way possible, short of full motion. Until you take a few turns around
> the patch in the Kiwi, I don't think you can quite appreciate the level
> of realism this thing can produce. With the real world projected in
> full scale, and the panel reproduced in actual scale size, real flight
> controls, and a lightning-fast computer, it's quite amazing.

Oh, and I forgot to mention the surround-sound system -- with the
subwoofer firmly attached to the bottom of the Kiwi's metal frame.

I've flown a Lockheed Constellation, and I'm here to tell you that the
Connie sim absolutely NAILS the sound of those big four radial
engines...and the vibration you get through your keister in-flight...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Gatt this thread and many others lately are here because of posts written
>> by
>> an idiot named Anthony aka msxmaniac who not only has never flown and
>> aircraft and has no desire to, thinks that most of us that do fly don't
>> know
>> what the hell we are talking about because our real world experience
>> doesn't
>> jive with his playing of MSFS.
>
> Ahem -- not THIS thread. I haven't been reading MX's stuff much,
> lately, so if this thread seem to be echoing his thoughts, it's purely
> coincidence.
>
> As a pilot with over 1600 hours in the logbook, over the last 12 years,
> I think I'm qualified to state that the Kiwi reproduces flight in every
> way possible, short of full motion. Until you take a few turns around
> the patch in the Kiwi, I don't think you can quite appreciate the level
> of realism this thing can produce. With the real world projected in
> full scale, and the panel reproduced in actual scale size, real flight
> controls, and a lightning-fast computer, it's quite amazing.
>
> I'll be glad to let you fly it for an hour or three, absolutely free,
> if you ever get in my neighborhood. (Just don't show up on Tuesday
> night -- Movie Night -- or you might have to stand in line... :-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Jay I will of course take you up on that... BUT you are letting the big
projection screen and chair fool you into believing the simulation. All that
screen and controls changes nothing in the software itself and that is where
the difference is.

Ask your self this. Would you if it were legal allow your son to be trained
in nothing but the Kiwi and then solo?

[Bob Noel]

In article om>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Basically the only way I will ever convince you is for you to come fly
> the damned thing. You'll be amazed, I think.

next time I'm there... but probably not for 3-4 years, at least.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Bob Noel]

In article om>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > Can you log it? No, for one the flight models are rubbish.
>
> Actually, I've found this is NOT true. What I *thought* were bad
> flight models was actually the computer lagging just a split
> millisecond behind my control inputs. It was imperceptible, and
> everything *looked* smooth -- but it was obviously there.
>
> When we hooked everything up to a truly world-class computer, the
> impact was immediate and everyone noticed it. Suddenly, the "flight
> models" were dead-on, because the controls were finally responding in
> real time.

Can you do a soft-field take-off with it?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Tom Conner]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
> Ask your self this. Would you if it were legal allow your
> son to be trained in nothing but the Kiwi and then solo?
>

Who has ever advocated flying solo after only sim training? The military
makes extensive use of simulators and even they do not do that. The point
is the sim trained student will probably solo sooner and fly better than the
non-sim student.
http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/future0004.html?PF

[Jose[_1_]]

> The point is the sim trained student will probably
> solo sooner and fly better than the
> non-sim student.

Will they have sim-bad habits to unlearn?

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> Ask your self this. Would you if it were legal allow your son to be trained
> in nothing but the Kiwi and then solo?

Of course not. That's the motion part of the equation that can't be
reproduced in the Kiwi.

There is also the subtle but very real fact that you can't produce the
fear of death in the Kiwi. Although this sounds sensational and
silly, it's truly not -- since when you're flying a real airplane, your
life (and the lives of your loved ones) are literally in your own
hands.

This is a responsiblity that some may not be able to handle (I've often
wondered if it wasn't fear of this consequence that causes some
post-solo students to drop out of flight training), and you can't
simulate that feeling in any real way.

Still, it's as close as you can get, outside of the real plane. And,
as a training tool, it is therefore terrific.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> So you're not even knowledgeable on flight simulators.

I seem to know a lot more than many people here, some of whom sound
like they've been out of the loop for many years.

> You can't even compare, with any authority, the value of
> MSFS against its competitors much less against the flight
> characteristics of real aircraft.

MSFS doesn't have any real competitors. X-Plane is interesting but
not as comprehensive as MSFS.

> You are just proving to be more useless than even I thought.

Your entire post is a personal attack against me, and doesn't mention
the topic of the thread at all. How useful do you think that is?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> This might be true if MSFS only tried to simulate one or two aircraft in a
> limited amount of flight evelopes but it doesn't.

It's true for whole categories of aircraft.

> It cuts corners so it can simulate everything from an ultalight to a 747.

It cuts corners on the aircraft models, not on the simulation. If you
use add-on aircraft (as all serious simmers do), you get vastly more
accurate models ... practically a different simulator.

> The problem is MS
> for some reason I can't quite figure out wnats to use all the CPU cycles to
> run the graphics and not just the physics of the enviroment but much of the
> rendering as well.

Graphics is the major workload for any flight simulator. Computers
got fast enough to handle the dynamics decades ago.

> Instead of designing the software to offload the graphics
> to a dedicated graphics card.

Most of the graphics cannot be offloaded.

> Well this doesn't apply to me. I've owned every version of MSFS, except for
> X, since the one I bought the day I bought an Apple IIe.

Wow.

> I did download the X demo and I was really unimpressed. Since there were so
> few planes on the Demo I tried out the ultralight which I had never done on
> any of the other versions for some reason. I set the realizam to full and
> the weather as bad as possible and was still able to fly the little guy. It
> should have ripped the thing apart or at very least blown me over.

How do you know? Were you killed in an ultralight accident in bad
weather previously?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Peter R.]

Jose > wrote:

> How do you set and ident the freqs? Using the mouse on the radio stack
> and the OBS is pretty lame, and (at least for FS 2002) I can't find a
> better way. So, I just have them preset and fly the approach.

http://www.flypfc.com/avionics/avionics.html



--
Peter

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Gatt this thread and many others lately are here because of posts written by
> an idiot named Anthony aka msxmaniac ...

Only if his other alias is Jay Honeck (the originator of this thread).
You might want to direct your venom towards the original poster, if
you really must spend your time on that instead of discussion of the
topic at hand.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Jay I will of course take you up on that... BUT you are letting the big
> projection screen and chair fool you into believing the simulation.

That's the hallmark of good simulation. If it fools you, it's
working.

> All that screen and controls changes nothing in the software itself
> and that is where the difference is.

Not if it behaves just like the real thing.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> Will they have sim-bad habits to unlearn?

There aren't a lot of bad habits you can learn in a sim, depending on
the sim. On a PC simulator, it's more what you don't learn than what
you learn incorrectly. Sitting in front of a PC, you have no
movement, and not much in the way of visibility. By a strange
coincidence, those are the two differences that many pilots here claim
are more important than anything else, which is manifestly untrue.

If you learn in a sim where your primary source of information is
instruments, you'll tend to develop a dependence on instruments. If
you learn in a real plane that moves, you'll tend to develop a
dependence on sensations. I don't see how the latter is any better
than the former, particularly given that sensations are so unreliable.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> There is also the subtle but very real fact that you can't produce the
> fear of death in the Kiwi. Although this sounds sensational and
> silly, it's truly not -- since when you're flying a real airplane, your
> life (and the lives of your loved ones) are literally in your own
> hands.

Fear of death is a great reason to remain with a simulator. Why would
anyone want to be terrified of dying?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> > [MSFS] allows me to remember to set and ident freqs, follow the
> > instruments, time the approach (I use my kneeboard and timer)
>
> How do you set and ident the freqs? Using the mouse on the radio stack
> and the OBS is pretty lame, and (at least for FS 2002) I can't find a
> better way. So, I just have them preset and fly the approach.

I don't remember about FS 2002, but you can try using the mouse wheel,
if you have one, to set frequencies when you put the mouse over the
frequency knob.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Mark Levin writes:

> I think the use of MSFS can be summed up pretty simply.
>
> It won't teach you to fly a plane.

Sure it will. It will cover perhaps 90% of flying a plane (or some
other high percentage), which is about as much as actually being in a
plane would cover. However, the skills taught by the simulator are
different from those of a real plane. For example, you can learn to
use an FMS or GPS very effectively on a sim, but you can't do that on
a real plane if you don't have this equipment.

You can learn to fly with instruments on a sim; indeed, you don't have
too many other options, although you can fly visually with a somewhat
restricted visibility.

> In order to make use of MSFS for procedural training however you can't slack
> off. You have to fly the sim identically to the way you would fly the real
> plane. Real charts, real plates, you have to change the radios manually,
> not just let the sim do it for you. You need to talk *on the radio* exactly
> as you would during a real flight even if there's no one to hear you.

Isn't that what all simmers are doing already?

If you use VATSIM, there will be plenty of people hearing you (and
talking back).

> Emergency procedures for example are not only thought based but are physical
> based as well. You don't have time to translate *fuel selector to fullest
> tank*, for example, into a physical motion. You have to have muscle memory
> trained and unless you have one of these high fidelity sim cockpits that
> some folks build for themselves you're not going to train any muscle memory
> on the sim.

Nor are you going to learn that on a real aircraft, since many
emergencies never arise and are too dangerous to attempt in a real
aircraft.

> As nutty as this may sound, with some of the added scenery packs you can
> actually start to train pilotage as well.

It doesn't sound nutty to me.

> Note that none of this has anything to do with the mechanics of flying the
> plane.

Nevertheless, it's a large part of flying. A hundred years ago,
flying by the seat of your pants was the be-all and end-all of
flight--there was nothing else. Now there is a lot else.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> On the other hand I came across a model of the 601XL like I'm building and
> when ever you stall it the engine quits and won't restart. And it doesn't
> matter if it is a power on or power off stall. I talked to the guy that
> designed it and he can't for the life of him figure out why it does it.

How much did you pay for it?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> It is an example that there is a problem with the flight model. If there is
> a problem there where else is there a problem.

Aircraft will spin in MSFS. It depends on the individual aircraft and
the quality of its model, of course.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

N2310D writes:

> A lot.

Okay. Describe the difference. I'm tired of hearing "it's
different," followed by silence. Describe exactly what is different.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jay Honeck]

> > There is also the subtle but very real fact that you can't produce the
> > fear of death in the Kiwi. Although this sounds sensational and
> > silly, it's truly not -- since when you're flying a real airplane, your
> > life (and the lives of your loved ones) are literally in your own
> > hands.
>
> Fear of death is a great reason to remain with a simulator. Why would
> anyone want to be terrified of dying?

In order to live.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > Basically the only way I will ever convince you is for you to come fly
> > the damned thing. You'll be amazed, I think.
>
> next time I'm there... but probably not for 3-4 years, at least.

Ah -- you'll be here for the kick-off of the "holodeck" version...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Blanche]

OK -- let's start properly defining terms here, in regard to FAA
(and probably JAA) ground rules. Doesn't matter how Microsoft
brands and markets it's software, "Microsoft Flight Simulator" is
NOT a simulator. It's a game.

The FAA blesses PCATDs when administered by a CFI(I) under certain
rules. A "simulator" is one of those multi-million dollar (or euro)
hardware & software environments, such as used by Flight Safety
and the airlines and NASA. These may or may not be full-motion, but
often are.

I have operated United's 737 sim, the STS (Space Shuttle), and
the Apollo simulator. (My employer, many years/decades ago, did a
great deal of the software and displays -- I got to have a great time).
The Apollo sim was full-size. Required a 3-story area, just for the
unit, not counting all the computer equipment needed. No, that
one wasn't full motion.

There are a number of people on this newsgroup that for various reasons
(company and/or insurance) pay Flight Safety and similar companies a
great deal of money each year. To put MSFS into the same category as
Flight Safety is absurd.

Now, with that in mind, I agree with Jay and others that using MSFS
is a great tool for learning concepts such as IFR scan, reviewing
terrain and airports that you haven't encountered yet, etc.

[Mxsmanic]

Blanche writes:

> Doesn't matter how Microsoft
> brands and markets it's software, "Microsoft Flight Simulator" is
> NOT a simulator. It's a game.

It's a simulator. There is no "official" definition of a simulator
versus a game, and MSFS far more closely resembles other simulators
than other games.

> I have operated United's 737 sim, the STS (Space Shuttle), and
> the Apollo simulator. (My employer, many years/decades ago, did a
> great deal of the software and displays -- I got to have a great time).
> The Apollo sim was full-size. Required a 3-story area, just for the
> unit, not counting all the computer equipment needed. No, that
> one wasn't full motion.

Then how could it possibly be of any use to astronauts? Everyone
knows that, without full motion, it doesn't count.

> There are a number of people on this newsgroup that for various reasons
> (company and/or insurance) pay Flight Safety and similar companies a
> great deal of money each year. To put MSFS into the same category as
> Flight Safety is absurd.

To put MSFS in the same category as Grand Theft Auto is no less
absurd.

> Now, with that in mind, I agree with Jay and others that using MSFS
> is a great tool for learning concepts such as IFR scan, reviewing
> terrain and airports that you haven't encountered yet, etc.

How can that be, if it's just a game? Games entertain; simulators
teach.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> In order to live.

You can live more comfortably without being terrified.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jay Honeck]

> > In order to live.
>
> You can live more comfortably without being terrified.

Part of the allure of flying (to me) has always been the feeling of
conquering death in some visceral way. Because of this, I feel more
alive in the air than anywhere else. That's what I mean by saying "In
order to live".

The ability to use your skills and intellect to do something that is
completely unnatural for humans to do -- and survive -- carries with it
a thrill that simply can't be duplicated. This is why pilots often
laconically remark "It ain't golf..." when asked what it's like to fly.


The bottom line is this: We can live, or we can wait to die. I choose
the former, and -- in my world -- that means flying. In the end, as
much as I'm thrilled with the way the Kiwi performs, it will never,
ever duplicate that feeling for me.
--
Jay Honeck
Owner/Innkeeper
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dudley Henriques]

"Tom Conner" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Ask your self this. Would you if it were legal allow your
>> son to be trained in nothing but the Kiwi and then solo?
>>
>
> Who has ever advocated flying solo after only sim training? The military
> makes extensive use of simulators and even they do not do that. The point
> is the sim trained student will probably solo sooner and fly better than
> the
> non-sim student.
> http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/future0004.html?PF


Hi Tom;

>Reference;
"PCATDs?which, as far as Hampton is concerned, include both FAA-certified
PCATDs and off-the-shelf products like Microsoft Flight Simulator?are
restricted to teaching cognitive activities such as holding patterns and
approach procedures, where they can provide practical experience, practice,
and reinforcement. The university relied heavily on PCATDs during the first
private/instrument class, and experienced some negative learning. For
example, the computer?s performance didn?t always match that of the actual
aircraft, especially during slow flight and stalls. Also, if the monitor
isn?t properly sized and positioned, it can lead to poor scanning habits."


There is a key paragraph in this report that hints toward a most important
aspect in the use of desktop simulators in flight training; that being the
fact that they can not at this point in time duplicate the actual control
pressures required in the real airplane. The actual physical cues involved
in flying a specific actual aircraft are considered as critical factors for
the pre-solo student and must be experienced. The input from the desk top
simulator of familiarization with control DIRECTION is fine and should be
considered a training asset up to a point. That point is when the beginning
student must start the process of learning control PRESSURES.

Although there is reason to believe that this technology may be forthcoming
down the line, it is still the opinion of many QUALIFIED instructors in the
training community (myself included) that because of this single factor
involving the familiarization with control PRESSURES in the aircraft being
used for the instruction, the use of desk tops between the period spanning
the first hour of dual through the first solo should be discouraged.

The periods both before and after this period is where the desktops can be
quite useful and complimentary to the training environment.

Addendum; if Mxmanic underposts this reply, please excuse my not dealing
with it directly. If you or anyone else on the forum would like to discuss
this issue with me, please post freely and I'll be most happy to answer.
Thank you
Dudley Henriques
Flight Instructor Retired
[MVP] For Microsoft Flight Simulator

[Jay Beckman]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. net...
>> The point is the sim trained student will probably solo sooner and fly
>> better than the non-sim student.
>
>Will they have sim-bad habits to unlearn?
>
>Jose

Jose, et al...

As a sim user for many, many years and now a PP-ASEL for the last two years,
I can tell you that yes, there are sim induced bad habits to be broken when
you go fly for real.

Probably the most egregious is panel fixation and not flying "head up."
It took several raps to the back of the head with a rolled up sectional to
get me to quit looking inside and learn to fly by reference to the view
outside. The interesting thing is that now when I spend any time with MSFS,
I find myself really frustrated at how lacking FS is when it comes to being
able to see "outside."

Another one that I had to unlearn was a casual disregard for systems status.
One just doesn't take into consideration things like oil temp/pressure, fuel
flow, suction, etc when one is in front of a computer screen.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[N2310D]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> N2310D writes:
>
>> A lot.
>
> Okay. Describe the difference. I'm tired of hearing "it's
> different," followed by silence. Describe exactly what is different.

Well, no I won't.
Since you have in the past not been willing to accept statements
provided by experienced pilots and, on several occasions not been willing to
back up your own cryptic statements and told us that you've done your
research to get your information and we should do likewise, I think it is
appropriate for me to tell you that you need to go for a ride in an airplane
and find out for yourself.
I am NOT going to give you an opportunity to impugn my hard earned
knowledge in your typical puerile manner. Take it or leave it, or go for a
ride.

[Jose[_1_]]

> http://www.flypfc.com/avionics/avionics.html

Interesting. This should be added to the kiwi. :) Ho wmuch was it?
(the web site is price-free)

I like the line "Note: The GNS430.530 can only be used in simulator and
cannot be used in your aircraft."

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Beckman]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
> ...
>>Oh really. Have you flown in any clouds so you can make that statement
>>honestly?
>
>Yes.
>
>I agree with Jay. I used MFS2004 to practice a VFR flight from TTD to
>Paine Field, and then set it to real-time weather (IFR) to fly back.
>
>The next day, I made the actual flight. The flight sim didn't model the
>C-7 that I got to see popping out of one cloud and disappearing into
>another or possible >spatial disorientation issues, but on the IFR panel on
>the sim you have to ignore physical stimulus (lack thereof) and you're
>pretty much under the hood.
>
>-c


And that, IMO, really hits the nail on the head. It's how you use the
software. It isn't what MSFS brings to you, it's what you bring to MSFS.

At one end of the spectrum there are those who want to go out and fly a 747
inverted under a bridge .. at the other are those who spend both the time
and the money to immerse themselves as completely as possible via both
hardware (bleeding edge computer systems and things like the radio stack
Peter R posted about) and software (better terrain mesh, more accurate
airport scenics, etc.) When you slap that level of commitment behind three
(or more) high-quality 24" monitors using good quality control peripherals
and go to the extent of building a "Kiwi" of your own, it isn't too bad a
flight simulator exprience.

Google some screenshots taken using the best hardware/software and I think
you'd be suprised at the visual fidelity that some are able to achieve. If
you bring any desire to fly your sim "by the book" then you can (..and I do)
get satisfaction from MSFS. You may not be able to keep your body connected
to flying with MSFS but you can keep your brain in gear.

Just my $0.02 ...

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[randyw]

wrote:
> Really?
>
> Spin the plane, stall it and put it in a spin... the models are not
> full, it won't do a spin.
>

The Maule in FSX spins like a champ (not to be confused with "like a
Champ", though they may in fact spin in a similar manner). I think spins
have been possible since FS98 in fact. I've been flying since MS95, and
I get some of the previous versions mixed up in my head.

MSFS was a great tool for helping me knock out my private ticket
quickly. I've heard some simmers transition to *real* airplanes and have
a problem looking out the window (they get gauge fixation). I've always
been a big fan of the hat switch on my joystick and like looking outside
as much as scanning the gauges.

Here are a few screenshots I've taken:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pixelrandy/sets/72157594322710096/

Happy landings,

Randy
KSTS, Sonoma County CA
PPSEL

[Mxsmanic]

N2310D writes:

> Well, no I won't.

I know.

> Since you have in the past not been willing to accept statements
> provided by experienced pilots ...

You're right: I won't accept unsupported, unexplained assertions, no
matter who makes them. The appeal to authority does not work with me.

> ... and, on several occasions not been willing to back up your
> own cryptic statements and told us that you've done your research
> to get your information ...

I explain my assertions. I don't provide lists of citations. Others
have the same resources for research that I have.

> ... I think it is appropriate for me to tell you that you need
> to go for a ride in an airplane and find out for yourself.

If you cannot explain the difference after riding in a plane yourself,
why would I be able to do so?

> I am NOT going to give you an opportunity to impugn my hard earned
> knowledge in your typical puerile manner.

I have seen virtually nothing in the way of hard-earned knowledge in
this newsgroup. I've seen a great deal of puerile behavior, however.
But that is par for the course on USENET, which is filled with angry
young male "experts."

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[randyw]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> Gatt this thread and many others lately are here because of posts written by
> an idiot named Anthony aka msxmaniac who not only has never flown and
> aircraft and has no desire to, thinks that most of us that do fly don't know
> what the hell we are talking about because our real world experience doesn't
> jive with his playing of MSFS.
>
> There is no doubt that MSFS is great for use as you describe but it doesn't
> make anyone an aviation expert as Anthony thinks it does.

I don't know Anthony, but his posts have been informative and well
written. He also hasn't personally attacked anyone, or made
misrepresentations of his flight experience (real or not). I know a lot
of real pilots that think they're aviation experts when in fact the
little guy with glasses sitting behind his computer desk flying flight
sims has a lot more knowledge, even though he lacks seat time.

I fly both sims and Cessnas, I find that the flight models to be good
enough to simulate (that's what it's doing, right?) flight in a manner
that feels like it does in reality. The plane stalls when and how it
should, P-factor is there, and I can fly by the numbers just when I do
when flying real approaches.

I always know I'm flying a sim, and I guess for some people it's always
just going to be a game until one can't tell the difference between the
sim and real life. Thankfully I have a great imagination and I can fill
in the gaps. If only I could press the Y button and slew when flying in
real life...

Randy
KSTS Sonoma County CA
PPSEL

[randyw]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sitting in front of a PC, you have no
> movement, and not much in the way of visibility.

Not true as far as the visibility is concerned. If you fly using MSFS's
virtual cockpits, then you have full eye movement around the inside and
out all the windows. I can even move up and down, left and right in the
seat. There's even IR head-tracking software that let's you look around
the cockpit by moving your head.

Here it is in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMKtkPR0idY

Randy

[Mxsmanic]

randyw writes:

> Not true as far as the visibility is concerned. If you fly using MSFS's
> virtual cockpits, then you have full eye movement around the inside and
> out all the windows. I can even move up and down, left and right in the
> seat. There's even IR head-tracking software that let's you look around
> the cockpit by moving your head.

True, but it's not as easy to do as it would be in real life. I have
a rotary on my throttle quadrant set to "turn my head," and that works
pretty well if I must look out the side windows.

One advantage to MSFS (at least with some aircraft) is that you can
turn to look completely behind the aircraft, whereas in real life the
aircraft itself blocks many angles of view. Not all aircraft let you
turn off the virtual cockpit though (making it invisible so you can
look anywhere).

Hmm ... maybe I should assign a rotary to vertical pan as well.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[[email protected]]

You know I really hate the fact that all you do is claim that
simulators are just as good as real flight or better, their not even
close. And I'll give you a few reasons why real flight is different.

Aside from one being real and the other not... the field of view you
ahve in an airplane as compared to a simulator is different and
superior.

A simulator (with any Force Feedback system available at the local
computer store) is nowhere close to re-creating the forces excerted on
the controls by the atmosphere.

A simulator does not let you feel the back pressure from the braking
system, as a matter of fact in a sim (like MSFS) you can slam the
brakes on or you can leave them off.

A simulator does not actually allow you to manipulate a trim tab and
physically feel the difference in the control.

In a simulator it's extremley difficult to actually fail to start an
engine, as a matter of fact you can't flood an engine in a sim, which
you can in real life.

A simulator does not re create the stresses that you feel being
excerted upon the aircraft, such as the distinct sound of an engine
operating at too high of a manifold pressure for the engine to handle.

A simulator does not re create the changes of trim as the cowl flaps
are retracted.

A simulator does not bring you the concern of a pre-flight check or a
making sure that the tires are fully inflated.

A simulator comes nowhere close to re-creating landing on a wet runway,
on a short field or on a soft field.

A simulator does not properly represent ground effect.

A simulator does not represent weather properly with the exception of
the immediate local area.

A simulator does not require radio communication when you approach any
large city, when you approach any airspace.

It does not necessitate proper flight planning to reinforce the safetey
of the flight.

It does not make you experience G-Forces or the empty feeling in your
stomach when you thermal... for that matter a simulator does not
represent thermals.

It allows you to pause and get a drink.

In a simulator the amounts of turbulence that exist in the real world
do not make it necessary for you to adjust the elevator, ailerons or
rudder when landing a plane. A botched landing does not reward you with
a bounce, but rather with a flight analysis saying you landed at x
amount of feet per second.

There is a monumental difference between sitting in front of a screen
and watching a two dimensional image, than being at the controls of an
airplane and seeing the real world move past the glareshield.

By your logic of simulators being as close to reality as being in an
airplane I can assume that I can safely operate a train with people on
board, I can safely drive an 18 wheel truck, I can safely and with
utter brilliance command a submarine, or surface naval vessel in
combat. The reality is that I cannot, and the reality of the matter is
that you may be able to control an airplane to a reasonable extent in
the real world, I may be able to control an 18 wheeler with a
reasonable degree of success, or a train without exiting the railroad
tracks, but I cannot operate any of those real world items, with the
exception of an airplane. So , you may find a reasonable degree of
succes trying to take off in a real Beech Baron, but you'll get chicken
skin the moment you feel the torque pull you to the side as the turbos
spool up, thats what seperates you from anyone who has flown a plane,
they know what it's like and they can do it... you don't.

For me... every time I come to work and fly the Dash 8s, not only am I
using all my previously gained knowledge to make money for a company,
I'm also dealing with people, and to an extent they are putting their
lives in mine and the First Officers hands, and I would gladly walk up
to any of them, standing next to you and tell them that "Yes, I have
over 8,000 hours of flight time, but mxsmanic here has, say 35,000
hours of simulated flying time in front of his computer at home without
the guidance of an instructor or any license, who would you like to fly
your plane?", 10 times out of 10 they are going to choose me over you.

[Morgans[_2_]]

> From: Mxsmanic

>>I have seen virtually nothing in the way of hard-earned knowledge in
>>this newsgroup.
>

EVERYone ! ! !

LOOK at THIS above proclamation !!!

THIS is what the troll wrote, as to what he thinks of your experiences.

Read it again, and again.
**************************************
**************************************

MXSMANIC WROTE:

>> I HAVE SEEN VIRTUALLY NOTHING IN THE WAY OF HARD-EARNED KNOWLEDGE IN THIS
NEWSGROUP.

**************************************
**************************************

This should do it, for anyone EVER answering him, again, forever.

He respects you, not.

PLEASE
Don't feed this troll, at all, EVER again.

It is time to close the chapter on him. Starting now.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, gatt > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>> Some of us have a lot more sim experience than anyone whose sim
>> experience began with the use of personal computers. And, we, too
>> have told you >that MSFS isn't all that correct in its
>> representation of flight.
>
> Okay. I'm IFR rated and on occasion when I can't fly, I take my
> approach plates and shoot them in FS2004 in the Mooney or C-172.
>
> It allows me to remember to set and ident freqs, follow the
> instruments, time the approach (I use my kneeboard and timer), plan
> the course with an E6B and fly it with a sectional. Teaches
> reliance on the instruments (you can simulate instrument failures),
> reinforces use of checklists such as GUMPS and procedures for radio
> navigation as well as remain sharp on concepts such as reverse
> sensing and maintaing course headings.
>
> My flying experience began in high school on the first MS Flight
> Simulator. It helped me through groundschool and my private because I
> was already familiar with navigating using one or two VORs and
> quickly interpreting and responding to instruments.
>
> I highly recommend it. It won't make you, say, IFR current, but
> it'll sure polish your edge for much less than it costs to shoot
> practice approaches each month.
>
> I guess that's why they have flight simlators.
>
I completely agree with you under the "...useful to those who fly real
airplanes" statement that you snipped. Simulators *are* useful, even those
that don't even remotely simulate the actual flight environment, if the
task that they are put to is well structured. I found the time spent in a
Link trainer some 40 years ago useful, but it didn't ever make me think it
was real flying. I've also seen people sweat while playing "Space
Invaders", and I doubt that they thought that was real, either. So,
perhaps it's the investment in "winning" that causes such reactions rather
than being fooled?

Neil

[Bob Noel]

In article m>,
" > wrote:

> It allows you to pause and get a drink.

more important: later you can pause again to return the rental.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> >>I have seen virtually nothing in the way of hard-earned knowledge in
> >>this newsgroup.
>
> EVERYone ! ! !
>
> LOOK at THIS above proclamation !!!
>
> THIS is what the troll wrote, as to what he thinks of your experiences.

think about it, "virtually" .... it has to be a joke.

It's actually funny. Not as funny as when it mis-states newtonian physics,
but it's still kind of funny.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Neil Gould]

Very well put. Too bad that this will be lost on someone like Anthony.


Recently, > posted:

> You know I really hate the fact that all you do is claim that
> simulators are just as good as real flight or better, their not even
> close. And I'll give you a few reasons why real flight is different.
>
> Aside from one being real and the other not... the field of view you
> ahve in an airplane as compared to a simulator is different and
> superior.
>
> A simulator (with any Force Feedback system available at the local
> computer store) is nowhere close to re-creating the forces excerted on
> the controls by the atmosphere.
>
> A simulator does not let you feel the back pressure from the braking
> system, as a matter of fact in a sim (like MSFS) you can slam the
> brakes on or you can leave them off.
>
> A simulator does not actually allow you to manipulate a trim tab and
> physically feel the difference in the control.
>
> In a simulator it's extremley difficult to actually fail to start an
> engine, as a matter of fact you can't flood an engine in a sim, which
> you can in real life.
>
> A simulator does not re create the stresses that you feel being
> excerted upon the aircraft, such as the distinct sound of an engine
> operating at too high of a manifold pressure for the engine to handle.
>
> A simulator does not re create the changes of trim as the cowl flaps
> are retracted.
>
> A simulator does not bring you the concern of a pre-flight check or a
> making sure that the tires are fully inflated.
>
> A simulator comes nowhere close to re-creating landing on a wet
> runway, on a short field or on a soft field.
>
> A simulator does not properly represent ground effect.
>
> A simulator does not represent weather properly with the exception of
> the immediate local area.
>
> A simulator does not require radio communication when you approach any
> large city, when you approach any airspace.
>
> It does not necessitate proper flight planning to reinforce the
> safetey of the flight.
>
> It does not make you experience G-Forces or the empty feeling in your
> stomach when you thermal... for that matter a simulator does not
> represent thermals.
>
> It allows you to pause and get a drink.
>
> In a simulator the amounts of turbulence that exist in the real world
> do not make it necessary for you to adjust the elevator, ailerons or
> rudder when landing a plane. A botched landing does not reward you
> with a bounce, but rather with a flight analysis saying you landed at
> x amount of feet per second.
>
> There is a monumental difference between sitting in front of a screen
> and watching a two dimensional image, than being at the controls of an
> airplane and seeing the real world move past the glareshield.
>
> By your logic of simulators being as close to reality as being in an
> airplane I can assume that I can safely operate a train with people on
> board, I can safely drive an 18 wheel truck, I can safely and with
> utter brilliance command a submarine, or surface naval vessel in
> combat. The reality is that I cannot, and the reality of the matter is
> that you may be able to control an airplane to a reasonable extent in
> the real world, I may be able to control an 18 wheeler with a
> reasonable degree of success, or a train without exiting the railroad
> tracks, but I cannot operate any of those real world items, with the
> exception of an airplane. So , you may find a reasonable degree of
> succes trying to take off in a real Beech Baron, but you'll get
> chicken skin the moment you feel the torque pull you to the side as
> the turbos spool up, thats what seperates you from anyone who has
> flown a plane, they know what it's like and they can do it... you
> don't.
>
> For me... every time I come to work and fly the Dash 8s, not only am I
> using all my previously gained knowledge to make money for a company,
> I'm also dealing with people, and to an extent they are putting their
> lives in mine and the First Officers hands, and I would gladly walk up
> to any of them, standing next to you and tell them that "Yes, I have
> over 8,000 hours of flight time, but mxsmanic here has, say 35,000
> hours of simulated flying time in front of his computer at home
> without the guidance of an instructor or any license, who would you
> like to fly your plane?", 10 times out of 10 they are going to choose
> me over you.

[Jay Honeck]

> Just my $0.02 ...

More like a buck and a quarter...

Well put!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

I agree with most of your post, but I'll address a few things you've
got slightly wrong:

> A simulator does not re create the stresses that you feel being
> excerted upon the aircraft, such as the distinct sound of an engine
> operating at too high of a manifold pressure for the engine to handle.

Actually, some of the planes we're modeling do just that. (And some
are truly dreadful, to be honest.)

> A simulator does not properly represent ground effect.

It comes pretty close. A Mooney will float and float, just like the
real deal.

> A simulator does not represent weather properly with the exception of
> the immediate local area.

How would I be able to tell this? I'm only flying in "the local
area", after all.

> A simulator does not require radio communication when you approach any
> large city, when you approach any airspace.

Although I don't have it, there are some add-ons that apparently make
ATC very real.

> It allows you to pause and get a drink.

Hey -- you say that like it's a bad thing!

:-)

> In a simulator the amounts of turbulence that exist in the real world
> do not make it necessary for you to adjust the elevator, ailerons or
> rudder when landing a plane. A botched landing does not reward you with
> a bounce, but rather with a flight analysis saying you landed at x
> amount of feet per second.

This is truly wrong. You can bounce, and skid sideways, and collapse
the gear -- just like the real thing. Make sure you've got the realism
settings all the way up, or you'll only see that stupid flight analysis
thing.

(Which is actually quite useful -- along with the "instant replay"
feature. On movie night, we'll watch a guy botch an approach -- and
then we'll watch it from several different angles, everyone hootin' and
hollerin' like it's a rodeo. Along with a few cold ones, that makes
for a fun evening!)

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> The Maule in FSX spins like a champ (not to be confused with "like a
> Champ", though they may in fact spin in a similar manner). I think spins
> have been possible since FS98 in fact. I've been flying since MS95, and
> I get some of the previous versions mixed up in my head.

I've been flying Flight Sim since before Microsoft bought it. I was
running it on an Atari ST computer, and it fit entirely on a single
floppy disk.

Everything (and there wasn't much) was rendered in wire frames, and the
flight control was a mouse (Atari was very advanced, for the day, with
a real GUI and everything!) -- but it was enough to get me (and
millions like me, apparently) hooked. The sim was my first
introduction to flight, and it stoked the fires that eventually roared
into life some 20 years later, when I got my ticket.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Moore]

wrote
> You know I really hate the fact that all you do is claim that
> simulators are just as good as real flight or better, their
> not even close. And I'll give you a few reasons why real
> flight is different.

AviatorHI...dispite all of your claimed flight experience, you
don't seem to understand just what constitutes a flight
"simulator" by FAA definition.

MSFS is NOT a flight simulator....it is a PC program. I spent
6-7 years of my 24 year airline career teaching and checking in
"real" simulators, and I can tell you that most of what you
posted is just not true.

From the FAA

6. DEFINITIONS.

a. An Airplane Simulator is a full size replica of a specific
type or make, model, and series airplane cockpit, including the
assemblage of equipment and computer software programs
necessary to represent the airplane in ground and flight
operations, a visual system providing an out-of-the-cockpit
view, a force (motion)cueing system which provides cues at
least equivalent to that of a three degree of freedom motion
system; and is in compliance with the minimum standards for a
Level A simulator specified in AC 120-40, as amended.

Perhaps you were referring to PCATDs instead of Simulators?

BTW....although "their" is spelled correctly.. you picked the
wrong "they're".

Bob Moore
CFII
ATP B-707 B-727 L-188
PanAm (retired)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Tom Conner" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Ask your self this. Would you if it were legal allow your
>> son to be trained in nothing but the Kiwi and then solo?
>>
>
> Who has ever advocated flying solo after only sim training? The military
> makes extensive use of simulators and even they do not do that. The point
> is the sim trained student will probably solo sooner and fly better than
> the
> non-sim student.
> http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/future0004.html?PF
>
>

Nobody did. But Jay was saying the simulation in the Kiwi was dead on so if
that the case there should be any reason to waste gas training the pilot. It
was probing question to see if Jay REALLY thought the flight model was that
good.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"randyw" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Sitting in front of a PC, you have no
>> movement, and not much in the way of visibility.
>
> Not true as far as the visibility is concerned. If you fly using MSFS's
> virtual cockpits, then you have full eye movement around the inside and
> out all the windows. I can even move up and down, left and right in the
> seat. There's even IR head-tracking software that let's you look around
> the cockpit by moving your head.
>
> Here it is in action:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMKtkPR0idY
>
> Randy

That helps visibility not the sensation of the aircrafts movement.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Ask your self this. Would you if it were legal allow your son to be
>> trained
>> in nothing but the Kiwi and then solo?
>
> Of course not. That's the motion part of the equation that can't be
> reproduced in the Kiwi.
>
> There is also the subtle but very real fact that you can't produce the
> fear of death in the Kiwi. Although this sounds sensational and
> silly, it's truly not -- since when you're flying a real airplane, your
> life (and the lives of your loved ones) are literally in your own
> hands.
>
> This is a responsiblity that some may not be able to handle (I've often
> wondered if it wasn't fear of this consequence that causes some
> post-solo students to drop out of flight training), and you can't
> simulate that feeling in any real way.
>
> Still, it's as close as you can get, outside of the real plane. And,
> as a training tool, it is therefore terrific.
> --

Sure MSFS is fun. It's a game and it was designed to be. My jumping into
this thread was because folks, including you Jay, were implying that the
flight model has few flaws and while I agree it is a good training aid for
procedures I stand by my stance that it isn't a good training aid for
flying.

If you haven't read it yet please read Dudley Henriques's post in this
thread. He ought to know.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Jay I will of course take you up on that... BUT you are letting the big
>> projection screen and chair fool you into believing the simulation.
>
> That's the hallmark of good simulation. If it fools you, it's
> working.
>
>> All that screen and controls changes nothing in the software itself
>> and that is where the difference is.
>
> Not if it behaves just like the real thing.


Well since the MVP of Flight Simulator Dudley Henriques, a retired Flight
Instructor and [MVP] For Microsoft Flight Simulator will quote and seem to
agree with a university study that says,

"PCATDs which, as far as Hampton is concerned, include both FAA-certified
PCATDs and off-the-shelf products like Microsoft Flight Simulator are
restricted to teaching cognitive activities such as holding patterns and
approach procedures, where they can provide practical experience, practice,
and reinforcement. The university relied heavily on PCATDs during the first
private/instrument class, and experienced some negative learning. For
example, the computer?s performance didn't always match that of the actual
aircraft, especially during slow flight and stalls. Also, if the monitor
isn't properly sized and positioned, it can lead to poor scanning habits."

I'd have to go with the expert and say it doesn't behave "just like the real
thing."

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> So you're not even knowledgeable on flight simulators.
>
> I seem to know a lot more than many people here, some of whom sound
> like they've been out of the loop for many years.
>

Are you including Dudley Henriques in that group of those that are out of
the loop?


>> You can't even compare, with any authority, the value of
>> MSFS against its competitors much less against the flight
>> characteristics of real aircraft.
>
> MSFS doesn't have any real competitors. X-Plane is interesting but
> not as comprehensive as MSFS.

How do you know you said you'd never used the software.

>
>> You are just proving to be more useless than even I thought.
>
> Your entire post is a personal attack against me, and doesn't mention
> the topic of the thread at all. How useful do you think that is?
>


About as useful as any of your posts.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> This might be true if MSFS only tried to simulate one or two aircraft in
>> a
>> limited amount of flight evelopes but it doesn't.
>
> It's true for whole categories of aircraft.
>
>> It cuts corners so it can simulate everything from an ultalight to a 747.
>
> It cuts corners on the aircraft models, not on the simulation. If you
> use add-on aircraft (as all serious simmers do), you get vastly more
> accurate models ... practically a different simulator.
>

The models are the simulation. Without them MSFS is simply a scenery
generator.


>> The problem is MS
>> for some reason I can't quite figure out wnats to use all the CPU cycles
>> to
>> run the graphics and not just the physics of the enviroment but much of
>> the
>> rendering as well.
>
> Graphics is the major workload for any flight simulator. Computers
> got fast enough to handle the dynamics decades ago.
>

So why can't MSFS X run on a computer that was decades ago?


>> Instead of designing the software to offload the graphics
>> to a dedicated graphics card.
>
> Most of the graphics cannot be offloaded.
>

But a lot more of it can be than is currently being.

>> Well this doesn't apply to me. I've owned every version of MSFS, except
>> for
>> X, since the one I bought the day I bought an Apple IIe.
>
> Wow.
>
>> I did download the X demo and I was really unimpressed. Since there were
>> so
>> few planes on the Demo I tried out the ultralight which I had never done
>> on
>> any of the other versions for some reason. I set the realizam to full and
>> the weather as bad as possible and was still able to fly the little guy.
>> It
>> should have ripped the thing apart or at very least blown me over.
>
> How do you know? Were you killed in an ultralight accident in bad
> weather previously?
>

No but I've seen a few piles of aluminum and covering that was left after a
storm came through.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Mark Levin writes:
>
>> I think the use of MSFS can be summed up pretty simply.
>>
>> It won't teach you to fly a plane.
>
> Sure it will. It will cover perhaps 90% of flying a plane (or some
> other high percentage), which is about as much as actually being in a
> plane would cover. However, the skills taught by the simulator are
> different from those of a real plane. For example, you can learn to
> use an FMS or GPS very effectively on a sim, but you can't do that on
> a real plane if you don't have this equipment.
>

If slow flight and stalling isn't modeled right you can't learn to fly in
it.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> On the other hand I came across a model of the 601XL like I'm building
>> and
>> when ever you stall it the engine quits and won't restart. And it doesn't
>> matter if it is a power on or power off stall. I talked to the guy that
>> designed it and he can't for the life of him figure out why it does it.
>
> How much did you pay for it?
>

Not a dime. The same amount you have spent on actual flying. So I should
have as much authority to talk about it as you do flying real aircraft.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> N2310D writes:
>
>> Well, no I won't.
>
> I know.
>
>> Since you have in the past not been willing to accept statements
>> provided by experienced pilots ...
>
> You're right: I won't accept unsupported, unexplained assertions, no
> matter who makes them. The appeal to authority does not work with me.

I find it interesting that you have not responded in any way to Dudley
Henriques post in this thread. That you can't say he isn't an authority in
either flight sims or actual flying is probably the reason.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"randyw" > wrote in message
...

>
> I don't know Anthony, but his posts have been informative and well
> written.

Well written, I'll give you that. But he has spewed enough incorrect
information that you obviously haven't been following them very well.

> He also hasn't personally attacked anyone

No he has made sweeping attacks against real pilots in this forum.

> or made misrepresentations of his flight experience (real or not). I know
> a lot of real pilots that think they're aviation experts when in fact the
> little guy with glasses sitting behind his computer desk flying flight
> sims has a lot more knowledge, even though he lacks seat time.

Unfortunatly Anthony isn't one of the later.

>
> I fly both sims and Cessnas, I find that the flight models to be good
> enough to simulate (that's what it's doing, right?) flight in a manner
> that feels like it does in reality. The plane stalls when and how it
> should, P-factor is there, and I can fly by the numbers just when I do
> when flying real approaches.
>
> I always know I'm flying a sim, and I guess for some people it's always
> just going to be a game until one can't tell the difference between the
> sim and real life. Thankfully I have a great imagination and I can fill in
> the gaps. If only I could press the Y button and slew when flying in real
> life...
>

Sims are fun and can be useful. I stated that in the post you replied to.
But they aren't a replacement for actual seat time and won't be for a long
long time.

[Blanche]

Bob Moore > wrote:
wrote
>> You know I really hate the fact that all you do is claim that
>> simulators are just as good as real flight or better, their
>> not even close. And I'll give you a few reasons why real
>> flight is different.
>
>AviatorHI...dispite all of your claimed flight experience, you
>don't seem to understand just what constitutes a flight
>"simulator" by FAA definition.
>
>MSFS is NOT a flight simulator....it is a PC program. I spent
>6-7 years of my 24 year airline career teaching and checking in
>"real" simulators, and I can tell you that most of what you
>posted is just not true.

Thank you Bob. That's 2 of us explaining the difference between
a game and a real flight simulator.

[Blanche]

Bob Noel > wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote:
>
>> >>I have seen virtually nothing in the way of hard-earned knowledge in
>> >>this newsgroup.
>>
>> EVERYone ! ! !
>>
>> LOOK at THIS above proclamation !!!
>>
>> THIS is what the troll wrote, as to what he thinks of your experiences.
>
>think about it, "virtually" .... it has to be a joke.
>
>It's actually funny. Not as funny as when it mis-states newtonian physics,
>but it's still kind of funny.

Obviously Anthony is living in the Star Trek universe -- the one where
Q solves the problem with the statement "well, just change the laws of
the universe...."

[Peter R.]

Morgans > wrote:

> THIS is what the troll wrote, as to what he thinks of your experiences.

Keep an eye out for sock puppets from that one, too. They are starting to
pop up in other groups, given that many are now turning away from the
original troll.

--
Peter

[Dudley Henriques]

"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Moore > wrote:
wrote
>>> You know I really hate the fact that all you do is claim that
>>> simulators are just as good as real flight or better, their
>>> not even close. And I'll give you a few reasons why real
>>> flight is different.
>>
>>AviatorHI...dispite all of your claimed flight experience, you
>>don't seem to understand just what constitutes a flight
>>"simulator" by FAA definition.
>>
>>MSFS is NOT a flight simulator....it is a PC program. I spent
>>6-7 years of my 24 year airline career teaching and checking in
>>"real" simulators, and I can tell you that most of what you
>>posted is just not true.
>
> Thank you Bob. That's 2 of us explaining the difference between
> a game and a real flight simulator.
>
>

Actually, three :-)

Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>>
>>> Jay I will of course take you up on that... BUT you are letting the big
>>> projection screen and chair fool you into believing the simulation.
>>
>> That's the hallmark of good simulation. If it fools you, it's
>> working.
>>
>>> All that screen and controls changes nothing in the software itself
>>> and that is where the difference is.
>>
>> Not if it behaves just like the real thing.
>
>
> Well since the MVP of Flight Simulator Dudley Henriques, a retired Flight
> Instructor and [MVP] For Microsoft Flight Simulator will quote and seem to
> agree with a university study that says,
>
> "PCATDs which, as far as Hampton is concerned, include both FAA-certified
> PCATDs and off-the-shelf products like Microsoft Flight Simulator are
> restricted to teaching cognitive activities such as holding patterns and
> approach procedures, where they can provide practical experience,
> practice, and reinforcement. The university relied heavily on PCATDs
> during the first private/instrument class, and experienced some negative
> learning. For example, the computer?s performance didn't always match that
> of the actual aircraft, especially during slow flight and stalls. Also, if
> the monitor isn't properly sized and positioned, it can lead to poor
> scanning habits."
>
> I'd have to go with the expert and say it doesn't behave "just like the
> real thing."

I think it's important to differentiate here on the meaning of the "real
thing" as that relates to MSFS.
There is a certain level of fidelity and accuracy that MS programs into the
simulator. That level, for various reasons going way beyond what's necessary
for this thread's discussion, is a compromise between the actual behavior of
the real thing and what is required to reproduce a reasonable reproduction
of that behavior on a desktop computer and monitor combination. It's
important to realize that in almost every case of an actual behavior
pertaining to the real aircraft's flight physics and systems behavior, the
fidelity level required to produce a believable experience for the sim user
is achieved at level that doesn't require programming in the entire fidelity
level of the real thing.
Therefore, the sim experience for all intent and purposes looks real, and
indeed reproduces for the user an experience that for the purpose of the
simulation is "as real as it gets", but it's important to realize that the
statement of "as real as it gets" literally means as real as it gets in the
desktop simulator, and NOT for the real airplane!.
The reason for the "difference" is that in flying the actual airplane, there
is no compromise in fidelity, and accuracy.
The entire fidelity of a given behavior is present at all times. You are
operating a real airplane in a constantly changing dynamic that requires
real input involving behavior levels not available or even programmed into a
desktop simulator.
It's for these reasons that the physical flying of the actual airplane is
indispensable to the learning curve, and the reason that the simulator
should be set aside during the period between first dual and solo.
Microsoft has accomplished a wonderful replication of the flight experience
for the simulator pilot. The program as it exists now can serve a very
useful purpose both in specific areas of training, and as a tool of
enjoyment for those who can not actually fly otherwise.
As good as this program is, and as capable as it is in reproducing the
flight experience, it has not been designed and programmed to take the place
of a real airplane. The sim has it's uses in the training curve. In fact, I
highly recommend it's use as an introductory tool for the aviation
community, and also as a systems and procedures tool after solo when used
under the supervision of a CFI.
Bottom line is that the MSFS is a wonderful program and has uses in aviation
training as well as for entertainment. Those using the program within it's
real world limitations have a great and useful tool at their disposal.
Those pushing desktop simulators as a substitute for the real airplane
during the period between the first hour of dual and first solo where the
physical cues required to fly the real airplane are critical factors on the
learning curve might be well advised to refrain from doing that.
Dudley Henriques
Retired Flight Instructor
[MVP] Microsoft Flight Simulator

[Jose[_1_]]

> Those pushing desktop simulators as a substitute for the real airplane
> during the period between the first hour of dual and first solo where the
> physical cues required to fly the real airplane are critical factors on the
> learning curve might be well advised to refrain from doing that.

If you had two equivalent people who had little or no piloting
experience (just a few times maybe of "wanna take the controls?" as a
passenger), and they had to make an emergency landing due to pilot
incapacitation, would the one that has had some MSFS experience be
likely to have a better outcome?

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Would the sim person even ask for help?

All other things are supposed to be equal, so yes.

> But, for example, does that person's sim experience lead them to ignore
> advice being given to them from someone trying to talk them down, because
> they *know* better?

In most cases I think not. Most people who are passengers in a real GA
plane know the difference between sim and reality (or at least know that
there is a very real difference!).

The point of the question is along the lines of "here's a Significant
Other who flies with me a lot, would it be useful for her to fly MSFS on
occasion, and would I be able to teach her useful stuff on it"?

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> That helps visibility not the sensation of the aircrafts movement.

Sensations are only one small part of flying.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> The models are the simulation.

No. The models are datasets that provide input to the simulation
engine. The accuracy of these datasets has a tremendous influence on
realism and accuracy.

> So why can't MSFS X run on a computer that was decades ago?

Because it requires a tremendous amount of horsepower to generate the
visuals.

> But a lot more of it can be than is currently being.

Such as?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Sure MSFS is fun. It's a game and it was designed to be. My jumping into
> this thread was because folks, including you Jay, were implying that the
> flight model has few flaws and while I agree it is a good training aid for
> procedures I stand by my stance that it isn't a good training aid for
> flying.

Which flaws do you find objectionable, specifically?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Well since the MVP of Flight Simulator Dudley Henriques, a retired Flight
> Instructor and [MVP] For Microsoft Flight Simulator will quote and seem to
> agree with a university study that says ...

Dudley's opinion is best obtained from his posts, not yours. And if
your post only repeats someone else's opinion, it wastes bandwidth.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> If you had two equivalent people who had little or no piloting
> experience (just a few times maybe of "wanna take the controls?" as a
> passenger), and they had to make an emergency landing due to pilot
> incapacitation, would the one that has had some MSFS experience be
> likely to have a better outcome?

Yes.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Mark Levin writes:

> But, for example, does that person's sim experience lead them to ignore
> advice being given to them from someone trying to talk them down, because
> they *know* better?

That type of attitude does not come from flying a sim, it is a
fundamental function of personality. People who think they know
better will think that with or without a sim, and vice versa.

> Suppose the sim person is used to slamming the plane down at 2x Vso because
> they never learned any differently.

That's better than the person with no experience at all spiraling into
the ground 90 seconds after taking the controls.

> In the sim you can land just about anywhere safely unless you hit one of
> their buildings or fall off a cliff.

That's not true. Just drifting off the runway can cause an accident,
as can a landing with too great a rate of descent, at too great an
angle to the centerline, and so on.

> The non-sim person in that same scenario may get on the radio and beg for
> help and get talked to a nearby airport rather than attempting to land
> off-field.

By the time the non-sim person figures out how to use the controls, he
will probably already have met with the terrain. Survival time would
be much greater with sim experience.

> In short the question is just depends on too many other factors than sim
> experience to be accurately answered.

All else being equal, sim experience is better than no sim experience.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> If slow flight and stalling isn't modeled right you can't learn to fly in
> it.

What parts of slow flight and stalling are being modeled incorrectly
in MSFS?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Not a dime. The same amount you have spent on actual flying. So I should
> have as much authority to talk about it as you do flying real aircraft.

Price has nothing to do with authority. It has a lot to do with the
accuracy of the flight model, however.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[[email protected]]

Bob Moore wrote:
> wrote
> > You know I really hate the fact that all you do is claim that
> > simulators are just as good as real flight or better, their
> > not even close. And I'll give you a few reasons why real
> > flight is different.
>
> AviatorHI...dispite all of your claimed flight experience, you
> don't seem to understand just what constitutes a flight
> "simulator" by FAA definition.
>
> MSFS is NOT a flight simulator....it is a PC program. I spent
> 6-7 years of my 24 year airline career teaching and checking in
> "real" simulators, and I can tell you that most of what you
> posted is just not true.
>
> From the FAA
>
> 6. DEFINITIONS.
>
> a. An Airplane Simulator is a full size replica of a specific
> type or make, model, and series airplane cockpit, including the
> assemblage of equipment and computer software programs
> necessary to represent the airplane in ground and flight
> operations, a visual system providing an out-of-the-cockpit
> view, a force (motion)cueing system which provides cues at
> least equivalent to that of a three degree of freedom motion
> system; and is in compliance with the minimum standards for a
> Level A simulator specified in AC 120-40, as amended.
>
> Perhaps you were referring to PCATDs instead of Simulators?
>
> BTW....although "their" is spelled correctly.. you picked the
> wrong "they're".
>
> Bob Moore
> CFII
> ATP B-707 B-727 L-188
> PanAm (retired)

It's a simulator for this sake of this conversation... according to the
FAA it's a game. I wouldn't even call it a PCATD. It is useful to an
extent, but a very limited one (thats worth more than 5 bucks).

[[email protected]]

> It's a simulator for this sake of this conversation... according to the
> FAA it's a game. I wouldn't even call it a PCATD. It is useful to an
> extent, but a very limited one (thats worth more than 5 bucks).

Actually for pure clarity... I know the FAA doesn't clasify games, but
as I said for this conversation I'm calling it a simulator.

RE: the weather being bad incorrect outside of the local area.... that
is to say that things like mountain waves aren't represented, and the
weather is a constant for the area you are in... if the "downloaded
weather information" says that it is a certain weather it will be that
certain weather within an x mile radius of the airport, then suddently
turn into a wonderful sunny day.

RE: skids, bounces etc... I've tried very hard in those programs to
wheelbarrel, skid, bounce, and either I crash the plane or just land
very hard.

RE: their vs. they're... I apologize to the utmost extent, I'm sure
noone here has ever made that or any other spelling error, and being
the only one I bow my head in shame.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> That helps visibility not the sensation of the aircrafts movement.
>
> Sensations are only one small part of flying.
>

Sensations are a HUGE part of flying.

But since you have brought up senses let's look at the five senses and see
how they are used in real flight and how they are simulated in the game
MSFS.

Vision-
The average person has between 170 and 175 degrees of vision and uses it all
in real flight.
In SIM flight depending on screen used you might have 90 degrees. Yes this
can be improved but the cost is significant and I'd guess the vast majority
of MSFS users don't have multiple monitors.

Touch-
In real flight you feel the stick or yoke and the forces acting against it.
You also feel the aircraft moving and changing direction. This movement when
backed up with visual clues, either from outside the plane or instruments
help you finely control the aircraft.

In sim flight there are no forces acting on the stick/yoke with the
exception of springs or in the best case force feedback which doesn't
simulate reality well at all.

Hearing-
With a proper set up I'll give the sims a real A+ on this issue and will say
that it is damn good a simulating reality.

Smell and Taste really don't come into play with the exception of smelling
smoke in the cockpit and in that case sims don't even try to simulate it.

So out of five senses three are really used in flight and with the exception
of hearing MSFS can't simulate the input for any of them very well without
an expense that is much higher than most people are going to spend.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> A simulator (with any Force Feedback system available at the local
> computer store) is nowhere close to re-creating the forces excerted on
> the controls by the atmosphere.

The feedback forces of the controls vary from one type of aircraft to
another, from one model of aircraft to another, and even from one tail
number to another. In fact, they even vary from time to time on a
single airframe after maintenance is performed, or with wear and tear.
So worrying excessively about a precise simulation of these forces in
a sim is unjustified.

> A simulator does not let you feel the back pressure from the braking
> system, as a matter of fact in a sim (like MSFS) you can slam the
> brakes on or you can leave them off.
>
> A simulator does not actually allow you to manipulate a trim tab and
> physically feel the difference in the control.

See above.

I'll give you perfect example. In my sim, I've found that it's hard
to be sure when the control surfaces are positioned exactly at their
neutral positions. However, some here may recall that I asked about
how one determines the neutral positions of control surfaces in real
aircraft. I was told that there isn't really an exact neutral
position per se in most real aircraft. Given this, I stopped fretting
about the exact neutral position in the sim. Maybe I have the rudder
perfectly centered, maybe not. But in real life I wouldn't have it
any more precisely positioned than I do in the sim, so why seek a
precision in the sim that is overwhelmed by random variations in the
real world?

Another example: If the pressure exerted by the yoke against your arms
varies between 9 and 11 lbs in a certain configuration on a certain
aircraft in a certain situation, there is no reason to insist that a
sim reproduce this pressure with a precision of 0.01 lbs. The
real-world variation is much greater than the sim's precision, so the
sim is "as real as it need get."

> In a simulator it's extremley difficult to actually fail to start an
> engine, as a matter of fact you can't flood an engine in a sim, which
> you can in real life.

If you can't start an engine, you aren't going to be flying anywhere,
in the sim or in real life. You're not flying when you start the
engine.

> A simulator does not re create the stresses that you feel being
> excerted upon the aircraft, such as the distinct sound of an engine
> operating at too high of a manifold pressure for the engine to handle.

So?

Here again, this is something that varies by aircraft type, aircraft
model, flight configuration, weather, engine condition, tail number,
and so on. There is no need for a perfectly faithful reproduction of
a real aircraft, unless the sim is designed to reproduce only that
single tail number in only that single instant of time, and nothing
else.

> A simulator does not re create the changes of trim as the cowl flaps
> are retracted.

On the aircraft I fly in the sim, the cowl flaps have no effect on
trim. Someone complained about that, and it turns out that they have
no effect on trim in real life, either.

> A simulator does not bring you the concern of a pre-flight check or a
> making sure that the tires are fully inflated.

You don't really need a sim for that. You can just pretend.

> A simulator comes nowhere close to re-creating landing on a wet runway,
> on a short field or on a soft field.

That depends on the simulator.

> A simulator does not properly represent ground effect.
>
> A simulator does not represent weather properly with the exception of
> the immediate local area.
>
> A simulator does not require radio communication when you approach any
> large city, when you approach any airspace.
>
> It does not necessitate proper flight planning to reinforce the safetey
> of the flight.

See above.

> It does not make you experience G-Forces or the empty feeling in your
> stomach when you thermal... for that matter a simulator does not
> represent thermals.

Some simulators do--MS FSX does. I don't know if MSFS 2004 does.

The G forces are no big deal unless you are doing aerobatics.

> It allows you to pause and get a drink.

You can get a drink in flight, too. It's even a good idea.

> In a simulator the amounts of turbulence that exist in the real world
> do not make it necessary for you to adjust the elevator, ailerons or
> rudder when landing a plane.

Yes, they do, at least in MSFS. Landing in significant turbulence is
quite a challenge. I've gone through two sets of gear in the past few
days thanks to turbulence.

> A botched landing does not reward you with
> a bounce, but rather with a flight analysis saying you landed at x
> amount of feet per second.

No, you bounce if you aren't careful. And if you bounce enough, you
lose the gear. And if you bounce more than that, you crash.

Someone said you could set the gear retract on a Baron and it would
pull up the gear on the ground if you bounced around too much. I
tried it in the sim, and it happens in the sim, too.

> There is a monumental difference between sitting in front of a screen
> and watching a two dimensional image, than being at the controls of an
> airplane and seeing the real world move past the glareshield.

Is there? I suppose that's a matter of opinion.

> By your logic of simulators being as close to reality as being in an
> airplane I can assume that I can safely operate a train with people on
> board, I can safely drive an 18 wheel truck, I can safely and with
> utter brilliance command a submarine, or surface naval vessel in
> combat.

Quite so. Sims have been used for trains for over 30 years. Sims
have come into use for tractor-trailer rigs over the past few years as
well. Often nearly all the training can be done in a sim; moving
about in real life is limited to the minimum necessary to prove that
one can pass a test.

> So , you may find a reasonable degree of
> succes trying to take off in a real Beech Baron, but you'll get chicken
> skin the moment you feel the torque pull you to the side as the turbos
> spool up ...

Why?

> For me... every time I come to work and fly the Dash 8s, not only am I
> using all my previously gained knowledge to make money for a company,
> I'm also dealing with people, and to an extent they are putting their
> lives in mine and the First Officers hands, and I would gladly walk up
> to any of them, standing next to you and tell them that "Yes, I have
> over 8,000 hours of flight time, but mxsmanic here has, say 35,000
> hours of simulated flying time in front of his computer at home without
> the guidance of an instructor or any license, who would you like to fly
> your plane?", 10 times out of 10 they are going to choose me over you.

It gets more complicated if the pilot has also had most of his
training in a sim. If passengers were told that their pilot had never
before flown the aircraft that they were in, they might get pretty
nervous, and yet that happens all the time these days.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Although I don't have it, there are some add-ons that apparently make
> ATC very real.

I think in your situation, you could profit greatly from VATSIM. That
would allow you to talk to other real people, instead of just the
machine. The only restriction is that the VATSIM network requires
that a given user name be used only by the user to whom it was issued
(you could not register just one name and then share it among all your
guests). However, registration is free.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Blanche writes:

> Thank you Bob. That's 2 of us explaining the difference between
> a game and a real flight simulator.

No, that's the FAA's definition of a flight simulator, which is not
definitive.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> He has supported it. "Been there, done that" is about as good as it
> gets for providing support.

No, it's actually no support at all. It amounts to "because I say
so," which is worthless.

> Now, tell us where MICROSOFT has claimed that their game has
> accurately simulated ALL aspects of the flight characteristics of
> ANY aircraft.

I've not paid much attention to anything that Microsoft claims. Why
are their claims important?

> BTW, I did a nonstop flight around the world in the fs9 Boeing 747,
> a couple of years ago, following the equator. With the default passenger
> loading. Do you think that can be done in the REAL plane?

Not to my knowledge. So what?

> Neither does experience, math, physics, or empirical data.

Try it.

> Moron!

> Moron!

> Moron!

Repetition does not make ad hominem arguments valid or persuasive.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> I find it interesting that you have not responded in any way to Dudley
> Henriques post in this thread.

Why? There are many posts to which I do not respond, for various
reasons.

> That you can't say he isn't an authority in
> either flight sims or actual flying is probably the reason.

Don't infer; ask.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Sure MSFS is fun. It's a game and it was designed to be. My jumping into
>> this thread was because folks, including you Jay, were implying that the
>> flight model has few flaws and while I agree it is a good training aid
>> for
>> procedures I stand by my stance that it isn't a good training aid for
>> flying.
>
> Which flaws do you find objectionable, specifically?
>
Stalls and slow flight are the biggest I've noticed.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Well since the MVP of Flight Simulator Dudley Henriques, a retired Flight
>> Instructor and [MVP] For Microsoft Flight Simulator will quote and seem
>> to
>> agree with a university study that says ...
>
> Dudley's opinion is best obtained from his posts, not yours. And if
> your post only repeats someone else's opinion, it wastes bandwidth.
>
I agree but you never seem to respond to his posts.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Jose writes:
>
>> If you had two equivalent people who had little or no piloting
>> experience (just a few times maybe of "wanna take the controls?" as a
>> passenger), and they had to make an emergency landing due to pilot
>> incapacitation, would the one that has had some MSFS experience be
>> likely to have a better outcome?
>
> Yes.
>

What is your support for that blanket reply? I ask because you generally
require anyone responding to you to support such statements.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> If slow flight and stalling isn't modeled right you can't learn to fly in
>> it.
>
> What parts of slow flight and stalling are being modeled incorrectly
> in MSFS?
>

It's really hard to explain and it varies aircraft to aircraft in real life
but it seems like all the planes in MSFS do the same thing and even then it
isn't doing like it does in real life. I think the main thing is the visual
clues don't make up for the lack of feel where they do in other flight
profiles.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Not a dime. The same amount you have spent on actual flying. So I should
>> have as much authority to talk about it as you do flying real aircraft.
>
> Price has nothing to do with authority. It has a lot to do with the
> accuracy of the flight model, however.
>

Well the same guy did one for X-plane and it doesn't have the same issue.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Sensations are a HUGE part of flying.

Perhaps they are for you. They aren't necessarily that way for
everyone.

> Vision-
> The average person has between 170 and 175 degrees of vision and uses it all
> in real flight.
> In SIM flight depending on screen used you might have 90 degrees. Yes this
> can be improved but the cost is significant and I'd guess the vast majority
> of MSFS users don't have multiple monitors.

I have 360° in MSFS.

> In real flight you feel the stick or yoke and the forces acting against it.

That depends on the aircraft.

> You also feel the aircraft moving and changing direction.

Unfortunately, you cannot always trust what you feel.

> This movement when backed up with visual clues, either from outside the
> plane or instruments help you finely control the aircraft.

Or, more specifically, the visual and instrument information allow you
to control the aircraft. The movement isn't always trustworthy.

> In sim flight there are no forces acting on the stick/yoke with the
> exception of springs or in the best case force feedback which doesn't
> simulate reality well at all.

That depends on the aircraft being simulated. Cirrus aircraft use
springs, too.

> With a proper set up I'll give the sims a real A+ on this issue and will say
> that it is damn good a simulating reality.

Not that the drone of engines gradually driving you deaf is terribly
useful to flying.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Stalls and slow flight are the biggest I've noticed.

What are the differences between MSFS and real aircraft in the domains
of stalls and slow flight?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> The point of the question is along the lines of "here's a Significant
> Other who flies with me a lot, would it be useful for her to fly MSFS on
> occasion, and would I be able to teach her useful stuff on it"?

Definitely yes, if you mean to increase potential survival chances in
an emergency.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Key word here is *teach*, and with a legitimate teacher, which you are.

Let's not get into my parentage. :)

> If you've got the time and your s/o has the interest I see no reason not to
> train them to the full extent of their abilities on the thing.

That's my thinking.

> That being said it wouldn't be a terrible idea to do a bit of teaching in
> the actual plane so they can feel what real control pressures are like.

Also agreed. Though she's reluctant to take the controls, she has in
fact taken an erzats pinch hitter course and landed the airplane
successfully.

Dudley seems to disagree (though I don't know if he'd disagree with this
particular scenario) about using MSFS for training purposes.

> I think the most important thing to teach the passenger is enough radio
> technique to get on 121.5 and yell for help.

Yes, and that's not something the simulator does well (without hardware
add-ons). I'd disagree with "yell", and with 121.5. If I'm already
getting flight following when I keel over, it makes little sense to
switch. But that's part of the teaching.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

Mark Levin writes:

> I think the most important thing to teach the passenger is enough radio
> technique to get on 121.5 and yell for help.

Aviate, navigate, _then_ communicate. She wouldn't be able to yell
for help and get it fast enough to survive if she knew nothing at all
about how to fly the plane.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> What is your support for that blanket reply?

The same as yours: Because I said so.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> I agree but you never seem to respond to his posts.

So?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Sensations are a HUGE part of flying.
>
> Perhaps they are for you. They aren't necessarily that way for
> everyone.

OK. I call for a vote.

Are sensations a HUGE part of flying:

Gig 601XL - yes
Steve Foley - yes
Anthony - no

anyone else?

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> writes:
>
>> A simulator (with any Force Feedback system available at the local
>> computer store) is nowhere close to re-creating the forces excerted
>> on the controls by the atmosphere.
>
> The feedback forces of the controls vary from one type of aircraft to
> another, from one model of aircraft to another, and even from one tail
> number to another. In fact, they even vary from time to time on a
> single airframe after maintenance is performed, or with wear and tear.
> So worrying excessively about a precise simulation of these forces in
> a sim is unjustified.
>
The above are a number of absurd statements. The precise differences in
feedback forces between planes, models, tail numbers, etc. is not the
point; there is a *big* difference between having feedback forces and none
at all *or* of the force feedback controllers that one can find at the
local computer store.

> Another example: If the pressure exerted by the yoke against your arms
> varies between 9 and 11 lbs in a certain configuration on a certain
> aircraft in a certain situation, there is no reason to insist that a
> sim reproduce this pressure with a precision of 0.01 lbs. The
> real-world variation is much greater than the sim's precision, so the
> sim is "as real as it need get."
>
Another example of an absurdity. It is not a matter of "precision of 0.01
lbs.", because the average person wouldn't notice such a thing anyway.
Yet, there *is* a noticeable difference between MSFS w/force feedback
controller and a real plane. Go figure.

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> It's a simulator for this sake of this conversation... according to the
> FAA it's a game.

Where does the FAA define a game?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> It's really hard to explain and it varies aircraft to aircraft in real life
> but it seems like all the planes in MSFS do the same thing and even then it
> isn't doing like it does in real life. I think the main thing is the visual
> clues don't make up for the lack of feel where they do in other flight
> profiles.

That really isn't specific enough to help, nor is it specific enough
to demonstrate that there really is an error in MSFS modeling with
respect to these flight situations.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[N2310D]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Stalls and slow flight are the biggest I've noticed.
>
> What are the differences between MSFS and real aircraft in the domains
> of stalls and slow flight?

A lot. Take a flight to find out.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Sensations are a HUGE part of flying.
>
> Perhaps they are for you. They aren't necessarily that way for
> everyone.
>

Please find me one pilot that doesn't feel sensations are major factor in
flight feel free to have them to speak up.


>> Vision-
>> The average person has between 170 and 175 degrees of vision and uses it
>> all
>> in real flight.
>> In SIM flight depending on screen used you might have 90 degrees. Yes
>> this
>> can be improved but the cost is significant and I'd guess the vast
>> majority
>> of MSFS users don't have multiple monitors.
>
> I have 360° in MSFS.
>

Not at one time and if you didn't know exactly whay I meant you are being
ignorant.


>> In real flight you feel the stick or yoke and the forces acting against
>> it.
>
> That depends on the aircraft.
>

Yes it does but with the exception of F-B-W aircraft which neither I nor
most of the pilots in this group have ever flown it is a factor and it would
really surprise me if control forces are generated in most F-B-W aircraft
and if they are I'll bet they don't fell like force feedback systems
available for PCs



>> You also feel the aircraft moving and changing direction.
>
> Unfortunately, you cannot always trust what you feel.
>

Which is why I wrote...

>> This movement when backed up with visual clues, either from outside the
>> plane or instruments help you finely control the aircraft.
>
> Or, more specifically, the visual and instrument information allow you
> to control the aircraft. The movement isn't always trustworthy.
>

The instruments aren't always trustworthy either.

>> In sim flight there are no forces acting on the stick/yoke with the
>> exception of springs or in the best case force feedback which doesn't
>> simulate reality well at all.
>
> That depends on the aircraft being simulated. Cirrus aircraft use
> springs, too.
>

But they are connected to the control surfaces

>> With a proper set up I'll give the sims a real A+ on this issue and will
>> say
>> that it is damn good a simulating reality.
>
> Not that the drone of engines gradually driving you deaf is terribly
> useful to flying.
>

That drone is the best sound in the world. What you don't want to hear is
uncommanded changes in that drone or worse yet no drone at all.

[Mxsmanic]

N2310D writes:

> A lot. Take a flight to find out.

No. Explain the differences to me, if you can.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[N2310D]

Yes

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:L1kdh.5396$sM2.4463@trndny05...
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>>
>>> Sensations are a HUGE part of flying.
>>
>> Perhaps they are for you. They aren't necessarily that way for
>> everyone.
>
> OK. I call for a vote.
>
> Are sensations a HUGE part of flying:
>
> Gig 601XL - yes
> Steve Foley - yes
> Anthony - no
>
> anyone else?
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> It's really hard to explain and it varies aircraft to aircraft in real
>> life
>> but it seems like all the planes in MSFS do the same thing and even then
>> it
>> isn't doing like it does in real life. I think the main thing is the
>> visual
>> clues don't make up for the lack of feel where they do in other flight
>> profiles.
>
> That really isn't specific enough to help, nor is it specific enough
> to demonstrate that there really is an error in MSFS modeling with
> respect to these flight situations.
>

Help me out then. Please explain to me how you think the MSFS model of
stalls and slow flight are a good simulation of the real thing.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mark Levin" > wrote in message
...
>
> On 5-Dec-2006, "Steve Foley" > wrote:
>
>> Are sensations a HUGE part of flying:
>
> Absolutely.

The vote now stands at 3 to 1.

[Jose[_1_]]

> As far as navigating... well I'll assume that's beyond the ability of the
> average non-pilot passenger, and not really necessary if they can get help.

Actually, navigation is well within their capabilities once they know
how to read a compass and chart and recognize an airport from the air.
If the passenger is following along with the flight anyway, they have a
fair idea of where they are.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> OK. I call for a vote.
>
> Are sensations a HUGE part of flying:
>
> Gig 601XL - yes
> Steve Foley - yes
> Anthony - no

Jose - moderately. They are a huge part of =maneuvering= in flight.
There are other important aspects of flight that are independent of this
though (navigation, ATC coordination, decisionmaking...) which make the
difference between "daddy, can I fly?" and being a pilot. So, the
answer really depends what you mean by "flying".

What I will call "stick and rudder flying", for which sensations are
extremely important, cannot be well simulated on any reasonable MSFS
setup. They can be poorly imitated, but this is sufficient for
entertainment.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...

> Dudley seems to disagree (though I don't know if he'd disagree with this
> particular scenario) about using MSFS for training purposes.

Hi Jose;

Let me expand a bit here if I may.

My professional opinion on the use of MSFS in the training process isn't a
blanket condemnation of the product for this purpose by a long shot. In
fact, the only restriction I suggest to the flight training community when
engaged as an advisor on training curriculum is to restrict the sim's use
during the crucial training period between the first hour of dual given and
solo; this for the critical reason that the learning of control pressures
required to produce a given change in the flight dynamic of a specific
aircraft will vary with airspeed (slugs on the surfaces if you will :-) and
"feeling" the airplane is a critical part of this early training stage.
This having been said, as both a flight instructor and someone personally
associated with the Microsoft effort to improve the simulator, I certainly
would approve of it's use in training; the only caveat being the stipulation
concerning control pressures.
To address your question about the pinch hitter program; yes, I would
certainly recommend that you use the program for that purpose, but again,
with complete knowledge of it's limitations.
The sim can actually play a valuable part in a pinch hitter program if used
properly and with proper supervision.
There are many things appropriate to the pinch hitter scenario that the sim
can duplicate.
I have set up and run several pinch hitter programs at different times
during my career, and there are several aspects of the scenario that are
unique. First of all, there are the psychological factors involved. Perhaps
the most difficult part of a pinch hitter program is in the realization that
the pinch hitter will be operating the aircraft during a period involving
extremely high stress factors, and will, while in this environment, have to
perform with the aircraft the right way, the first time.
These are critical factors, and even more so than in the new student
scenario, tend to emphasize the need for the pinch hitter to be familiar
with control pressures.
This opens the door for just how much and how little a desk top flight
simulator can accomplish in the pinch hitter scenario.
The answer is that the sim has certain uses in this scenario. For example,
considering the do it right/do it the first time aspect of the PH situation,
the sim can be used for example, to demonstrate how pitch controls airspeed
and throttle controls rate of descent on the approach to the runway. The sim
can also demonstrate how one aiming spot on the ground can be used by the PH
to judge the approach. It can also be used to create the critical mental
image of an approach "window" at the approach end of the intended landing
area or runway where the PH must put the airplane at the right airspeed; the
right altitude; and in a landing attitude.
In other words, there are aspects of a PH program where the sim has
practical uses.
Now...this having been said, it is absolutely critical that anyone going
through a PH program be flown in the actual airplane and allowed to
experience control pressures. This is critical because control pressures
relate directly to the rate of change in the aircraft flight dynamic, and in
the actual situation where the PH must land the airplane, it's
imperative......and I repeat it again....it's IMPERATIVE...that the PH have
an element of expectation of result as control pressures are applied
attempting the landing.
Of course, there is much more associated with any good PH program, but these
are the basics.
Bottom line is by all means, use the simulator, but use it knowing it's
advantages and limitations.
Hope this explanation helps a bit.
Dudley Henriques
Retired Flight Instructor
[MVP] Microsoft Flight Simulator

[Jose[_1_]]

> Come on man.... Are you telling me that you'd rather have your non-pilot
> passenger plot a compass course to the nearest airport, grabbing the chart
> from your dead hands no doubt, before calling on the radio for help and
> getting a vector?

They don't need to "plot a compass course", they just need to read the
compass to know which way they are flying, read the chart well enough to
follow the river, and look out the window well enough to recognize an
airport.

Tuning radios and putting in squawk codes should be done ONLY when the
airplane is fully under control, and likely to remain so. They need to
be able to say something coherent on the radio. Even knowing roughly
where they are and which way they're pointing helps a lot in locating
the airplane on radar (and would be essential outside of a radar
environment)

In any case, it's not "beyond the capabilities of a passenger" to do
these things. They are fairly simple (and can be taught on the ground).
The key is maintaining control over the airplane, and getting to the
(new) destination.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>> OK. I call for a vote.
>>
>> Are sensations a HUGE part of flying:
>>
>> Gig 601XL - yes
>> Steve Foley - yes
>> Anthony - no
>
> Jose - moderately. They are a huge part of =maneuvering= in flight. There
> are other important aspects of flight that are independent of this though
> (navigation, ATC coordination, decisionmaking...) which make the
> difference between "daddy, can I fly?" and being a pilot. So, the answer
> really depends what you mean by "flying".
>
> What I will call "stick and rudder flying", for which sensations are
> extremely important, cannot be well simulated on any reasonable MSFS
> setup. They can be poorly imitated, but this is sufficient for
> entertainment.
>
> Jose
> --

Well then we are going to have to though you in with the "yes" bunch because
we are talking about the totality of flying. Hell, you don't even need a
computer to simulate the other stuff pretty well.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jose > posted:

>> As far as navigating... well I'll assume that's beyond the ability
>> of the average non-pilot passenger, and not really necessary if they
>> can get help.
>
> Actually, navigation is well within their capabilities once they know
> how to read a compass and chart and recognize an airport from the air.
> If the passenger is following along with the flight anyway, they have
> a fair idea of where they are.
>
My wife has been learning to associate chart markings with what she sees
out of the window, but that "learning" bit is non-trivial. Also, I
sometimes find it difficult to recognize an airport from the air in
congested areas unless it is conveniently close and the weather is crystal
clear, and I do know what I'm looking for and where it's likely to be. I
don't think that a non-pilot passenger is likely to do better. Could it be
that once we get the hang of flying, we underestimate all that went into
getting the hang of flying?

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Steve Foley > posted:

> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>>
>>> Sensations are a HUGE part of flying.
>>
>> Perhaps they are for you. They aren't necessarily that way for
>> everyone.
>
> OK. I call for a vote.
>
> Are sensations a HUGE part of flying:
>
> Gig 601XL - yes
> Steve Foley - yes
> Anthony - no
>
Neil - yes

[Jose[_1_]]

> My wife has been learning to associate chart markings with what she sees
> out of the window, but that "learning" bit is non-trivial. Also, I
> sometimes find it difficult to recognize an airport from the air in
> congested areas unless it is conveniently close and the weather is crystal
> clear, and I do know what I'm looking for and where it's likely to be. I
> don't think that a non-pilot passenger is likely to do better. Could it be
> that once we get the hang of flying, we underestimate all that went into
> getting the hang of flying?

Perhaps. But as Pilot In Command, we have to do much more with charts
than a pinch hitter would. A passenger can use charts as a passenger
and learn that way. Not all airports are easy to see, that's also
useful for them to know.

Maybe it is better that they fiddle with radios instead of charts, but
the first thing is to keep the dirty side down while they're doing it.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Sensations are a HUGE part of flying.
>
[...]
(Re: sound simulation)
>> With a proper set up I'll give the sims a real A+ on this issue and
>> will say that it is damn good a simulating reality.
>
> Not that the drone of engines gradually driving you deaf is terribly
> useful to flying.
>
And, you know this, how?

That drone is quite informative, beyond the obvious indication that you
have a problem when things go "clunk!". I listen to viery slight changes
of pitch to indicate whether I'm climbing or descending, for example if
I'm holding a turn around a point. Look at the point, listen to the drone.
As a musician with perfect relative pitch, I can easily hold altitude this
way.

This is consistent with your other lacks of knowledge about the real-world
of flying GA. You don't understand the sensations associated with flying,
so you dismiss their importance.

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Please find me one pilot that doesn't feel sensations are major factor in
> flight feel free to have them to speak up.

Pilots clearly tend to feel that sensations are important to them.
That doesn't mean that sensations are an important part of flight.
Autopilots feel no sensations but fly admirably well.

My theory is that the greater the emphasis on sensations, the greater
the thrill-seeking behavior of the pilot.

> Not at one time ...

Depending on the angle I set in the view, I have perhaps 50-90 degrees
at one time (I don't know the exact limits).

Can you see traffic at your six o'clock position in a real aircraft?

> Yes it does but with the exception of F-B-W aircraft which neither I nor
> most of the pilots in this group have ever flown it is a factor and it would
> really surprise me if control forces are generated in most F-B-W aircraft
> and if they are I'll bet they don't fell like force feedback systems
> available for PCs

Since you admit that all aicraft don't produce the same feedback, why
do you think it is so important?

> The instruments aren't always trustworthy either.

They are as trustworthy as anything gets.

> But they are connected to the control surfaces

It still produces an "artificial" feedback.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> You don't understand the sensations associated with flying,
> so you dismiss their importance.

You overestimate the importance of sensations associated with flying,
and so you exaggerate their significance.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> Pilots clearly tend to feel that sensations are important to them.
> That doesn't mean that sensations are an important part of flight.

Thanks for point that out.

I would have stupidly believed a pilot as to what is important to flight.

It's a good thing you're poking your nose in to straighten us out.

[N2310D]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> N2310D writes:
>
>> A lot. Take a flight to find out.
>
> No. Explain the differences to me, if you can.

I can. I won't.

You brag about your ability to research while you deride responses from
experienced pilots on this newsgroup. Go do your research.... or take a
flight in a real airplane.

[gatt]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
>> Neither will the Arrow II that I fly. At least, it's not approved for
>> spins. So what's the difference?
>>
>
> It is an example that there is a problem with the flight model. If there
> is a problem there where else is there a problem.

Well, I can and have flown the approaches in the flight sim and then flown
them in the actual aircraft under VFR, IFR, simulated IFR and during my IFR
checkride. So for me, wherever there's a problem isn't my problem. If I
happen to spin the Arrow or 172 during one of those approaches, the accuracy
of the modelling in Flight Sim isn't going to do me much good one way or
t'other.

In the meantime, I save a lot of money by practicing the approaches and
getting better at reading the plates and instruments and going through the
flight plans and checklists such that these things are quicker to manage
when I'm actually in the cockpit. To me, that's highly valuable regardless
of the complexity of the terrain, spin modelling or realism of the flight
control inputs.
-c

[Jose[_1_]]

> Incidentally setting a transponder code and squawking ident is something
> that MSFS simulates pretty poorly

Agreed. So poorly it's incredible.

Actually I'm surprised that joysticks don't come with a few knobs. It
would make all the difference.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Please find me one pilot that doesn't feel sensations are major factor in
>> flight feel free to have them to speak up.
>
> Pilots clearly tend to feel that sensations are important to them.
> That doesn't mean that sensations are an important part of flight.
> Autopilots feel no sensations but fly admirably well.

How exactly DO you think an autopilot keeps the wings level?

Most use gyros and gyros sence....... say it with me.... motion.


>
> My theory is that the greater the emphasis on sensations, the greater
> the thrill-seeking behavior of the pilot.
>

Well defend your theory.


>> Not at one time ...
>
> Depending on the angle I set in the view, I have perhaps 50-90 degrees
> at one time (I don't know the exact limits).
>

Which is pretty much what I wrote.


> Can you see traffic at your six o'clock position in a real aircraft?
>

Depends on the airplane. The one I'm building will allow me to see six
o'clock if it is a higher altidude than I am. And if your simulator is
simulating an aircraft correctly be it a 172 or a 737 then you will have
the same view as a pilot would.

>> Yes it does but with the exception of F-B-W aircraft which neither I nor
>> most of the pilots in this group have ever flown it is a factor and it
>> would
>> really surprise me if control forces are generated in most F-B-W aircraft
>> and if they are I'll bet they don't fell like force feedback systems
>> available for PCs
>
> Since you admit that all aicraft don't produce the same feedback, why
> do you think it is so important?
>

Because I'm not expected to go jump in a 737 or any other plane I've never
flown and be able to fly it. Each type of airplane is different and it takes
even a high time pilot to get used to a certain type of aircraft.

The FEEL of stick and rudder pressures are one of the first two things a
pilot tests when acting as a test pilot.


>> The instruments aren't always trustworthy either.
>
> They are as trustworthy as anything gets.
>
>> But they are connected to the control surfaces
>
> It still produces an "artificial" feedback.
>

The spring in the Cirrus is there to help show where center is because of
the unusual side grip stick. It doesn't reduce the feedback from the control
surfaces..

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> You don't understand the sensations associated with flying,
>> so you dismiss their importance.
>
> You overestimate the importance of sensations associated with flying,
> and so you exaggerate their significance.
>

You underestimate the importance of sensations associated with flying,
and so you exaggerate their insignificance.

Of the pilots that have spoken up none have agreed with you. Do you really
think that you could not be wrong here? If you do decide that you could be
wrong what will be needed for you to admit it?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>> Neither will the Arrow II that I fly. At least, it's not approved for
>>> spins. So what's the difference?
>>>
>>
>> It is an example that there is a problem with the flight model. If there
>> is a problem there where else is there a problem.
>
> Well, I can and have flown the approaches in the flight sim and then flown
> them in the actual aircraft under VFR, IFR, simulated IFR and during my
> IFR checkride. So for me, wherever there's a problem isn't my problem.
> If I happen to spin the Arrow or 172 during one of those approaches, the
> accuracy of the modelling in Flight Sim isn't going to do me much good one
> way or t'other.
>
> In the meantime, I save a lot of money by practicing the approaches and
> getting better at reading the plates and instruments and going through the
> flight plans and checklists such that these things are quicker to manage
> when I'm actually in the cockpit. To me, that's highly valuable
> regardless of the complexity of the terrain, spin modelling or realism of
> the flight control inputs.
> -c

Gatt, nobody is saying that MSFS isn't good for what you are using it for.
The issues I have with it are more of a problem for new student level pilots
and those that think they can become pilots simply by flying the sim.

[Jay Beckman]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>> Incidentally setting a transponder code and squawking ident is something
>> that MSFS simulates pretty poorly
>
> Agreed. So poorly it's incredible.
>
> Actually I'm surprised that joysticks don't come with a few knobs. It
> would make all the difference.
>
> Jose
> --

???

Please tell me you're kidding.

Have you not ever seen a CH yoke that has many buttons as well as a
throttle, mixture and prop controls...?
Have you not ever seen a Thrustmaster rig (separate joystick and throttle)
that is modeled after the HOTAS concept of modern fighters like the F16?
IIRC, it can be programmed to handle some 70 different things without ever
touching your keyboard.

Ok, now I'm sure you're kidding me.

Jay B

[Jay Beckman]

Go Gig Go...

You'll get that Pig to sing eventually...

LOL

Jay B

[Jose[_1_]]

> Please tell me you're kidding.

I'm not kidding. I've seen joysticks with throttles, sliders, millions
of buttons, (ok, I'm kidding about that one), and little hat switches.
What I have =not= seen is one with a knob that turns like a radio tuning
knob. At least not one in the $60 range. Spend enough and you can get
anything, but radio knobs should have long ago made it down to the ten
dollar sticks.

If you know of one that has such a knob, I'd be interested. (and in
that vein, how would I get MSFS 2002 to respond to it by tuning the radios?)

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Blanche]

yes -- there's no way MSFS can provide nor produce the same tactile and
physiological feeling of air pockets, the landing "bump", turbulence,
spins, the need to land *immediately* when you have one of those
"bad sushi" episodes, seeing an F-16 along side (or these days, a
Coast Guard helicopter), and so on...

[[email protected]]

> The feedback forces of the controls vary from one type of aircraft to
> another, from one model of aircraft to another, and even from one tail
> number to another. In fact, they even vary from time to time on a
> single airframe after maintenance is performed, or with wear and tear.
> So worrying excessively about a precise simulation of these forces in
> a sim is unjustified.

I tried to reason with you... it's impossible... you're a copmlete
numbskull.

> I'll give you perfect example. In my sim, I've found that it's hard
> to be sure when the control surfaces are positioned exactly at their
> neutral positions. However, some here may recall that I asked about
> how one determines the neutral positions of control surfaces in real
> aircraft. I was told that there isn't really an exact neutral
> position per se in most real aircraft. Given this, I stopped fretting
> about the exact neutral position in the sim. Maybe I have the rudder
> perfectly centered, maybe not. But in real life I wouldn't have it
> any more precisely positioned than I do in the sim, so why seek a
> precision in the sim that is overwhelmed by random variations in the
> real world?

I see you've been in the WC reloading for another speech.

> Another example: If the pressure exerted by the yoke against your arms
> varies between 9 and 11 lbs in a certain configuration on a certain
> aircraft in a certain situation, there is no reason to insist that a
> sim reproduce this pressure with a precision of 0.01 lbs. The
> real-world variation is much greater than the sim's precision, so the
> sim is "as real as it need get."

This was already addressed, it's not the same and it doesn't come down
to lbs.

> If you can't start an engine, you aren't going to be flying anywhere,
> in the sim or in real life. You're not flying when you start the
> engine.

But it's part of being a pilot, and you have close to no idea how an
airplane engine works... one of the requirnments of a real pilot is
that they understand how the airplane they are flying workds...

To show your expertise on the Beech Baron exaplain to me please how the
variable pitchs propeller on the Baron works. Explain to me and
identify the components of the gear and flap systems.

The reason you cannot do this is because you are not a real pilot, nor
have you received any training.

> > A simulator does not re create the stresses that you feel being
> > excerted upon the aircraft, such as the distinct sound of an engine
> > operating at too high of a manifold pressure for the engine to handle.
>
>So? Here again, this is something that varies by aircraft type, aircraft
> model, flight configuration, weather, engine condition, tail number,
> and so on. There is no need for a perfectly faithful reproduction of
> a real aircraft, unless the sim is designed to reproduce only that
> single tail number in only that single instant of time, and nothing
> else.

So? It's not the real thing.

> > A simulator does not re create the changes of trim as the cowl flaps
> > are retracted.
>
> On the aircraft I fly in the sim, the cowl flaps have no effect on
> trim. Someone complained about that, and it turns out that they have
> no effect on trim in real life, either.

Hey cretin... it does... step into a Cardinal and pull them up and feel
that plane start descending.

> You don't really need a sim for that. You can just pretend.

But ah... real life and being a real pilot is not about "pretending",
it's about real life and real people, not sociopaths.

> That depends on the simulator.

It doesn't plain and simple and there is no way to simulate what the
aircraft does during that.

> Some simulators do--MS FSX does. I don't know if MSFS 2004 does.
>
> The G forces are no big deal unless you are doing aerobatics.

You've never felt them... how would you know Mr. Expert?

Again you don't, I'd love to see you get thrown about a cabin and tell
me that they're meaningless.

> > It allows you to pause and get a drink.
>
> You can get a drink in flight, too. It's even a good idea.

Wheres the pause button on my Dash 8? SHOW IT.

> Yes, they do, at least in MSFS. Landing in significant turbulence is
> quite a challenge. I've gone through two sets of gear in the past few
> days thanks to turbulence.

Significant turbulence... not calm air that is slighly turbulent near
the ground, you have no clue what I'm talking about.

> No, you bounce if you aren't careful. And if you bounce enough, you
> lose the gear. And if you bounce more than that, you crash.

Not like in a real airplane, something no computer can ever project
properly is ground friction.

> Someone said you could set the gear retract on a Baron and it would
> pull up the gear on the ground if you bounced around too much. I
> tried it in the sim, and it happens in the sim, too.

Not for the same reason.

> Is there? I suppose that's a matter of opinion.

Yes... my oppinion is you're psychotic.

> Quite so. Sims have been used for trains for over 30 years. Sims
> have come into use for tractor-trailer rigs over the past few years as
> well. Often nearly all the training can be done in a sim; moving
> about in real life is limited to the minimum necessary to prove that
> one can pass a test.

Yes... but all those sims have an instructor teaching the student...
noone gives a student a several million dollar piece of equipment and
says "do as you will".

> > So , you may find a reasonable degree of
> > succes trying to take off in a real Beech Baron, but you'll get chicken
> > skin the moment you feel the torque pull you to the side as the turbos
> > spool up ...
>
> Why?

Because you are not a pilot and you have never experienced the torque
effect of a propeller.

> It gets more complicated if the pilot has also had most of his
> training in a sim. If passengers were told that their pilot had never
> before flown the aircraft that they were in, they might get pretty
> nervous, and yet that happens all the time these days.

Huh?



Anyway... you're severly damaged in the head, this is my last attempt
to try to reason with you and present you with reality, you lack the
necessary coding in your head to do anything or be anyone in your life.

[Blanche]

Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>"Blanche" > wrote in message
>> Bob Moore > wrote:
wrote
>>>> You know I really hate the fact that all you do is claim that
>>>> simulators are just as good as real flight or better, their
>>>> not even close. And I'll give you a few reasons why real
>>>> flight is different.
>>>
>>>AviatorHI...dispite all of your claimed flight experience, you
>>>don't seem to understand just what constitutes a flight
>>>"simulator" by FAA definition.
>>>
>>>MSFS is NOT a flight simulator....it is a PC program. I spent
>>>6-7 years of my 24 year airline career teaching and checking in
>>>"real" simulators, and I can tell you that most of what you
>>>posted is just not true.
>>
>> Thank you Bob. That's 2 of us explaining the difference between
>> a game and a real flight simulator.
>>
>>
>
>Actually, three :-)
>
>Dudley Henriques

One more, and we can play a decent game of Bridge!

[Blanche]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
>Blanche writes:
>
>> Thank you Bob. That's 2 of us explaining the difference between
>> a game and a real flight simulator.
>
>No, that's the FAA's definition of a flight simulator, which is not
>definitive.

And pray tell, which organization would you accept as the definitive?

Remember, if your attention span lasts more than 90 seconds, that I
cited FAA and CAA, and Bob provided the text of the FAA definition.

In the US, that's all that's necessary for the court system. And that
is "definitive".

[N2310D]

"Blanche" > wrote in message
...

>>
>>Actually, three :-)
>>
>>Dudley Henriques
>
> One more, and we can play a decent game of Bridge!

You can do it now, Blanche, except in this case the dummy is a permanent
fixture. Not sure how you'd do with that.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> One more, and we can play a decent game of Bridge!

To tell you the truth Blanche, I don't think I'll live long enough to where
I can play a decent game of bridge.
:-)))
Dudley

[Bob Noel]

In article <L1kdh.5396$sM2.4463@trndny05>,
"Steve Foley" > wrote:

> OK. I call for a vote.
>
> Are sensations a HUGE part of flying:
>
> Gig 601XL - yes
> Steve Foley - yes
> Anthony - no
>
> anyone else?

define "huge"? :-)

(btw - I'd probably vote yes)

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Michael[_1_]]

Jon Kraus wrote:
> Oh really. Have you flown in any clouds so you can make that statement
> honestly?

I've done my share of cloud flying in a variety of light airplanes, and
I agree with him. I've also used quite a few FTD's, both for my own
training and as an instructor, including a full-motion (electric) with
visuals GA FTD certified for full IPC's (and helped fine-tune the
flight model) and must say that even the basic MSFS flight model is
superior to what you get in the certified world at the GA level.

> In my always humble opinion there is a huge difference
> between flying IMC for real and playing a computer game.

Not really. If anything, MSFS is more difficult because the feel of
the airplane (which provides some cues) isn't there - you have to do it
on pure scan. If you can fly the IFR procedures in MSFS, you can do it
in a GA airplane - and in most GA airplanes, it will be easier.

The only real difference between doing it on MSFS vs doing it for real
is that the consequences of not doing well are a lot more severe.
Flying an actual airplane does require more money, and more guts (or
tolerance for risk, if you want to be politically correct about it) but
it does not require more skill and knowledge.

> If MSFS were
> "as real as it gets" then why can't your time playing be logged?

Because the decision on what can be logged is made by FAA bureaucrats -
in other words, useless bloody loonies. The relationship between FAA
regulation and common sense is far from deterministic. I've got some
experience on old-style FTD's that could be used for logging time -
they are inferior to MSFS in every respect.

MSFS is an excellent flight training tool for IFR, and is decent (but
not great) for VFR.

Michael

[Al G[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Please find me one pilot that doesn't feel sensations are major factor in
>> flight feel free to have them to speak up.
>
> Pilots clearly tend to feel that sensations are important to them.

Pilots have human brains. Brains respond to "sensations", sometimes as
you would expect, sometimes not.


> That doesn't mean that sensations are an important part of flight.

For me, survival is "Important".


Google "Spatial Disorientation", or "Vertigo" you arrogant little twit.
Better yet, take a "Low Pressure/Night vision" course sometime. Maybe you
can simulate it.

Al G

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote
>
> I tried to reason with you... it's impossible... you're a copmlete
> numbskull.

That is a given, by now apparent to everyone.

Do your best, and if everyone does their best, to not even respond to him at
all. The sooner everyone does that, the sooner we will be rid of him.

Yes, you can go all the way down his posts and point out that he is wrong. It
won't do any good. It only serves to prolong his presence.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Nomen Nescio" > wrote

> Moron!

Everyone knows that, Nomen. Ignore him, and don't respond at all. We all know
what he posts is drivel. No need to point it out in a response.

The sooner nobody responds, the sooner he will be gone.

I'll be quiet, now. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> You don't understand the sensations associated with flying,
>> so you dismiss their importance.
>
> You overestimate the importance of sensations associated with flying,
> and so you exaggerate their significance.
>
Well, one of us can actually fly an airplane. Since that excludes you,
perhaps you'll enlighten us as to how you arrived at your conclusion?

Neil

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Okay, I know this one has been beaten up before -- but my eyes are now
> wide open to the possibilities a sim can provide. Here are a few data
> points for discussion:
>
> 1. IFR Flight
><big snip>

>I've been using our hotel's night manager (a fellow we've taken flying
> a couple of times, but who has no flight training experience) as a
> guinea pig, and he has really progressed nicely in just a few days of
> practice. Not only is he now able to land the sim reliably, but he has
> learned an awful lot about basic flight procedures and conditions
> during various portions of flight -- without burning a gallon of avgas.
>
>
> I think you could probably shave several hours off of your Private by
> practicing in the Kiwi -- and it will be invaluable to me as an
> instrument procedures trainer.
>
> Besides just being a helluva lot of fun, of course!
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Well MSFS I'm sure can be fun. And I'm equally sure it can provide a lot of
learning lessons. And, no doubt, help you with IFR procedures. Plus when you
push on this, the airplane does that...

However, I think you would agree that sittting in front of a computer by
yourself (no instructor, no pilot in the other seat to learn from) won't
teach you how to fly.

For example. There is a person who frequents this news group who claims to
have been flying MSFS for "years" and apparently puts a great deal of
thought and effort into it, but looking at this thread alone I find:

"I collapsed the nose gear landing at KCID just last night, after an
ILS approach to runway 27."

"Only a few days earlier, in similarly gusty weather, I lost all the
gear landing in fog at Logan International."

"I've tried engine failures on a number of occasions, although mostly
in the Baron. That and attempts with failures in a single-engine
plane have taught me that engine failures need to be avoided at all
costs. Particularly with just one engine, there's a good chance that
you won't make it, period."
From other threads it is very clear that this person lacks basic pilotage
skills and has to rely on the gauges to navigate. He also doesn't seem to
understand how someone gets disoriented in the air. And, with some effort, I
could probably find other shortcomings with his skills.

Clearly "learn yourself flying" from MSFS isn't working.

NOTE: Let me be VERY clear, I'm not trying to pick on anyone - I am trying
to look at the process, not the person. I'm sure that the effort expended in
trying to learn has been sincere, but the results appear to be spotty at
best.

It seems obvious to me, that one really needs to spend some time in an
airplane with another pilot to get the basics down. Your manager has had the
benefit of watching others as well as having you standing over his shoulder
coaching him, - right? That's a far cry from "trial and error" learning on
your own - that's a tough row to hoe. (Note that no one ever calls it "trial
and succeed".) Jay, would you agree that stepping into an airplane would
still be a chalenge for your manager? And, (again with someone instructing
or coaching) would it give his skills a big boost?

I think this kind of simulator can _augment_ training in an aircraft, but
it doesn't replace it.

Geoff OUT.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Blanche]

In article <cjndh.8305$Ga7.8256@trnddc01>, N2310D > wrote:
>
>"Blanche" > wrote in message
>
>>>
>>>Actually, three :-)
>>>
>>>Dudley Henriques
>>
>> One more, and we can play a decent game of Bridge!
>
> You can do it now, Blanche, except in this case the dummy is a permanent
>fixture. Not sure how you'd do with that.

*spit take*

[Dudley Henriques]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> ups.com...

>>I've been using our hotel's night manager (a fellow we've taken flying
>> a couple of times, but who has no flight training experience) as a
>> guinea pig, and he has really progressed nicely in just a few days of
>> practice. Not only is he now able to land the sim reliably, but he has
>> learned an awful lot about basic flight procedures and conditions
>> during various portions of flight -- without burning a gallon of avgas.

I knew it!! You guys are sticking Mary doing room and tax balancing the
night audit while you two go and play with the new toy!!!
:-))
Dudley

[Blanche]

I admit defeat, and I think everyone else should also. It is sorely
obvious that each and every one of us has no valid knowledge or
experience relevant to aircraft and aviation. It is also obvious,
glaringly so, that only, and I repeat, ONLY Anthony has the
entire collection of the Secrets of the Universe and Staying Up in
the Atmosphere in Winged Vehicle.

Hence we should all genuflect in the direction of Paris and never
again presume to contradict nor comment nor remark upon His Most
Expert and All-Encompassing Knowledge. For afterall, we are merely
unworthy Mortals, who have no ability to coruscate nor countenance
any iota of valid data with regards to Aviation.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Blanche" > wrote in message
...

>For afterall, we are merely
> unworthy Mortals, who have no ability to coruscate nor countenance
> any iota of valid data with regards to Aviation.

"coruscate"

Blanche, I'm not absolutely certain mind you, but I think the ability to use
this word in a sentence automatically qualifies you for an ATP :-)

Dudley Henriques

[Dave[_3_]]

Oooooo...

Sounds lke the early days of AirWarrior!

Dave


On 5 Dec 2006 04:57:35 -0800, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>
>Everything (and there wasn't much) was rendered in wire frames, and the
>flight control was a mouse (Atari was very advanced, for the day, with
>a real GUI and everything!)

[Blanche]

Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>"Blanche" > wrote in message
>
>>For afterall, we are merely
>> unworthy Mortals, who have no ability to coruscate nor countenance
>> any iota of valid data with regards to Aviation.
>
>"coruscate"
>
>Blanche, I'm not absolutely certain mind you, but I think the ability to use
>this word in a sentence automatically qualifies you for an ATP :-)
>
>Dudley Henriques

*blush*

[Jay Beckman]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>> Please tell me you're kidding.
>
>I'm not kidding. I've seen joysticks with throttles, sliders, millions of
>buttons, (ok, I'm kidding about that one)

I've told you a billion times...Don't exagerate!! :O)

>and little hat switches. What I have =not= seen is one with a knob that
>turns like a radio tuning knob.

And you probably won't because you don't tune the radios on the yoke/stick
IRL either. There are, however, manufacturers who offer rack mountable
devices that mimick radios, ADFs, xpndrs, GPSs, etc. The only peripheral
I've seen that has any kind of rotary pot is the Thrustmaster jet-style
throttle quadrant. Most people who fly the combat jet sims use it for radar
range adjustments. I'm not sure if you could program it to "turn" the radio
knobs as this requires mouse clicks in MSFS.

>At least not one in the $60 range. Spend enough and you can get anything,
>but radio knobs should have long ago made it down to the ten dollar sticks.

Seems a bit unfair to expect something that doesn't exist in real life,
doesn't it?

Jay B

[Mxsmanic]

Blanche writes:

> yes -- there's no way MSFS can provide nor produce the same tactile and
> physiological feeling of air pockets, the landing "bump", turbulence,
> spins, the need to land *immediately* when you have one of those
> "bad sushi" episodes, seeing an F-16 along side (or these days, a
> Coast Guard helicopter), and so on...

None of these sound worth experiencing. The sim does have advantages
in some respects.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jose[_1_]]

> And you probably won't because you don't tune the radios on the yoke/stick
> IRL either.

So? You don't control engine speed on the yoke/stick, but some have
throttles. You certainly don't control the rudder with the stick, but a
twist is quite popular for rudder control.

> ...rack mountable devices that mimick radios, ADFs, xpndrs

Why duplicate in hardware what the software can already do? The only
thing I need is a tuning knob.

> I'm not sure if you could program it to "turn" the radio
> knobs as this requires mouse clicks in MSFS

....which is exactly why it would be so good to have.

> Seems a bit unfair to expect something that
> doesn't exist in real life, doesn't it?

Knobs don't exist in real life?

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> Thanks for point that out.

I point it out because it may well skew their viewpoints.

> I would have stupidly believed a pilot as to what is important to flight.

That's not what I said. I said that sensations are important to
pilots, not important to flight. These are not the same thing.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> How exactly DO you think an autopilot keeps the wings level?

By watching the instruments.

> Most use gyros and gyros sence....... say it with me.... motion.

Gyros sense motion accurately. Human beings do not. They don't react
in the same way under the same conditions. Human beings have three
accelerometers, and very little else. The acceleration signals are
accurate, but they must be integrated by the brain to produce position
and motion information, and this process is acquired over time, and
highly unreliable in unfamiliar environments, such as aircraft.

> Well defend your theory.

Thrill seekers like fast, strong sensations and movements. They are
the people who skyjump and ride roller coasters. They become so
addicted to these sensations in some cases that they unconsciously
seek them out, which can cause them to engage in very dangerous
behavior, since many situations that produce strong sensations also
happen to be dangerous. Thrill seekers are excited by the risk of
danger as well, which further complicates matters.

Thrill-seeking in pilots is dangerous, as it encourages them to take
risks and make mistakes that often kill them.

Like they say, there are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but
there are no old, bold pilots.

> Depends on the airplane. The one I'm building will allow me to see six
> o'clock if it is a higher altidude than I am.

I mean directly behind you.

> And if your simulator is simulating an aircraft correctly be it
> a 172 or a 737 then you will have the same view as a pilot would.

Quite so. But in a sim I can make the airplane invisible, which
allows me to see everything in all directions. So I can actually have
better visibility than I would in an aircraft.

I don't often use this feature because there isn't much use for it. I
rarely have traffic close enough to see in the sim.

> Because I'm not expected to go jump in a 737 or any other plane I've never
> flown and be able to fly it. Each type of airplane is different and it takes
> even a high time pilot to get used to a certain type of aircraft.

In which case even a high-time pilot isn't really in a position to
comment on any aircraft except those he has actually flown for
substantial periods.

> The FEEL of stick and rudder pressures are one of the first two things a
> pilot tests when acting as a test pilot.

Most pilots would be dead in a few minutes as test pilots. They are a
special breed. Even the good ones tend to die in the cockpit a lot.

> The spring in the Cirrus is there to help show where center is because of
> the unusual side grip stick. It doesn't reduce the feedback from the control
> surfaces..

Why do you need to know where center is?

Isn't a grip stick awfully like a joystick in front of a PC?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Al G writes:

> Pilots have human brains. Brains respond to "sensations", sometimes as
> you would expect, sometimes not.

Everything I've read thus far constantly emphasizes the extreme risks
of relying upon sensation in flight.

> For me, survival is "Important".

You will not survive if you fly on the basis of sensation. If you
cannot see out the window and you cannot read instruments, you won't
even last long enough to figure out why you are crashing.

> Google "Spatial Disorientation", or "Vertigo" you arrogant little twit.

Exactly. So much for sensations.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Of the pilots that have spoken up none have agreed with you.

Some have, some haven't. All of the research sources I've consulted
have agreed with me. Perhaps most of the pilots here are not
instrument rated. I don't know.

> Do you really think that you could not be wrong here?

I think that if I see the same thing over and over in multiple
information sources, there's a good chance that it's correct, the
illusions of a few pilots notwithstanding.

What I've learned from my research is that sensations are _never_ to
be trusted in an aircraft without visual backup and/or instrument
confirmation; and I've learned that visual sources of information and
instruments are in themselves entirely sufficient--sensations aren't
required at all.

This is why it puzzles me when pilots here emphasize sensations. I
suppose that's the part they _like_, and so it's the part they think
is _important_. But piloting does not depend on sensations, it
depends mostly on vision (out the window or of the instruments).

> If you do decide that you could be wrong what will be needed
> for you to admit it?

The more I read, the more right I become. Research helps correct any
misconceptions I have.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> Well, one of us can actually fly an airplane. Since that excludes you ...

How do you know?

> ... perhaps you'll enlighten us as to how you arrived at your conclusion?

I look things up. I seem to be the exception to the rule in that
respect. A lot of pilots seem to think they carry the same DNA as
Chuck Yeager and don't need to look anything up.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

N2310D writes:

> I can. I won't.

You would if you could.

> You brag about your ability to research while you deride responses from
> experienced pilots on this newsgroup. Go do your research.... or take a
> flight in a real airplane.

I have done my research, and a lot of it conflicts with what pilots
are saying here. The research sources are much more of a known
quantity than the babbling of a few inexperienced pilots here.

I note that the more extensive the explanations provided by pilots
here, the more likely they are to agree with my research sources. The
ones who attack and argue more than they explain often hold opinions
that conflict with other sources.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Mark Levin writes:

> Come on man.... Are you telling me that you'd rather have your non-pilot
> passenger plot a compass course to the nearest airport, grabbing the chart
> from your dead hands no doubt, before calling on the radio for help and
> getting a vector?

Absolutely. Nobody on the radio is going to be able to fly the
aircraft by remote control. Whoever is in the cockpit has to fly the
aircraft _first_, then navigate, then communicate with someone who can
help.

Teach your passenger how to keep the plane straight and level, and how
to turn on and set the autopilot. These are the first things she
should do if you are incapacitated. Once the aircraft appears to be
stable, she can assess her position (anything dangerous nearby?), and
change her course or altitude if required. Once she has navigated
away from any immediate danger, she can call for help on the radio.
All of this may take only a minute or two, but it must be done in the
correct order. Stable flight, then some idea of where you are, then
call for help. If you aren't in stable flight and you're flying
towards a mountain, you'll be dead before anyone answers on the radio.

> If your passenger is that good just have em get a pilot's license.

Unfortunately, getting a license requires a lot more than just the
ability to fly a plane.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> They don't need to "plot a compass course", they just need to read the
> compass to know which way they are flying, read the chart well enough to
> follow the river, and look out the window well enough to recognize an
> airport.

Exactly.

> Tuning radios and putting in squawk codes should be done ONLY when the
> airplane is fully under control, and likely to remain so. They need to
> be able to say something coherent on the radio. Even knowing roughly
> where they are and which way they're pointing helps a lot in locating
> the airplane on radar (and would be essential outside of a radar
> environment)

Exactly.

> In any case, it's not "beyond the capabilities of a passenger" to do
> these things. They are fairly simple (and can be taught on the ground).

Or in a sim.

> The key is maintaining control over the airplane, and getting to the
> (new) destination.

Yes.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jay Beckman]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> And you probably won't because you don't tune the radios on the
>> yoke/stick IRL either.
>
>So? You don't control engine speed on the yoke/stick, but some have
>throttles.

And are meant more for gaming than flying. On the CH Yoke, the throttle,
mixture and prop controls are separate levers. CH even makes a throttle rig
that can be set up for twins or four-engined jets.

If you want to be the type who settles for having an all in one joystick
then you'll have to live with the limitations that presents. I have a yoke,
pedals, a joystick and a throttle quadrant which I mix and match depending
on what I'm simming (mostly, if it has a yoke IRL, I use the yoke .. if it
has a stick, I use the stick .. if it's a P38, I use the yoke and throttle
quadrant, etc...)

>You certainly don't control the rudder with the stick, but a twist is quite
>popular for rudder control.

Yes it is despite being entirely incorrect as regards RL.

>>...rack mountable devices that mimick radios, ADFs, xpndrs

>Why duplicate in hardware what the software can already do? The only thing
>I need is a tuning knob.

Because it's a more accurate representation of how we do it IRL? You have
to reach out to a knob when you're flying for real, right?

>>I'm not sure if you could program it to "turn" the radio knobs as this
>>requires mouse clicks in MSFS
>
>...which is exactly why it would be so good to have.

You can program buttons to select the Comm 1, Nav 1, xpnder or ADF.

For Comm 1 you use the following keystrokes:

"C" highlights the Mhz .. "CC" highlights the Khz (double tap of "C")
"=" increases the selection
"-" decreases the selection
"x" is the flip/flop button

The entire list of keystrokes is in a text file somewhere in 2002, I'm sure.

>>Seems a bit unfair to expect something that doesn't exist in real life,
>>doesn't it?
>
>Knobs don't exist in real life?

Boy do they.

;O)

Good luck.

Jay B

[Mxsmanic]

Mark Levin writes:

> Ok, I shouldn't have been so flip. But this is a pretty talented and well
> taught passenger you are talking about, who sounds like they could become a
> pilot themselves.

An eight-year-old with no prior flying experience can look out the
window.

Don't overestimate the requirements of the most basic flying skills.
In some aircraft, straight and level flight only requires pushing a
button. And many aircraft tend to straight and level flight to begin
with (certainly there are none that have a constant tendency to spin).

> Airplane under control is aviating, not navigating.

Yes. Aviate first, then navigate. Then call for help.

> Incidentally setting a transponder code and squawking ident is something
> that MSFS simulates pretty poorly and being able to do this is pretty
> important for getting help.

What part of the MSFS simulation is poorly simulated?

> I'm not gonna argue that having a passenger that is good enough to virtually
> be a co-pilot is a bad thing. If you can train your s/o to that degree then
> they will be a tremendous cockpit resource and by all means go for it.

You overestimate the training required.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> Agreed. So poorly it's incredible.

What part of it is wrong?

> Actually I'm surprised that joysticks don't come with a few knobs. It
> would make all the difference.

They do come with knobs, except in the cheapest models.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Help me out then. Please explain to me how you think the MSFS model of
> stalls and slow flight are a good simulation of the real thing.

Support your assertion that they are not. Tell me where they differ
from the real thing. I have no way of knowing whether they are good
simulations or not. You claim that they are not, but you seem unable
to explain why. I'm listening.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Gatt, nobody is saying that MSFS isn't good for what you are using it for.
> The issues I have with it are more of a problem for new student level pilots
> and those that think they can become pilots simply by flying the sim.

They can, they just won't be as good at flying as someone who also has
flown a real aircraft.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Blanche writes:

> And pray tell, which organization would you accept as the definitive?

None. There are no absolutes. I certainly wouldn't depend on the
FAA. It's not their job, and they aren't good at it.

> In the US, that's all that's necessary for the court system.

This isn't a legal discussion.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> To show your expertise on the Beech Baron exaplain to me please how the
> variable pitchs propeller on the Baron works. Explain to me and
> identify the components of the gear and flap systems.

There are levers for the props. There's a lever for the flaps.
There's a lever for the gear. What else do you need to know.

> The reason you cannot do this is because you are not a real pilot, nor
> have you received any training.

The vast majority of real pilots don't know much more than I do.
Mechanics know more.

> So? It's not the real thing.

Yes. So?

> Hey cretin... it does... step into a Cardinal and pull them up and feel
> that plane start descending.

I'm not flying a Cardinal. This is a Baron. Although the specific
aircraft I had in mind was an A36 (but it is very similar).

The effect of cowl flaps varies with the aircraft.

> You've never felt them... how would you know Mr. Expert?

We've all felt them.

> Again you don't, I'd love to see you get thrown about a cabin and tell
> me that they're meaningless.

That cannot happen, since I'm always strapped in.

> Wheres the pause button on my Dash 8? SHOW IT.

You don't need to pause anything. If you're a good pilot, you've
already trimmed the aircraft for stable flight, and you can take your
hands off the yoke for an indefinite period. Or you can switch on the
autopilot.

If you don't drink anything on a long flight, you might get in
trouble.

> Significant turbulence... not calm air that is slighly turbulent near
> the ground, you have no clue what I'm talking about.

Both, actually.

> Not like in a real airplane, something no computer can ever project
> properly is ground friction.

Then why does the aircraft roll to a stop in the sim?

> Not for the same reason.

Yes, for the same reason. When the aircraft bounces enough that the
gear no longer feels weight on the wheels, the gear retracts.

> Because you are not a pilot and you have never experienced the torque
> effect of a propeller.

And you've been holding the propeller shaft with your hand, or what?

> Huh?

You can be checked out in a new type of aircraft without ever actually
flying it. Airlines do this. The first actual flight may be a flight
with paying passengers.

> Anyway... you're severly damaged in the head, this is my last attempt
> to try to reason with you and present you with reality ...

Bye.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
> > The spring in the Cirrus is there to help show where center is because of
> > the unusual side grip stick. It doesn't reduce the feedback from the
> > control
> > surfaces..
>
> Why do you need to know where center is?
>
> Isn't a grip stick awfully like a joystick in front of a PC?

You're both morons.

The spring in the Cirrus is there because the Cirrus doesn't have trim
tabs. Changing the center position of the spring is how you trim. And
yes, it does reduce (but does not eliminate) feedback from the control
surfaces. And no, it isn't like a joystick in front of a PC because
unless you have an extremely sophisticated joystick it gives you no
force feedback at all.

And in case you're wondering, I know these things because I fly a (real,
not simulated) SR22 (among other things).

rg

[mike regish]

There is also a 3D stereo goggle set that tracks head movement. It only
works with software that supports it, but MSFS does support it. Don't know
if Combat does. That would be cool, though. I might have to consider a set.

They cost about $579 (down from $1000). Saw them on HGTV on the Techtoys
segment. I wished they worked on the various game stations.

mike

"randyw" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Sitting in front of a PC, you have no
>> movement, and not much in the way of visibility.
>
> Not true as far as the visibility is concerned. If you fly using MSFS's
> virtual cockpits, then you have full eye movement around the inside and
> out all the windows. I can even move up and down, left and right in the
> seat. There's even IR head-tracking software that let's you look around
> the cockpit by moving your head.
>
> Here it is in action:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMKtkPR0idY
>
> Randy

[Jay Honeck]

> >> Stalls and slow flight are the biggest I've noticed.
> >
> > What are the differences between MSFS and real aircraft in the domains
> > of stalls and slow flight?
>
> A lot. Take a flight to find out.

What's missing from MSFS is the buffeting and deck angle -- both which
would require a full-motion sim. Otherwise, I find stalls and slow
flight to be very well modeled in the Kiwi.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> It seems obvious to me, that one really needs to spend some time in an
> airplane with another pilot to get the basics down. Your manager has had the
> benefit of watching others as well as having you standing over his shoulder
> coaching him, - right? That's a far cry from "trial and error" learning on
> your own - that's a tough row to hoe. (Note that no one ever calls it "trial
> and succeed".) Jay, would you agree that stepping into an airplane would
> still be a chalenge for your manager? And, (again with someone instructing
> or coaching) would it give his skills a big boost?

Oh, absolutely. You guys seem to think that I'm advocating doing away
with the flight school here in Iowa City -- and that's far from what I
believe. Nothing will replace an instructor and a real airplane.

But, on the other hand, to dismiss the Kiwi as a mere "game" is to
unfairly minimize what we've accomplished here. As an example, last
night (at Movie Night) a young pilot (they DO exist!) showed up, not to
see the movie ("Flying Tigers", BTW) but to fly the Kiwi.

He flew for 20 minutes or so, made some nice approaches into Mackinac
and Madeline Islands, and had a great time. He then pronounced the
Kiwi as superior to the mega-thousand dollar, PC-based flight sim at
the flight school.

Since the time on that machine CAN be logged, what does that say about
the Kiwi?

> I think this kind of simulator can _augment_ training in an aircraft, but
> it doesn't replace it.

No one (with any brains) ever suggested otherwise.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> > It seems obvious to me, that one really needs to spend some time in an
> > airplane with another pilot to get the basics down. Your manager has had the
> > benefit of watching others as well as having you standing over his shoulder
> > coaching him, - right? That's a far cry from "trial and error" learning on
> > your own - that's a tough row to hoe. (Note that no one ever calls it "trial
> > and succeed".) Jay, would you agree that stepping into an airplane would
> > still be a chalenge for your manager? And, (again with someone instructing
> > or coaching) would it give his skills a big boost?
>
> Oh, absolutely. You guys seem to think that I'm advocating doing away
> with the flight school here in Iowa City -- and that's far from what I
> believe. Nothing will replace an instructor and a real airplane.
>
> But, on the other hand, to dismiss the Kiwi as a mere "game" is to
> unfairly minimize what we've accomplished here. As an example, last
> night (at Movie Night) a young pilot (they DO exist!) showed up, not to
> see the movie ("Flying Tigers", BTW) but to fly the Kiwi.
>
> He flew for 20 minutes or so, made some nice approaches into Mackinac
> and Madeline Islands, and had a great time. He then pronounced the
> Kiwi as superior to the mega-thousand dollar, PC-based flight sim at
> the flight school.
>
> Since the time on that machine CAN be logged, what does that say about
> the Kiwi?
>
> > I think this kind of simulator can _augment_ training in an aircraft, but
> > it doesn't replace it.
>
> No one (with any brains) ever suggested otherwise.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination

Jay I agree with you in 95% of what you've said throughout this
discussion, there is one person I don't agree with who is a pain and is
now in my killfile (not a literal gung-ho rambo killfile, just a file
on my computer that blocks messages, I want to be clear on that before
the FBI shows up at my building).

I will not agree with you, however, in saying that a sim flight model
can be close to the real thing, it's a great piece of entertainment and
can be faily engaging, but let's be honest, it just doesn't act the
same in MSFS as it would in real life, it can be misleadingly close,
but it's not the same.

[mike regish]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Sensations are a HUGE part of flying.
>
> Perhaps they are for you. They aren't necessarily that way for
> everyone.

That's where you're WAY wrong. I only have the basic instruments in my
plane. I have airspeed, needle and ball, altimeter, tachometer, VSI,
magnetic compass (I now have a working gyro compass. Just got it a couple of
years ago.), and oil temp and pressure. Notice there's no artificial
horizon. I've only had one real flight that approached the sim experience.
That was a flight from Block Island to Barnes. One slight turn after takeoff
and a straight, hands-off flight practically to touchdown. It was the
smoothest air I've ever flown in. I've also had flights where I had a hard
time changing frequencies or getting my hand on the throttle I was bouncing
around so much. I've been (as a student) kicked into a 45 degree bank by a
gust on short final that had me looking another pilot on the apron in the
eye. My recovery from this attitude depended entirely on the physical
sensations + visual cues. Instruments would have been useless. If you have
any aversion to feeling alternately weightless and extremely heavy, you may
not react properly. If you can't handle a roller coaster, stay out of a real
cockpit or only fly on the calmest of days.
>
>> Vision-
>> The average person has between 170 and 175 degrees of vision and uses it
>> all
>> in real flight.
>> In SIM flight depending on screen used you might have 90 degrees. Yes
>> this
>> can be improved but the cost is significant and I'd guess the vast
>> majority
>> of MSFS users don't have multiple monitors.
>
> I have 360° in MSFS.

I've been really tempted to get those 3D stereo, head tracking goggles. I
think that would really enhance MSFS (and the function is enabled in MSFS).
I'd like it even better in MSFS Combat.
>
>> In real flight you feel the stick or yoke and the forces acting against
>> it.
>
> That depends on the aircraft.
>
>> You also feel the aircraft moving and changing direction.
>
> Unfortunately, you cannot always trust what you feel.

If you can combine it with visual cues, you most certainly can.
>
>> This movement when backed up with visual clues, either from outside the
>> plane or instruments help you finely control the aircraft.
>
> Or, more specifically, the visual and instrument information allow you
> to control the aircraft. The movement isn't always trustworthy.

Unless IFR, the instruments are only a backup and verification tool. You
keep your wings level by looking at the wingtips. You hold altitude by
developing a sight picture over the nose. You briefly scan your instruments
to verify and refine altitude and heading.
>
>> In sim flight there are no forces acting on the stick/yoke with the
>> exception of springs or in the best case force feedback which doesn't
>> simulate reality well at all.
>
> That depends on the aircraft being simulated. Cirrus aircraft use
> springs, too.

But the control forces are also there, and they vary under varying
conditions.
>
>> With a proper set up I'll give the sims a real A+ on this issue and will
>> say
>> that it is damn good a simulating reality.
>
> Not that the drone of engines gradually driving you deaf is terribly
> useful to flying.

That's what headphones are for. They actually cut out over 30 db, depending
on the brand. Active NC does even better.

mike

[mike regish]

Nope. Sorry. You seriously *underestimate* the importance of sensations.

mike

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> You don't understand the sensations associated with flying,
>> so you dismiss their importance.
>
> You overestimate the importance of sensations associated with flying,
> and so you exaggerate their significance.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jay Honeck]

> I will not agree with you, however, in saying that a sim flight model
> can be close to the real thing, it's a great piece of entertainment and
> can be faily engaging, but let's be honest, it just doesn't act the
> same in MSFS as it would in real life, it can be misleadingly close,
> but it's not the same.

Well, I can only offer an invitation to come fly the Kiwi.

If, after pulling up to the gas pumps (really!) at little Sylvania
Field (C89) in Racine County, WI, having just sweated your way through
a cross-wind landing on that 30-foot-wide, 2300-foot-long runway,
(after taking a lakefront-tour of Racine), you *still* think that this
thing isn't as real as it gets (outside of an airplane) -- I'll buy the
beer.

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:

>> those that think they can become pilots simply by flying the sim.
>
> They can, they just won't be as good at flying as someone who also has
> flown a real aircraft.

WOW!!

[Gig 601XL Builder]

This is what my dialog yesterday with Anthony was all about. To get him into
a position where I could ask him if there was any way he could be incorrect.
Clearly he doesn't see that he could ever be incorrect. So he is either a
troll or a sociopath.

I'm done. I'm not going to create a kill file that blocks any message with
"mxsmanic" anywhere in the body. I'd suggest you all do the same.


"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Of the pilots that have spoken up none have agreed with you.
>
> Some have, some haven't. All of the research sources I've consulted
> have agreed with me. Perhaps most of the pilots here are not
> instrument rated. I don't know.
>
>> Do you really think that you could not be wrong here?
>
> I think that if I see the same thing over and over in multiple
> information sources, there's a good chance that it's correct, the
> illusions of a few pilots notwithstanding.
>
> What I've learned from my research is that sensations are _never_ to
> be trusted in an aircraft without visual backup and/or instrument
> confirmation; and I've learned that visual sources of information and
> instruments are in themselves entirely sufficient--sensations aren't
> required at all.
>
> This is why it puzzles me when pilots here emphasize sensations. I
> suppose that's the part they _like_, and so it's the part they think
> is _important_. But piloting does not depend on sensations, it
> depends mostly on vision (out the window or of the instruments).
>
>> If you do decide that you could be wrong what will be needed
>> for you to admit it?
>
> The more I read, the more right I become. Research helps correct any
> misconceptions I have.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jose[_1_]]

> If you want to be the type who settles for having an all in one joystick
> then you'll have to live with the limitations that presents.

Well, yes, but that doesn't mean I can't add my voice to those that
would see a benefit to having a knob or two on the yoke. There is much
to be said for high-hardware rigs like you have, but there is also much
to be said for the simple joystick and a knob or two. While it doesn't
re-create the =actual= motions of tuning a radio, it comes close enough
for IFR rust removal purposes (I just think of the sim as a different
make and model) and I can avoid the mouse.

> You can program buttons to select the Comm 1, Nav 1, xpnder or ADF.
>
> For Comm 1 you use the following keystrokes:
>
> "C" highlights the Mhz .. "CC" highlights the Khz (double tap of "C")
> "=" increases the selection
> "-" decreases the selection
> "x" is the flip/flop button

I'll have to give that a try. Thanks.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Let me expand a bit here if I may. [expansion contracted]

Thanks, that's very helpful. It seems it fits in well with what I had
in mind, and anything that gets people more comfortable is a good thing.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> writes:

> From other threads it is very clear that this person lacks basic pilotage
> skills and has to rely on the gauges to navigate. He also doesn't seem to
> understand how someone gets disoriented in the air. And, with some effort, I
> could probably find other shortcomings with his skills.

Or you could contribute to the thread.

> Clearly "learn yourself flying" from MSFS isn't working.

A lot of real pilots can't land an aircraft in MSFS. Does that mean
that flying in MSFS is more difficult than flying a real aircraft, or
less?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> I will not agree with you, however, in saying that a sim flight model
> can be close to the real thing, it's a great piece of entertainment and
> can be faily engaging, but let's be honest, it just doesn't act the
> same in MSFS as it would in real life, it can be misleadingly close,
> but it's not the same.

List the differences.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Beckman writes:

> Because it's a more accurate representation of how we do it IRL? You have
> to reach out to a knob when you're flying for real, right?

The interface between man and machine is far less important than the
information exchanged therewith. In other words, what matters is not
whether it's a knob or a mouse click, but what the results of the
mouse click or knob twist are, and how well the human being knows how
to obtain those results and make use of them.

The actual physical interface can be changed very easily and
adaptation tends to be very rapid.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

mike regish writes:

> That's where you're WAY wrong.

You don't know how everyone else is.

> I only have the basic instruments in my
> plane. I have airspeed, needle and ball, altimeter, tachometer, VSI,
> magnetic compass (I now have a working gyro compass. Just got it a couple of
> years ago.), and oil temp and pressure. Notice there's no artificial
> horizon. I've only had one real flight that approached the sim experience.

With so few instruments, I'm surprised you've had any.

> That was a flight from Block Island to Barnes. One slight turn after takeoff
> and a straight, hands-off flight practically to touchdown. It was the
> smoothest air I've ever flown in.

How is that similar to a sim experience?

I can set the sim for perfect weather, but I usually have it set up
the actual weather at the aircraft location, and it is rarely perfect.
I do tend to prefer regions where the weather is usually nice,
however.

> My recovery from this attitude depended entirely on the physical
> sensations + visual cues. Instruments would have been useless.

How would you know? You have essentially nothing in the way of
instruments.

> If you have any aversion to feeling alternately weightless and extremely
> heavy, you may not react properly.

I do indeed have such an aversion.

> If you can't handle a roller coaster, stay out of a real cockpit or
> only fly on the calmest of days.

Or fly as carefully as possible.

But it is true that I find being tossed around to be a serious
drawback to real flight in tin cans. It's one reason _not_ to become
a real pilot.

> I've been really tempted to get those 3D stereo, head tracking goggles. I
> think that would really enhance MSFS (and the function is enabled in MSFS).
> I'd like it even better in MSFS Combat.

Combat?

> If you can combine it with visual cues, you most certainly can.

If you have visual cues, you don't need it.

> Unless IFR, the instruments are only a backup and verification tool. You
> keep your wings level by looking at the wingtips. You hold altitude by
> developing a sight picture over the nose. You briefly scan your instruments
> to verify and refine altitude and heading.

And you don't depend on sensations.

> But the control forces are also there, and they vary under varying
> conditions.

They vary in sims with force feedback, too.

> That's what headphones are for. They actually cut out over 30 db, depending
> on the brand. Active NC does even better.

I still find myself wondering why headphones are necessary. There is
really no technology on the planet that can make a tin can cockpit
quiet?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> A lot of real pilots can't land an aircraft in MSFS. Does that mean
> that flying in MSFS is more difficult than flying a real aircraft, or
> less?
>
More like "loosely related", as many of us have told you over the last
month or so.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> writes:
>
>> I will not agree with you, however, in saying that a sim flight model
>> can be close to the real thing, it's a great piece of entertainment
>> and can be faily engaging, but let's be honest, it just doesn't act
>> the same in MSFS as it would in real life, it can be misleadingly
>> close, but it's not the same.
>
> List the differences.
>
It's been done. Read the many posts on the topic. Don't waste bandwidth
being repetitive.

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> It's been done. Read the many posts on the topic. Don't waste bandwidth
> being repetitive.

Where's the list?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> It's been done. Read the many posts on the topic. Don't waste
>> bandwidth being repetitive.
>
> Where's the list?
>
Revert to your "inner researcher" and collate your own from the reponses
you've been given.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> mike regish writes:
>
>> Unless IFR, the instruments are only a backup and verification tool.
>> You keep your wings level by looking at the wingtips. You hold
>> altitude by developing a sight picture over the nose. You briefly
>> scan your instruments to verify and refine altitude and heading.
>
> And you don't depend on sensations.
>
Why on Earth are you continually trying to exclude sight (and sound) from
"sensations"? They are, indeed, human sensory inputs and flying aircraft
of any type is absolutely dependent on them.

-------------------------------------------------------
American Heritage Dictionary
sen·sa·tion (sn-sshn) Pronunciation Key
n.

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> Why on Earth are you continually trying to exclude sight (and sound) from
> "sensations"?

Flying is dependent on sight, but not much else.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

--
--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.
"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> writes:
>
>> From other threads it is very clear that this person lacks basic pilotage
>> skills and has to rely on the gauges to navigate. He also doesn't seem to
>> understand how someone gets disoriented in the air. And, with some
>> effort, I
>> could probably find other shortcomings with his skills.
>
> Or you could contribute to the thread.

I think I did.

>
>> Clearly "learn yourself flying" from MSFS isn't working.
>
> A lot of real pilots can't land an aircraft in MSFS. Does that mean
> that flying in MSFS is more difficult than flying a real aircraft, or
> less?
>

It only stands to reason that if the simulation matched what you experienced
in the real world, then if you could land a real airplane, you could land
the simulation. So, if what you wrote is true (a lot of real pilots can't
land an aircraft in MSFS) - I would take it to mean that MSFS is not
duplicating a "real" aircraft very well. Which is more or less difficult
would then be function of which one you are the most familier with.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> Why on Earth are you continually trying to exclude sight (and sound)
>> from "sensations"?
>
> Flying is dependent on sight, but not much else.
>
Your admission that flying is dependent on sensation basically underscores
the fact that all of your previous posts to the contrary are (not
surprisingly), completely wrong. I am really glad that you are making so
many absurd statements as this, as real students won't fall for this crap,
and will know that their training is supplying good information about the
realities of flying.

Neil

[[email protected]]

Thats would be a long 3000 mile flight for me, If I'm ever back in the
midwest I'll try to stop by, but right now I'm trying to follow more
southerly pursuits.

Jay Honeck wrote:
> > I will not agree with you, however, in saying that a sim flight model
> > can be close to the real thing, it's a great piece of entertainment and
> > can be faily engaging, but let's be honest, it just doesn't act the
> > same in MSFS as it would in real life, it can be misleadingly close,
> > but it's not the same.
>
> Well, I can only offer an invitation to come fly the Kiwi.
>
> If, after pulling up to the gas pumps (really!) at little Sylvania
> Field (C89) in Racine County, WI, having just sweated your way through
> a cross-wind landing on that 30-foot-wide, 2300-foot-long runway,
> (after taking a lakefront-tour of Racine), you *still* think that this
> thing isn't as real as it gets (outside of an airplane) -- I'll buy the
> beer.
>
> :-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[mike regish]

Um...I thought that was what I was saying.

I also use sound more than my tach.

mike


"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
et...
> Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:
>
>> mike regish writes:
>>
>>> Unless IFR, the instruments are only a backup and verification tool.
>>> You keep your wings level by looking at the wingtips. You hold
>>> altitude by developing a sight picture over the nose. You briefly
>>> scan your instruments to verify and refine altitude and heading.
>>
>> And you don't depend on sensations.
>>
> Why on Earth are you continually trying to exclude sight (and sound) from
> "sensations"? They are, indeed, human sensory inputs and flying aircraft
> of any type is absolutely dependent on them.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> American Heritage Dictionary
> sen·sa·tion (sn-sshn) Pronunciation Key
> n.
>
> A perception associated with stimulation of a sense organ or with
> a specific body condition: the sensation of heat; a visual sensation.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Trying to shift the context of the responses you've been given only makes
> you look worse, because you aren't fooling any "real aircraft" pilots.
>
> Neil
>
>

[mike regish]

Wrong.

mike

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> Why on Earth are you continually trying to exclude sight (and sound) from
>> "sensations"?
>
> Flying is dependent on sight, but not much else.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> writes:

> It only stands to reason that if the simulation matched what you experienced
> in the real world, then if you could land a real airplane, you could land
> the simulation.

Yes.

> So, if what you wrote is true (a lot of real pilots can't land an aircraft
> in MSFS) ...

That's what many real pilots have said to me, although I haven't
actually observed this firsthand.

> ... I would take it to mean that MSFS is not duplicating a "real" aircraft
> very well.

It could simply mean that something they normally depend on to fly or
land the plane (such as sensations, or certain types of visual
information) is missing in the sim.

The interesting point here is that, if they truly depend on sensations
or vision to fly, they will never be able to fly by instruments alone.
I should think that an experienced instrument pilot would be able to
land any aircraft in MSFS fairly quickly, with only a few trial runs.
Someone who depends on sensations and (to a lesser extent) vision
might not be able to do this. If someone in the latter category ever
gets caught in IMC while flying for real, he's doomed.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[John Theune]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> writes:
>
>> It only stands to reason that if the simulation matched what you experienced
>> in the real world, then if you could land a real airplane, you could land
>> the simulation.
>
> Yes.
>
>> So, if what you wrote is true (a lot of real pilots can't land an aircraft
>> in MSFS) ...
>
> That's what many real pilots have said to me, although I haven't
> actually observed this firsthand.
>
>> ... I would take it to mean that MSFS is not duplicating a "real" aircraft
>> very well.
>
> It could simply mean that something they normally depend on to fly or
> land the plane (such as sensations, or certain types of visual
> information) is missing in the sim.
>
> The interesting point here is that, if they truly depend on sensations
> or vision to fly, they will never be able to fly by instruments alone.
> I should think that an experienced instrument pilot would be able to
> land any aircraft in MSFS fairly quickly, with only a few trial runs.
> Someone who depends on sensations and (to a lesser extent) vision
> might not be able to do this. If someone in the latter category ever
> gets caught in IMC while flying for real, he's doomed.
>
But the point you are missing is that none of the pilots of single
engine planes ( the vast majority of the posters here ) land a plane by
instruments alone. Instrument rated pilots use the instruments to get
down to a low level but land using visual and sensory cues. Only the
big iron pilots land without those cues and then they don't land the
plane, it lands itself.

[Mxsmanic]

John Theune writes:

> But the point you are missing is that none of the pilots of single
> engine planes ( the vast majority of the posters here ) land a plane by
> instruments alone.

It sounds like they hardly ever use instruments at all.

> Instrument rated pilots use the instruments to get down to a low
> level but land using visual and sensory cues. Only the
> big iron pilots land without those cues and then they don't land the
> plane, it lands itself.

Only the very last part of the flight is visual. The rest is by
instruments. But it doesn't sound like there are too many regular IFR
pilots here, since they all seem to rely on seat-of-the-pants flying.
Hmm.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> John Theune writes:
>
>> But the point you are missing is that none of the pilots of single
>> engine planes ( the vast majority of the posters here ) land a plane
>> by instruments alone.
>
> It sounds like they hardly ever use instruments at all.
>
Not so, but that notion fits nicely into your other misconceptions about
flying.

>> Instrument rated pilots use the instruments to get down to a low
>> level but land using visual and sensory cues. Only the
>> big iron pilots land without those cues and then they don't land the
>> plane, it lands itself.
>
> Only the very last part of the flight is visual.
>
So is the first part. Almost nobody flies 0/0.

> The rest is by
> instruments. But it doesn't sound like there are too many regular IFR
> pilots here, since they all seem to rely on seat-of-the-pants flying.
> Hmm.
>
You would find a higher percentage of pilots that fly according to your
notions of IFR in an airline pilots' newsgroup, as automation has a much
larger roll for them. However, one of your misconceptions is that if the
autopilot is on, the pilot is free to do something other than monitor the
status of their systems using visual and auditory sensations. There is
*always* someone with the primary responsibility of flying the plane, and
the autopilot does not relieve them of that responsibility, it only
reduces their workload.

Another of your misconceptions is that IFR means that you're always in a
cloud, and can't depend on your senses to fly, whereas the fact of the
matter is that so few IMC flights are zero visibility from start to finish
that they are anomalous. Probably, their only statistical significance is
the percentage of accidents and incidents they account for. So, even IFR,
the pilot's senses play a role in flying the plane.

However, you are posting in a group largely populated by GA pilots. GA
pilots enjoy everything about flying, and the view of the world from our
typical flight altitudes is one of many reasons why so few of us are IR.
We don't want to be up in the soup anyway because it beats you up and
there's nothing to see. There is "seat-of-the-pants" in all real-world
flying experiences, but more so in GA because that is the point anyway --
we fly planes.

Neil

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Neil Gould" > wrote:

> as automation has a much larger roll for them.

:-)

a little bit of a slip, eh?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> So is the first part. Almost nobody flies 0/0.

Airliners fly like that every day, somewhere.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> NOBODY, repeat, NOBODY lands a plane on instruments.

Pilots land planes on instruments every day. Modern commercial
aviation depends on this.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> So is the first part. Almost nobody flies 0/0.
>
> Airliners fly like that every day, somewhere.
>
Source or cite?

Neil

[gatt]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>> [MSFS] allows me to remember to set and ident freqs, follow the
>> instruments, time the approach (I use my kneeboard and timer)
>
> How do you set and ident the freqs? Using the mouse on the radio stack
> and the OBS is pretty lame,

Agree. You can assign keys, but I use the mouse, too. PITA. I verify
visually...can't remember if the Morse identifier actually works, but it's
on my real-life checklist so I verify on the sim too.

-c

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Mxsmanic >
>
>>Pilots land planes on instruments every day. Modern commercial
>>aviation depends on this.
>
> Wrong!
>
> NOBODY, repeat, NOBODY lands a plane on instruments.

Playing devil's advocate here, please cite a reference to this.
Judging by what you are saying, there should be no such thing as Cat.
II or III ILS approaches when RVRs for a particular runway are less than the
thousands of feet, yet a week ago I walked off a plane that did so.

Judging from other posts from you as well, you seem to suffer
from the same thing as Mx. You say something, but don't provide the
documentation (even a URL) to support your claim. Should you do so, I
will retract everything I have just said.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFeMoWyBkZmuMZ8L8RAtTVAKCr1XvvpKM3ry0579IvXN lZfUswhACgxnyN
aA3uyXofpEvi08mVIiqytgA=
=d7S4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[John Theune]

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Nomen Nescio > wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> From: Mxsmanic >
>>
>>> Pilots land planes on instruments every day. Modern commercial
>>> aviation depends on this.
>> Wrong!
>>
>> NOBODY, repeat, NOBODY lands a plane on instruments.
>
> Playing devil's advocate here, please cite a reference to this.
> Judging by what you are saying, there should be no such thing as Cat.
> II or III ILS approaches when RVRs for a particular runway are less than the
> thousands of feet, yet a week ago I walked off a plane that did so.
>
> Judging from other posts from you as well, you seem to suffer
> from the same thing as Mx. You say something, but don't provide the
> documentation (even a URL) to support your claim. Should you do so, I
> will retract everything I have just said.
>
> BL.
> - --
> Brad Littlejohn | Email:
> Unix Systems Administrator, |
> Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
> PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFFeMoWyBkZmuMZ8L8RAtTVAKCr1XvvpKM3ry0579IvXN lZfUswhACgxnyN
> aA3uyXofpEvi08mVIiqytgA=
> =d7S4
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I believe the argument could be made that a cat 3 landing is done by the
autopilot not the pilot.

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> Source or cite?

Compare weather reports to FlightAware. Obviously, some aircraft are
flying and landing in essentially nil visibility. That's what Cat
IIIc and autoland are for.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

John Theune writes:

> I believe the argument could be made that a cat 3 landing is done by the
> autopilot not the pilot.

The FAA won't make that argument. If planes flew themselves, you
wouldn't need pilots in command.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.