A real life pilot's first sim experience

[Tony]

The deal is this: I wanted to fly a loop in my M20J for a long time,
but it's hard to get around the 30 degree pitch limitation
certifications and do a loop. isn't it?

MSFS2004 offers an M20M Bravo! And Comp USA is selling that program
for less than $20.

So the four disks came in a couple of days ago, and got loaded into my
laptop. Problem 1: no number pad for pitch and bank. I messed around
with the C172 model and found the up down, left and right arrows did
all of that, although I did not locate a key for return to neutral.

OK, so I played student pilot and F3ed full throttle in a 172, figured
out how to take off and land. TT maybe 15 minutes, and not an
enriching experience.

Loaded in the M20M Bravo. This beast gets yanked around the sky with a
IO 540, my 201 does it with a IO 360. Lots more fuel usage, and a lot
more airplane than I can afford in RL. Never the less, I called up
KBED RR 29, and there I was, at the controls, position and hold!

Neat. No checklist at hand, so I did the best I could with cowl flaps,
wing flaps, trim, fuel pump, and the like, so it looked like this
airplane just might fly. Hold down F3, RPMs came up nicely, and
nothing happened! Message flashed -- parking brake is set, press . to
release.

What frigging pilot pulls onto the active and sets the parking brake?

OK, I put a period to the program, and started to roll, feet twitching
because with an IO 540 this thing should want to turn really badly --
in the M20J I used rudder mostly to keep it on centerline during the
early part of the takeoff roll, figured my little left and right
arrows would have to do the job here.

The Bravo tracked straight down the centerline without any help from
me! This is supposed to be an accurate simulation, with no P effects?
Gimme a break.

OK, I down arrowed at 70 kts -- this takes a lot more rotation (read
that as down arrow) than did the 172, I don't think I broke free until
about 90, way too fast!

Set up a straight ahead climb right out the 11 localizer, my memory
claimed the student practice area was a bit to the north of the 11 29
extended centerline.

Is there anything more boring than watching a simulated climb to 7000
feet? Like watching grass grow.

My plan was to reach altitude, dive the thing down at 45 degrees, let
the speed climb to top of the green, then hold down the down arrow,
and when I was at the top of the loop close the throttle, pray a
little, and try to recover smoothly at the bottom. Guys who have flown
aerobatics know the way you do them is look at the horizon to the
side. I worried about that a little, since the side image was going to
be in front of me, but it turned out to be a non issue. I couldn't
figure out how to get that side view.

The hell with it. I pushed over, and the speed went up really fast!
Mooneys are aerodynamicly clean GA airplanes. I downarrowed (which
means yoke in my lap, I think) and watched the windscreen view change
from ground to sky, saw the AH tumble, saw the ground in the top half
of the windscreen, closed the throttle, and somewhere near the bottom
went forward stick. It was NOT pretty. I didn't have that side view I
wanted. I still don't know how at one point I wound up in a 60 degree
bank! Never the less, I got back to straight and level, and remember
having started the dive from 7000 feet was more than a little suprised
to find the airplane was at a simulated altitude of 5500.

The guy who showed me some things in a 150 Aerobat would have been
ashamed of me. Never the less, I did a loop.

About then the phone rang, and a friend suggested I meet with him and
a few others for lunch. That sounded good.

The sim was paused 30 miles or so from BED, After I got back to my
home office there were some other matters that needed attention and
computer memory. Exit sim

That's it. It was as fulfilling an experience for me as eating cotton
candy -- there just wasn't much there. It simply didn't provide the
kinds of feedback I'd want, and I'm not going to buy a yoke with force
feedback and rudder peddles (sims who use a joystick instead of a yoke
in airplanes that come with yokes are another step removed from at
least what is my reality.

For those of you who get pleasure from the MSFS, more power to you. It
did not work for me. There is a possiblity my mind has been poisoned
to the sim experience, but probably not, I hoped it might be fun ro do
on late nights. Oh well, it was a $20 experiment. The good news is,
that was cheap. Most of my 'experiments' cost a lot more than that.
Want to know how to burn some VC's couple million in a startup
venture? Talk to me!

[Peter R.]

On 2/28/2007 4:18:20 PM, "Tony" wrote:

>
> The Bravo tracked straight down the centerline without any help from
> me! This is supposed to be an accurate simulation, with no P effects?
> Gimme a break.

You need to set the aircraft realism settings to "difficult" for the P effect
for the aircraft to require hard right rudder on takeoff. I believe out of
the box that these settings are set to "easy" since the typical non-pilot sim
pilot is unaware of many aspects of real life flying.

--
Peter

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Tony"> wrote

> For those of you who get pleasure from the MSFS, more power to you. It
> did not work for me. There is a possiblity my mind has been poisoned
> to the sim experience, but probably not, I hoped it might be fun ro do
> on late nights. Oh well, it was a $20 experiment. The good news is,
> that was cheap. Most of my 'experiments' cost a lot more than that.
> Want to know how to burn some VC's couple million in a startup
> venture? Talk to me!

Mx is a mentally disturbed person; I think most can agree with that.

My question is, why in h*ll did you post that whole sim garbage post? You,
as a real pilot, should know that this is not the correct place for it, and
all it can possibly do is to attract more sim nuts and sim discussion, that
most of us very strongly do NOT want HERE!

Please think, next time.
--
Jim in NC

[Peter R.]

On 2/28/2007 4:42:05 PM, "Morgans" wrote:

> and
> all it can possibly do is to attract more sim nuts and sim discussion, that
> most of us very strongly do NOT want HERE!

Am I a sim nut for answering his post? Uh, oh.

--
Peter

[Mxsmanic]

Tony writes:

> What frigging pilot pulls onto the active and sets the parking brake?

What pilot misses it during the checklist?

> The Bravo tracked straight down the centerline without any help from
> me! This is supposed to be an accurate simulation, with no P effects?

What realism settings did you use? By default they are set very low, and P
forces are absent. This allows inexperienced pilots to fly without too much
disappointing failure.

> That's it. It was as fulfilling an experience for me as eating cotton
> candy -- there just wasn't much there.

You sound eerily like that reporter who blew off flying after one exaggerated
report of an introductory ride with an instructor.

I guess if you've decided before you start, you're unlikely to change your
mind.

But if you like the sensations and feedback of a real aircraft, you might not
be very happy with simulation overall. Still, given the choice between a sim
and nothing at all, I suspect you'd choose the sim, as many pilots do when a
real aircraft is not readily at hand.

> ... sims who use a joystick instead of a yoke
> in airplanes that come with yokes are another step removed from at
> least what is my reality.

But not from a fighter aircraft, Cirrus, or Airbus.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Peter R. writes:

> You need to set the aircraft realism settings to "difficult" for the P effect
> for the aircraft to require hard right rudder on takeoff. I believe out of
> the box that these settings are set to "easy" since the typical non-pilot sim
> pilot is unaware of many aspects of real life flying.

Yes, and I've heard that the simulator actually exaggerates these effects if
you set the realism all the way up. Most of the add-ons for the sim recommend
high settings for all the realism parameters except P force and torque, which
are set about mid-way to the maximum.

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

[[email protected]]

On Feb 28, 4:48 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> But if you like the sensations and feedback of a real aircraft, you might not
> be very happy with simulation overall. Still, given the choice between a sim
> and nothing at all, I suspect you'd choose the sim, as many pilots do when a
> real aircraft is not readily at hand.

Yes, I use MSFS as an occasional substitute for my Cherokee 180 when I
can't fly for real. I use the default Cessna 172, it's not bad,
except that no matter how I adjust the sensitivity settings, the
rudder is WAY too sensitive compared to my Cherokee or 172s that I've
flown. Is there anything else to try?

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Yes, I use MSFS as an occasional substitute for my Cherokee 180 when I
> can't fly for real. I use the default Cessna 172, it's not bad,
> except that no matter how I adjust the sensitivity settings, the
> rudder is WAY too sensitive compared to my Cherokee or 172s that I've
> flown. Is there anything else to try?

Try the RealAir 172. It's freeware, and is supposed to be about as close to
realistic dynamics as is possible with the program. I have it and fly it
often. I can't fly a real 172, so I can't say if it's real or not, but
certainly seems better than the default.
Oz Lander

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> On 2/28/2007 4:42:05 PM, "Morgans" wrote:
>
>> and
>> all it can possibly do is to attract more sim nuts and sim discussion,
>> that
>> most of us very strongly do NOT want HERE!
>
> Am I a sim nut for answering his post? Uh, oh.

I had rather you not, and that's just me; one out of hundreds, but what the
heck - so much of that is going on - who can tell! <g>

I guess that is my point. I don't think that either of you are sim nuts, or
have difficulty understanding the difference (and reality issues) between
real flying and simming. That title is very secure in another's holding.

We need (IMHO) to try and get away from the sim postings. This group is
losing their identity - and fast.

A long post entirely about simming belongs in the sim group. That's all.
Simple concept.
--
Jim in NC

[Kev]

On Feb 28, 4:18 pm, "Tony" > wrote:
> That's it. It was as fulfilling an experience for me as eating cotton
> candy -- there just wasn't much there. It simply didn't provide the
> kinds of feedback I'd want, and I'm not going to buy a yoke with force
> feedback and rudder peddles (sims who use a joystick instead of a yoke
> in airplanes that come with yokes are another step removed from at
> least what is my reality.

Yuck. Using a flight (or driving or whatever) sim with a keyboard is
like, well, using a GUI without any kind of mouse device. Doable, but
boring. A real-life pilot simply should not use or judge a flight
sim without a yoke and pedals.

As Jay and many others here can tell you though, if you have some
extra stuff laying around (like a monitor for the panel, and a
projection TV for the outside view), and/or you invest in add-on
terrain and visual details, a sim can be huge fun for pilots when
you're stuck at home and can't go up for real.

It's also highly beneficial for practicing approaches at unfamiliar
airports, even in its stock form.

Kev

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Yes, I use MSFS as an occasional substitute for my Cherokee 180 when I
> can't fly for real. I use the default Cessna 172, it's not bad,
> except that no matter how I adjust the sensitivity settings, the
> rudder is WAY too sensitive compared to my Cherokee or 172s that I've
> flown. Is there anything else to try?

There is at least one freeware add-on for FS 2004 that simulates a Cherokee
180F, and at least one payware add-on (Carenado). I don't know much about
them, but you might want to try them if they match your real-life aircraft.
The closer the simulation gets to your real-life experience, the more
enjoyable it is likely to be.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> Yuck. Using a flight (or driving or whatever) sim with a keyboard is
> like, well, using a GUI without any kind of mouse device. Doable, but
> boring. A real-life pilot simply should not use or judge a flight
> sim without a yoke and pedals.

A keyboard will work if you're mainly interested in instrument flight with
automation and large aircraft. I flew like that for years, but it's true that
I avoided anything that required a lot of manipulation of the controls because
it was so awkward with the keyboard.

Flying with a mouse is much easier, even though it is very different from
flying with normal aircraft controls. However, the mouse couldn't be used on
this way in some versions of MSFS (I understand it's back in FSX).

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

[James Sleeman]

On Mar 1, 3:25 pm, "Kev" > wrote:
> A real-life pilot simply should not use or judge a flight
> sim without a yoke and pedals.

REAL pilots use a stick ;-)

[[email protected]]

Thanks to both you and CrashLander for the help. I found the RealAir
172 web site and will give it a try. Can you say where I can find the
freeware Cherokee 180F? (Mine's a 180B, so the instrument panel will
be very different, but that's ok)

Mxsmanic wrote:
> The closer the simulation gets to your real-life experience, the more
> enjoyable it is likely to be.

I think it's plenty enjoyable now. It's different in some ways from
the real thing, e.g., physical sensations, crazy rudder, the
motivation to look out the window, etc., but I think it's a remarkable
product for the cost, and much much better than not flying at all.

My complaint about the rudder sensitivity may not by accurate. I
think it is a combination of the MSFS aero model and my hardware
controller. There is no feedback in my controller (I use a joystick,
I think it's called MS Sidewinder (?)). For instance, my real
Cherokee requires a substantial push on the right rudder pedal during
the takeoff roll to keep the plane straight, while the sim/joystick
requires only a VERY slight twisting pressure. If I'm not very
careful, I overcontrol and shoot off the right side of the runway,
unless I overcontrol back to the left, and then I shoot off the left
side of the runway. It's much easier in the Cherokee, even in a
strong crosswind.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> My complaint about the rudder sensitivity may not by accurate. I
> think it is a combination of the MSFS aero model and my hardware
> controller.

I assume you've turned "autocoordination" of the rudder off in the realism
settings?

> For instance, my real
> Cherokee requires a substantial push on the right rudder pedal during
> the takeoff roll to keep the plane straight, while the sim/joystick
> requires only a VERY slight twisting pressure.

Set the P-force and torque higher in the realism settings. Most pilots say
that MSFS actually exaggerates these effects, so if you set the sliders high
enough, these effects should be at least as strong as they are in real life.
If you set them to zero, they will disappear.

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

[Kev]

On Feb 28, 11:22 pm, "James Sleeman" > wrote:
> On Mar 1, 3:25 pm, "Kev" > wrote:
>
> > A real-life pilot simply should not use or judge a flight
> > sim without a yoke and pedals.
>
> REAL pilots use a stick ;-)

Touché !!

Kev :-)

[Danny Deger]

"Tony" > wrote in message
oups.com...
snip

>
> For those of you who get pleasure from the MSFS, more power to you. It
> did not work for me. There is a possiblity my mind has been poisoned
> to the sim experience, but probably not, I hoped it might be fun ro do
> on late nights. Oh well, it was a $20 experiment. The good news is,
> that was cheap. Most of my 'experiments' cost a lot more than that.
> Want to know how to burn some VC's couple million in a startup
> venture? Talk to me!
>

This is what I think of PC simulators also.

Danny Deger

[Jay Honeck]

> This is what I think of PC simulators also.

Tony and Danny, you guys got it wrong. Way wrong.

You can't fly a flight sim program with a KEYBOARD. Try to drive your
car by pushing arrows on a keyboard, and let's see how far you get.
You'll be wrapped around a tree in a few blocks.

You can't expect realism from a sim without real flight controls.
With a real yoke/throttle/prop/mixture, and rudder pedals (with
brakes), trust me, you'll find it real enough.

And, as others have pointed out, you also have to set the realism
levels up. Out of the box, MSFS is designed for 12-year-olds who have
no clue what they're doing. Slide the realism controls all the way to
the right, and I guarantee that you will NOT track straight down the
runway on take-off!

See our set-up here:
http://alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm

I'll let you fly it all day. I'll set you up in your Mooney, in any
weather, day or night, at any airport. You'll go away with a
different attitude toward Microsoft Flight Simulator, guaranteed.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[george]

On Mar 2, 6:29 am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > This is what I think of PC simulators also.
>
> Tony and Danny, you guys got it wrong. Way wrong.
>
> You can't fly a flight sim program with a KEYBOARD. Try to drive your
> car by pushing arrows on a keyboard, and let's see how far you get.
> You'll be wrapped around a tree in a few blocks.
>
> You can't expect realism from a sim without real flight controls.
> With a real yoke/throttle/prop/mixture, and rudder pedals (with
> brakes), trust me, you'll find it real enough.
>
> And, as others have pointed out, you also have to set the realism
> levels up. Out of the box, MSFS is designed for 12-year-olds who have
> no clue what they're doing. Slide the realism controls all the way to
> the right, and I guarantee that you will NOT track straight down the
> runway on take-off!
>
> See our set-up here:http://alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm
>
> I'll let you fly it all day. I'll set you up in your Mooney, in any
> weather, day or night, at any airport. You'll go away with a
> different attitude toward Microsoft Flight Simulator, guaranteed.

Thats the secret Jay.
To have the sim set up by a real pilot who is type rated for the
particular aircraft.
I found MFS (1990) to be nothing like flying a real aircraft..

[Danny Deger]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> This is what I think of PC simulators also.
>
> Tony and Danny, you guys got it wrong. Way wrong.
>
> You can't fly a flight sim program with a KEYBOARD. Try to drive your
> car by pushing arrows on a keyboard, and let's see how far you get.
> You'll be wrapped around a tree in a few blocks.
>
> You can't expect realism from a sim without real flight controls.
> With a real yoke/throttle/prop/mixture, and rudder pedals (with
> brakes), trust me, you'll find it real enough.

Actually I used a control stick.

I also was an Air Force pilot and NASA astronaut instructor. In both of
these jobs I got lots of time in full blown simulators complete with motion.
I found them to be boring compaired to real flight. I don't think the
Microsoft simulator has a chance of becoming interesting to me.

Danny Deger

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> Thats the secret Jay.
> To have the sim set up by a real pilot who is type rated for the
> particular aircraft.

No, that isn't necessary. Just crank up the realism and get some realistic
controls, a good monitor, and a fast machine.

MSFS was largely written by real pilots. Or do pilots who write software not
count?

> I found MFS (1990) to be nothing like flying a real aircraft..

That was two decades ago.

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

[Tony]

Jay, I'm sure you're right when you say with enough additional
components one can get the MSFS to be more realistic. I was interested
in the out of the box experience, I tried the thing again with realism
set high, and yes, it torqued to the side, and was a lot 'touchier'
than the out of the box unit. My limited experience with Mooneys (I
have only logged time in a Ranger <simulate that Joe bar landing gear
retraction, boys and girls> and an M20J) tells me its soul is a
beautiful, intellegent, and responsive woman. I wouldn't want mine to
know I was messing around with another Mooney. "It's only simulation,
dear, with a younger and faster model" would make my next flight
difficult :-).


I am only a sample of 1, but was led to understand controlling a sim
airplane from a primititive keyboard was difficult. It was not. I
'flew' with not nearly the level of precision that would be acceptable
in RL, but never the less up and down arrowed well enough to not bend
electrons.

I am also more aware that an important part of the flight experience
is wrapping the airplane around me. The seating is low, legs are in
tunnel, view to the side in flight is great, and the control 'feel' is
exquisite . RL flying for me is steak, I was hoping for hamburger, and
got candy cotton.

I don't want to build a pseudo Mooney in my office. I'm sure doing all
of that would get the experience well out of the candy cotton level
and even past hamburger helper, but it's not that important to me.

I appreciate the offer of sim time with your rig, and if I find myself
in your corner of the world (or as a way point) I'll take advantage of
it. My bio technology real life world is not randomly distributed, but
rather is in clusters. So far the upper midwest is one of the leaner
areas (exclusive of the area around Rochester MN). BTW, there are a
couple of good B school theses hidden in that question: how come
Rochester MN, or Cleveland OH?

I'm going off frequency now.


On Mar 1, 12:29 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > This is what I think of PC simulators also.
>
> Tony and Danny, you guys got it wrong. Way wrong.
>
> You can't fly a flight sim program with a KEYBOARD. Try to drive your
> car by pushing arrows on a keyboard, and let's see how far you get.
> You'll be wrapped around a tree in a few blocks.
>
> You can't expect realism from a sim without real flight controls.
> With a real yoke/throttle/prop/mixture, and rudder pedals (with
> brakes), trust me, you'll find it real enough.
>
> And, as others have pointed out, you also have to set the realism
> levels up. Out of the box, MSFS is designed for 12-year-olds who have
> no clue what they're doing. Slide the realism controls all the way to
> the right, and I guarantee that you will NOT track straight down the
> runway on take-off!
>
> See our set-up here:http://alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm
>
> I'll let you fly it all day. I'll set you up in your Mooney, in any
> weather, day or night, at any airport. You'll go away with a
> different attitude toward Microsoft Flight Simulator, guaranteed.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[george]

On Mar 2, 9:22 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> george writes:
> > Thats the secret Jay.
> > To have the sim set up by a real pilot who is type rated for the
> > particular aircraft.
>
> No, that isn't necessary. Just crank up the realism and get some realistic
> controls, a good monitor, and a fast machine.
>
> MSFS was largely written by real pilots. Or do pilots who write software not
> count?
>
> > I found MFS (1990) to be nothing like flying a real aircraft..
>
> That was two decades ago.

and crap is crap is crap !

[[email protected]]

On Mar 1, 12:29 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> See our set-up here:http://alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm
>
> I'll let you fly it all day. I'll set you up in your Mooney, in any
> weather, day or night, at any airport. You'll go away with a
> different attitude toward Microsoft Flight Simulator, guaranteed.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Mr. Honeck, that's a very impressive set up you have, I hope I get to
your hotel for a test flight someday, looks like great fun. I assume
N56993 is a Cherokee Pathfinder, roughly similar to my Cherokee 180.
I see what appear to be CH rudder pedals in the photos. How do they
compare to your Pathfinder. I've tried the pedals and found them to
be much more sensitive than my Cherokee's pedals. I think it may be
partly due to their very light feedback pressure. Is there some way
to increase the rudder pressure feedback?

[Jay Honeck]

> > > I found MFS (1990) to be nothing like flying a real aircraft..
>
> > That was two decades ago.
>
> and crap is crap is crap !

George, c'mon. In 1990, I was running Flight Simulator on a computer
(a 386, if I recall) with less power than a Palm Pilot has today.

Take a look at FS2004, on a good system. You will be absolutely blown
away.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I see what appear to be CH rudder pedals in the photos. How do they
> compare to your Pathfinder. I've tried the pedals and found them to
> be much more sensitive than my Cherokee's pedals. I think it may be
> partly due to their very light feedback pressure. Is there some way
> to increase the rudder pressure feedback?

Well, we're going WAY off-topic here, but yes, the rudder pedals have
been an "issue" with our Kiwi from the start.

The basic trouble is this: The CH pedals are differential, meaning
that they are linked together, When you push the left one down, the
right one comes back, and vice versa.

Thus, the only way to keep pressure feedback on the pedals is to
"train" yourself to keep pressue on BOTH pedals, so that when you push
one, the pressure of your other foot is keeping you from slamming it
all the way to the floor.

After practice, this works fine -- but newbies invariably oscillate
down the taxiways and runways, pushing the pedals to the stops. Also,
it's then very easy to apply the brakes, so you have to train yourself
to only use your heels on the rudders.

Since this is a prototype for sims we want to install at the Iowa
Children's Museum, we're talking about eliminating the rudders
altogether, and just leaving "auto rudder" on in the program, in order
to keep the kids from running off the runway all the time.

I'm looking for a better solution, because I want absolute realism.
Unfortunately, in the absence of "force-feedback" rudder pedals, I
don't know what else to try.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> I'm looking for a better solution, because I want absolute realism.

Get in Atlas. :-/

you can't have absolute realism in a simulation.

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

[george]

On Mar 2, 4:30 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > > > I found MFS (1990) to be nothing like flying a real aircraft..
>
> > > That was two decades ago.
>
> > and crap is crap is crap !
>
> George, c'mon. In 1990, I was running Flight Simulator on a computer
> (a 386, if I recall) with less power than a Palm Pilot has today.
>
> Take a look at FS2004, on a good system. You will be absolutely blown
> away.

It might be Jay but I was playing with a Bantam B22 (Microlight) back
then and the MSFS lost out.
I'm not knocking the 3 axis with all the bells and whistles just
flying the electrons doesn't do anything for me.

[george]

On Mar 2, 4:30 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > > > I found MFS (1990) to be nothing like flying a real aircraft..
>
> > > That was two decades ago.
>
> > and crap is crap is crap !
>
> George, c'mon. In 1990, I was running Flight Simulator on a computer
> (a 386, if I recall) with less power than a Palm Pilot has today.

Besides which your sim is named after our little fat nonfler :-)

[Jose]

> I'm looking for a better solution, because I want absolute realism.
> Unfortunately, in the absence of "force-feedback" rudder pedals, I
> don't know what else to try.

Rig up some real rudder pedals (the right distance apart), with springs.
Connect them via bungee cords or other springs to the CH pedals. If
you do it right, you'll be able to press either (real) rudder pedal
independently, but have that motion transferred to the CH in the
differential way it needs. The force fed back to your legs would come
from the (big) springs, and the force from the (wimpy) CH pedals would
be transferred to the (real) pedals via the (only needs to be wimpy)
bungee cords.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> I'm looking for a better solution, because I want absolute realism.
> Unfortunately, in the absence of "force-feedback" rudder pedals, I
> don't know what else to try.

Without knowing exactly how they are constructed, I'll take a guess, but you
will get the general idea, and be able to alter it to meet your needs.

A narrow steel plate could be through bolted to the pedals with some small
machine screws, or liquid nails and screwed to the pedals, so the steel
extends to the sides of, and clear of the housing. Drill a hole in the
outboard part of the steel, and attach a spring, and run it back to the back
of the housing, or a plate on the backside of the housing, or to the Kiwi,
if the unit is permanently attached.

The springs will attempt to keep the pedals centered, if a moderate amount
of force is applied to both, evenly. When the one side goes towards the
floor, it's spring will go slack, and the other side's spring will try to
pull it back to neutral.

You will also get the advantage of keeping the pedals for the big ones,
since the little ones can not reach the pedals, and the springs will keep
the units neutral.
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Honeck]

> > I'm looking for a better solution, because I want absolute realism.
>
> Get in Atlas. :-/
>
> you can't have absolute realism in a simulation.

I can do that almost anytime.

But I want absolute realism for the kids at the Childrens Museum. If
I could take 'em all flying, I would -- but, since that's not
possible, I want to give them the best "taste" of aviation possible,
in the sim.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mike Young]

"Tony" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> because with an IO 540 this thing should want to turn really badly --
> in the M20J I used rudder mostly to keep it on centerline during the
> early part of the takeoff roll, figured my little left and right
> arrows would have to do the job here.
>
> The Bravo tracked straight down the centerline without any help from
> me! This is supposed to be an accurate simulation, with no P effects?
> Gimme a break.


TIO 540 in FSX, probably in FS9 also. Maybe you paused to wonder about 35"
MAP; maybe you didn't.

Auto-rudder is on by default; think of it as a perfect yaw damper.

> For those of you who get pleasure from the MSFS, more power to you. It
> did not work for me. There is a possiblity my mind has been poisoned
> to the sim experience, but probably not, I hoped it might be fun ro do
> on late nights. Oh well, it was a $20 experiment. The good news is,

Yup. I'd say you plumbed the full depths of the package. Next time, just put
the $20 in an envelope and mail it to me.

> that was cheap. Most of my 'experiments' cost a lot more than that.
> Want to know how to burn some VC's couple million in a startup
> venture? Talk to me!

Why, you're just one of a kind, bragging up two major accomplishemnts in one
post. Just wondering here if your education helped you in anyway to reach
your station in life.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:21:05 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>> On 2/28/2007 4:42:05 PM, "Morgans" wrote:
>>
>>> and
>>> all it can possibly do is to attract more sim nuts and sim discussion,
>>> that
>>> most of us very strongly do NOT want HERE!
>>
>> Am I a sim nut for answering his post? Uh, oh.
>
>I had rather you not, and that's just me; one out of hundreds, but what the
>heck - so much of that is going on - who can tell! <g>
>
>I guess that is my point. I don't think that either of you are sim nuts, or
>have difficulty understanding the difference (and reality issues) between
>real flying and simming. That title is very secure in another's holding.
>
>We need (IMHO) to try and get away from the sim postings. This group is
>losing their identity - and fast.
>
>A long post entirely about simming belongs in the sim group. That's all.
>Simple concept.
Hey! With the weather we've been having the Deb hasn't been out of the
hangar in 6 weeks and I've been suffering withdrawal for 5 1/2.

I have been working on the elevator for the G-III, but keep finding
reasons (procrastinating) for not closing one side.

Then I had to replace the HD in my wife's computer which was supposed
to be simple. Just take the one out of the shop being replaced by the
new one, but things are never as simple as they should be. Two weeks
later, her's is working, and I've rebuilt the new one in the shop
twice. Now I only have to repair the OS on this machine and the one
beside it.

The thing about working on the shop computer is its next to the G-III
making the G-III difficult to ignore which is slowly, oh so slowly
causing me to get some work done on the G-III. Of course there are the
plugs that need cleaning on the Deb ...Maybe I'd better call the guy
who cleans the ramp. We are supposed to have some warm weather coming
and I gotta put some hours on the engine before the annual. I gotta
put some hours on me!


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Mxsmanic]

MXSMANIC is STOOPID writes:

> Yes, it is, unless you're only using it as a toy.

Most users of MSFS don't use it as a toy. It's very poor as a video game.

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

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> It might be Jay but I was playing with a Bantam B22 (Microlight) back
> then and the MSFS lost out.

Twenty years ago. There was no Web twenty years ago; do you deny the
existence of the Web now?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Tony writes:

> My limited experience with Mooneys (I
> have only logged time in a Ranger <simulate that Joe bar landing gear
> retraction, boys and girls> and an M20J) tells me its soul is a
> beautiful, intellegent, and responsive woman. I wouldn't want mine to
> know I was messing around with another Mooney. "It's only simulation,
> dear, with a younger and faster model" would make my next flight
> difficult :-).

Aircraft as woman? That's an attitude I have not encountered up to now.

To me, aircraft are machines.

> I am only a sample of 1, but was led to understand controlling a sim
> airplane from a primititive keyboard was difficult. It was not.

It's difficult for things like aerobatics. But some types of flying are
doable, albeit not necessarily very realistic from a control standpoint. Some
things work well with the keyboard, such as trim adjustments.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> The basic trouble is this: The CH pedals are differential, meaning
> that they are linked together, When you push the left one down, the
> right one comes back, and vice versa.
>
> Thus, the only way to keep pressure feedback on the pedals is to
> "train" yourself to keep pressue on BOTH pedals, so that when you push
> one, the pressure of your other foot is keeping you from slamming it
> all the way to the floor.

What type of pressure feedback do you need? Aren't real rudder pedals
connected in the same way? (One goes forward when the other goes back.)

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> But I want absolute realism for the kids at the Childrens Museum. If
> I could take 'em all flying, I would -- but, since that's not
> possible, I want to give them the best "taste" of aviation possible,
> in the sim.

For the Children's Museum, I think you'll need a way to dial the realism up
and down. Absolute beginners aren't going to do well with realism set high
and will become frustrated, whereas those with more experience are going to
find low realism disappointing.

I suppose you could divided kids into groups by experience level, and then set
the realism before each group is accommodated.

Zooming off the runway is frustrating if you're not used to rudder control,
but not having the rudder control when you need it for something after gaining
a bit of experience is just as disappointing.

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

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> george writes:
>
>> It might be Jay but I was playing with a Bantam B22 (Microlight) back
>> then and the MSFS lost out.
>
> Twenty years ago. There was no Web twenty years ago; do you deny the
> existence of the Web now?

Don't assume Web = Internet. World Wide Web existed 15 years
ago; The Internet has been around for nearly double, if not longer.

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)

iD8DBQFF59FkyBkZmuMZ8L8RAhApAJ9WMZgbswXzNBD1XhT0+s M+Fr5BfgCgzFMT
ORUs2h1gEdHlLs6kCCYFbc8=
=RZ8J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> Don't assume Web = Internet.

I haven't. That's why I said Web, not Internet.

> World Wide Web existed 15 years
> ago; The Internet has been around for nearly double, if not longer.

So? I didn't say anything about the Internet.

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

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > > I'm looking for a better solution, because I want absolute realism.
> >
> > Get in Atlas. :-/
> >
> > you can't have absolute realism in a simulation.
>
> I can do that almost anytime.

ah, Jay. By definition, a simulation is not real. And "absolute realism"
requires fidelity in ALL aspects (kind of hard to sim aerobatics).

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

[Mxsmanic]

MXSMANIC Doestn't Fly writes:

> It's qualities as a game are far superior to it's qualities
> as a simulator.

If that were true, it would have a much larger market. Microsoft would
probably prefer it that way, as all MS wants is money. But it has such a long
heritage as a simulator that it makes a very poor game.

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

[Mxsmanic]

MXSMANIC Knows very Little writes:

> Just because you say it's true?

No, because it's objectively so. MS has tried to make the simulator more
game-like in FSX, apparently out of a desire to shift the market from the
loyal but small market of simmers to the much larger (but much more
competitive and volatile) market of gamers. I think that's a bad move, but MS
is increasingly tending towards bad moves these days.

> A long history as a ****-poor simulator has nothing to do with it's poor gaming
> quality.

It's a very good simulator, but it is a poor game, because it has no objective
or purpose other than to simulate flight.

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

[Mxsmanic]

MXSMANIC lives in a dream world writes:

> It's probably pretty good at simulating what you believe real flight may be.

Lots of pilots agree with me. Heck, pilots designed it.

> You adamantly refuse to listen when real pilots tell you it is deficient,
> yet you whole-heartedly agree when they say it's good.

I've done neither.

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

[Jose]

>> Get in Atlas. :-/
>>> you can't have absolute realism in a simulation.
>> I can do that almost anytime.
> ah, Jay. By definition, a simulation is not real.

I think he meant he can get in atlas any time.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[george]

On Mar 2, 8:03 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> george writes:
> > It might be Jay but I was playing with a Bantam B22 (Microlight) back
> > then and the MSFS lost out.
>
> Twenty years ago. There was no Web twenty years ago; do you deny the
> existence of the Web now?

WTF are you on?
I never mentioned the Net or the Web..
Bad example
I was a Co-sysop on Fidonet in 1986 running D'Bridge as Night Caller.
We ran until 1995 when the Net became available here..
You are playing a game
That is nothing like flying

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> WTF are you on?
> I never mentioned the Net or the Web..

I was illustrating the potential irrelevance of things twenty years ago as
compared to today.

> You are playing a game
> That is nothing like flying

I'm using a simulator; it's a lot like flying. I don't understand why that
upsets you so.

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

[Jay Honeck]

> I think he meant he can get in atlas any time.

Yep.

Boy, I'm having a real clarity issue lately. Must be this weather...

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

[Jay Honeck]

> What type of pressure feedback do you need? Aren't real rudder pedals
> connected in the same way? (One goes forward when the other goes back.)

Yes, but with far more resistance. Because the resistance is so
light, over-controlling is the norm rather than the exception. This
is true with newbies as well as experienced pilots, so it's not just a
personal preference on my part.

Another problem is that the CH pedals actually "slide" back and forth,
rather than going "into" anything. This is a subtle but quite
different feel.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mxsmanic]

Mxsmanic IS A MORON writes:

> Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt - no you're not - it's a game.
>
> Would you like to try again?

Trying again would make no difference. Believe what you will.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Yes, but with far more resistance. Because the resistance is so
> light, over-controlling is the norm rather than the exception. This
> is true with newbies as well as experienced pilots, so it's not just a
> personal preference on my part.

Do the CH pedals have adjustable resistance? The Saitek pedals do. The
Saitek also has a vaguely noticeable "neutral" position, which is handy
although it apparently is not realistic (from what I understand, there is no
distinct neutral to rudder pedals in most real-life aircraft).

> Another problem is that the CH pedals actually "slide" back and forth,
> rather than going "into" anything. This is a subtle but quite
> different feel.

I should think that it would be small enough to not be too important. The
feel of the controls in real-life aircraft can vary just as much, particularly
from one type of aircraft to another. And in some large aircraft, the
feedback is purely computer-generated, just like that of a PC simulator.

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

[Ibby (The Artist Formerly Known as Chris)]

On Feb 28, 9:18 pm, "Tony" > wrote:
> The deal is this: I wanted to fly a loop in my M20J for a long time,
> but it's hard to get around the 30 degree pitch limitation
> certifications and do a loop. isn't it?
>
> MSFS2004 offers an M20M Bravo! And Comp USA is selling that program
> for less than $20.
>
> So the four disks came in a couple of days ago, and got loaded into my
> laptop. Problem 1: no number pad for pitch and bank. I messed around
> with the C172 model and found the up down, left and right arrows did
> all of that, although I did not locate a key for return to neutral.
>
> OK, so I played student pilot and F3ed full throttle in a 172, figured
> out how to take off and land. TT maybe 15 minutes, and not an
> enriching experience.
>
> Loaded in the M20M Bravo. This beast gets yanked around the sky with a
> IO 540, my 201 does it with a IO 360. Lots more fuel usage, and a lot
> more airplane than I can afford in RL. Never the less, I called up
> KBED RR 29, and there I was, at the controls, position and hold!
>
> Neat. No checklist at hand, so I did the best I could with cowl flaps,
> wing flaps, trim, fuel pump, and the like, so it looked like this
> airplane just might fly. Hold down F3, RPMs came up nicely, and
> nothing happened! Message flashed -- parking brake is set, press . to
> release.
>
> What frigging pilot pulls onto the active and sets the parking brake?
>
> OK, I put a period to the program, and started to roll, feet twitching
> because with an IO 540 this thing should want to turn really badly --
> in the M20J I used rudder mostly to keep it on centerline during the
> early part of the takeoff roll, figured my little left and right
> arrows would have to do the job here.
>
> The Bravo tracked straight down the centerline without any help from
> me! This is supposed to be an accurate simulation, with no P effects?
> Gimme a break.
>
> OK, I down arrowed at 70 kts -- this takes a lot more rotation (read
> that as down arrow) than did the 172, I don't think I broke free until
> about 90, way too fast!
>
> Set up a straight ahead climb right out the 11 localizer, my memory
> claimed the student practice area was a bit to the north of the 11 29
> extended centerline.
>
> Is there anything more boring than watching a simulated climb to 7000
> feet? Like watching grass grow.
>
> My plan was to reach altitude, dive the thing down at 45 degrees, let
> the speed climb to top of the green, then hold down the down arrow,
> and when I was at the top of the loop close the throttle, pray a
> little, and try to recover smoothly at the bottom. Guys who have flown
> aerobatics know the way you do them is look at the horizon to the
> side. I worried about that a little, since the side image was going to
> be in front of me, but it turned out to be a non issue. I couldn't
> figure out how to get that side view.
>
> The hell with it. I pushed over, and the speed went up really fast!
> Mooneys are aerodynamicly clean GA airplanes. I downarrowed (which
> means yoke in my lap, I think) and watched the windscreen view change
> from ground to sky, saw the AH tumble, saw the ground in the top half
> of the windscreen, closed the throttle, and somewhere near the bottom
> went forward stick. It was NOT pretty. I didn't have that side view I
> wanted. I still don't know how at one point I wound up in a 60 degree
> bank! Never the less, I got back to straight and level, and remember
> having started the dive from 7000 feet was more than a little suprised
> to find the airplane was at a simulated altitude of 5500.
>
> The guy who showed me some things in a 150 Aerobat would have been
> ashamed of me. Never the less, I did a loop.
>
> About then the phone rang, and a friend suggested I meet with him and
> a few others for lunch. That sounded good.
>
> The sim was paused 30 miles or so from BED, After I got back to my
> home office there were some other matters that needed attention and
> computer memory. Exit sim
>
> That's it. It was as fulfilling an experience for me as eating cotton
> candy -- there just wasn't much there. It simply didn't provide the
> kinds of feedback I'd want, and I'm not going to buy a yoke with force
> feedback and rudder peddles (sims who use a joystick instead of a yoke
> in airplanes that come with yokes are another step removed from at
> least what is my reality.
>
> For those of you who get pleasure from the MSFS, more power to you. It
> did not work for me. There is a possiblity my mind has been poisoned
> to the sim experience, but probably not, I hoped it might be fun ro do
> on late nights. Oh well, it was a $20 experiment. The good news is,
> that was cheap. Most of my 'experiments' cost a lot more than that.
> Want to know how to burn some VC's couple million in a startup
> venture? Talk to me!

MS2004 'out of the box' is very poor and has its limitations. Its
basically a base tool for a huge userbase. The huge amount of add-ons
certainly improve it. The default planes included are basically crap
compared to good quality 'payware' planes which have better flight
dynamics and far superior cockpits and controls. Scenery, sky and
real-time updateable weather add to the sim as well if purchased.

I guess by your experience you were using a keyboard which is a big
big no no for any enjoyment in FS. The way the keyboard controls are
initially programmed creates a 'lag' then accelerates the control
input adding a serious sense of unrealism. Joystick or even yoke
controls with separate throttle controls help. Another great hardware
add-on is TrackIR4Pro which allows all head/body movements to be
accurately and smoothly replicated on screen in the virtual cockpit.

You either like it or not and for some less fortunate to fly IRL its
the best we can get ;-)

Ibby

[Jose]

> Boy, I'm having a real clarity issue lately. Must be this weather...

IF you were IFR rated, you could do this newsgroup on instruments. :)

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Dohm]

> I also was an Air Force pilot and NASA astronaut instructor. In both of
> these jobs I got lots of time in full blown simulators complete with
motion.
> I found them to be boring compaired to real flight. ---snip---

You, sir, are truly a master of understatement!

My RL esperience was in entry level aircraft and I had no experience in PC
based sims, but did happen to get a few minutes in a million dollar plus
true-maotion sim. Even by that comparison, I can only think of sims as
teaching and demonstration tools--for which they are very useful.

Admittedly, a contest type demonstration, such as Jay apparently provides
could be part of an enjoyable evening. But that goes back to the teaching
and demonstration concept.

Peter

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > I think he meant he can get in atlas any time.
>
> Yep.
>
> Boy, I'm having a real clarity issue lately. Must be this weather...

nah, I'm getting old and slow, (>-{

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

[Jay Honeck]

> Admittedly, a contest type demonstration, such as Jay apparently provides
> could be part of an enjoyable evening. But that goes back to the teaching
> and demonstration concept.

Incorrect. My suggestion goes straight to the "drink beer and enjoy
yourself" concept...

Yet another beauty of flying the Kiwi...

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

[Tony]

And that, without a doubt, is one place where a sim >> rl. It also
makes it easy for the pilot who has had a few beers to remember what
to press when he has to, ah, p.


On Mar 2, 9:45 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > Admittedly, a contest type demonstration, such as Jay apparently provides
> > could be part of an enjoyable evening. But that goes back to the teaching
> > and demonstration concept.
>
> Incorrect. My suggestion goes straight to the "drink beer and enjoy
> yourself" concept...
>
> Yet another beauty of flying the Kiwi...
>
> ;-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Yes, I use MSFS as an occasional substitute for my Cherokee 180 when
>> I can't fly for real. I use the default Cessna 172, it's not bad,
>> except that no matter how I adjust the sensitivity settings, the
>> rudder is WAY too sensitive compared to my Cherokee or 172s that I've
>> flown. Is there anything else to try?
>
> There is at least one freeware add-on for FS 2004 that simulates a
> Cherokee 180F, and at least one payware add-on (Carenado). I don't
> know much about them, but you might want to try them if they match
> your real-life aircraft.


No sim simulates a real life aircraft accuratley and I've been in ones
considerably better than your little desktop dell box, fjukkkwit



bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> MXSMANIC lives in a dream world writes:
>
>> It's probably pretty good at simulating what you believe real flight
>> may be.
>
> Lots of pilots agree with me. Heck, pilots designed it.
>
>> You adamantly refuse to listen when real pilots tell you it is
>> deficient, yet you whole-heartedly agree when they say it's good.
>
> I've done neither.
>

You are a liar. or delusional. Or both.





Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic IS A MORON writes:
>
>> Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt - no you're not - it's a game.
>>
>> Would you like to try again?
>
> Trying again would make no difference. Believe what you will.
>


Bwawhahwhhahwhahwhahwhhahwhhahw!

Bertie