Microsoft FSX Real-Life Weather

[Jay Honeck]

We had a pilot and his wife with us at the hotel Sunday who was
waiting for the wind to drop before departing for home. The winds
were really howling here, gusting to over 30 knots, and they didn't
want to do the "imitation popcorn popper" ride all the way home to
Missouri.

While they were waiting, I set him up in our newly upgraded Kiwi
flight simulator (see it here: http://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm),
at their home airport. I knew he would want me to program in some
crosswind (to better simulate the landing at home) and while tinkering
I ran across a choice I had never used before: "Download real-time
winds and weather."

I clicked on it, not knowing what to expect. Well, quicker than I can
check ADDS weather, Flight Simulator X had gone on-line and downloaded
the current weather at their home airport. It then incorporated this
weather into the sim, and within moments our guest was getting tossed
around in real-life turbulence, fighting a stiff, 80-degree cross wind
to land -- at his very own airport -- EXACTLY like he was about to do
in "real life". Very cool!

I know there are those here who don't think sims are very useful, but
this new (to me) feature really enhances the overall experience. And
our pilot-guest certainly agreed!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jim Burns[_2_]]

That's a great feature to use when contemplating "What would a instrument
approach into XYZ look like in the current crap that's happening outside."
Night-time snow storms with howling winds and near 0 vis is the most fun.
I'll usually do a few of those after barely getting home during a snow
storm.
Jim

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> We had a pilot and his wife with us at the hotel Sunday who was
> waiting for the wind to drop before departing for home. The winds
> were really howling here, gusting to over 30 knots, and they didn't
> want to do the "imitation popcorn popper" ride all the way home to
> Missouri.
>
> While they were waiting, I set him up in our newly upgraded Kiwi
> flight simulator (see it here:
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm),
> at their home airport. I knew he would want me to program in some
> crosswind (to better simulate the landing at home) and while tinkering
> I ran across a choice I had never used before: "Download real-time
> winds and weather."
>
> I clicked on it, not knowing what to expect. Well, quicker than I can
> check ADDS weather, Flight Simulator X had gone on-line and downloaded
> the current weather at their home airport. It then incorporated this
> weather into the sim, and within moments our guest was getting tossed
> around in real-life turbulence, fighting a stiff, 80-degree cross wind
> to land -- at his very own airport -- EXACTLY like he was about to do
> in "real life". Very cool!
>
> I know there are those here who don't think sims are very useful, but
> this new (to me) feature really enhances the overall experience. And
> our pilot-guest certainly agreed!
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> While they were waiting, I set him up in our newly upgraded Kiwi
> flight simulator (see it here: http://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm),
> at their home airport. I knew he would want me to program in some
> crosswind (to better simulate the landing at home) and while tinkering
> I ran across a choice I had never used before: "Download real-time
> winds and weather."
>
> I clicked on it, not knowing what to expect. Well, quicker than I can
> check ADDS weather, Flight Simulator X had gone on-line and downloaded
> the current weather at their home airport. It then incorporated this
> weather into the sim, and within moments our guest was getting tossed
> around in real-life turbulence, fighting a stiff, 80-degree cross wind
> to land -- at his very own airport -- EXACTLY like he was about to do
> in "real life". Very cool!
>
> I know there are those here who don't think sims are very useful, but
> this new (to me) feature really enhances the overall experience. And
> our pilot-guest certainly agreed!

This option exists in FS 2004 as well.

MSFS is surprisingly good at weather from version 2004 on. Vast improvements
were made and the sky really does look realistic, and the weather really does
match the correct and current weather at your sim location (if you choose to
download real weather). However, if you want the absolute best in simulated
weather, download and install ActiveSky (about $37, http://www.hifisim.com).
This is the standard for MSFS weather for serious simmers and it is
astonishingly realistic. It was designed by pilots and weather fanatics and
goes into extraordinary detail. Many weather scenarios in the sim are pretty
much indistinguishable from real life with ActiveSky running. Even more
amazing, frame rates are the same or slightly better with ActiveSky, as
compared to MSFS' own weather engine.

I was walking home a few days ago and looked at the sky and thought "that
looks as nice as ActiveSky," before I realized the absurdity of that thought.

A few days ago I nearly ended a flight in tragedy when I got caught on the
outer edge of some thunderstorm activity while trying to reach KJFK (I use
ActiveSky now). I diverted to KEWR and survived, but not without injuring a
FA in turbulence. I saw the anvil-shaped thunderheads from miles away, but I
didn't make the connection and recognize the danger until I was nearly in it.
And lately the winds along the Pacific coast have been quite hellish,
too--great for challenging simulation but not something I'd want to fly in for
real. You also get turbulence over the mountains, thermals to order, and wake
turbulence, as well as severe icing if the circumstances warrant it.

[george]

On Oct 23, 8:58 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jay Honeck writes:
> > While they were waiting, I set him up in our newly upgraded Kiwi
> > flight simulator (see it here:http://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm),
> > at their home airport. I knew he would want me to program in some
> > crosswind (to better simulate the landing at home) and while tinkering
> > I ran across a choice I had never used before: "Download real-time
> > winds and weather."
>
> > I clicked on it, not knowing what to expect. Well, quicker than I can
> > check ADDS weather, Flight Simulator X had gone on-line and downloaded
> > the current weather at their home airport. It then incorporated this
> > weather into the sim, and within moments our guest was getting tossed
> > around in real-life turbulence, fighting a stiff, 80-degree cross wind
> > to land -- at his very own airport -- EXACTLY like he was about to do
> > in "real life". Very cool!
>
> > I know there are those here who don't think sims are very useful, but
> > this new (to me) feature really enhances the overall experience. And
> > our pilot-guest certainly agreed!
>
> This option exists in FS 2004 as well.
>

Jays Kiwi is a flight simulator that can be used by real live pilots
to enhance their real flying skills.
What you have is a game!

[Darkwing]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> While they were waiting, I set him up in our newly upgraded Kiwi
>> flight simulator (see it here:
>> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm),
>> at their home airport.
>
> A few days ago I nearly ended a flight in tragedy when I got caught on the
> outer edge of some thunderstorm activity while trying to reach KJFK (I use
> ActiveSky now). I diverted to KEWR and survived, but not without injuring
> a
> FA in turbulence. I saw the anvil-shaped thunderheads from miles away,
> but I
> didn't make the connection and recognize the danger until I was nearly in
> it.
> And lately the winds along the Pacific coast have been quite hellish,
> too--great for challenging simulation but not something I'd want to fly in
> for
> real. You also get turbulence over the mountains, thermals to order, and
> wake
> turbulence, as well as severe icing if the circumstances warrant it.


Oh jeez. The line between fantazy and reality just keeps getting thinner
with our expert simmer.

---------------------------------
DW

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
>goes into extraordinary detail. Many weather scenarios in the sim are pretty
>much indistinguishable from real life with ActiveSky running. Even more

How the **** would you know? You've never been in real life.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
.... industry giant Microsoft Corporation... a company that has become
successful without resorting to software testing...
-- Unknown, rec.humor.funny

[buttman]

On Oct 22, 1:05 pm, george > wrote:
> On Oct 23, 8:58 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Jay Honeck writes:
> > > While they were waiting, I set him up in our newly upgraded Kiwi
> > > flight simulator (see it here:http://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm),
> > > at their home airport. I knew he would want me to program in some
> > > crosswind (to better simulate the landing at home) and while tinkering
> > > I ran across a choice I had never used before: "Download real-time
> > > winds and weather."
>
> > > I clicked on it, not knowing what to expect. Well, quicker than I can
> > > check ADDS weather, Flight Simulator X had gone on-line and downloaded
> > > the current weather at their home airport. It then incorporated this
> > > weather into the sim, and within moments our guest was getting tossed
> > > around in real-life turbulence, fighting a stiff, 80-degree cross wind
> > > to land -- at his very own airport -- EXACTLY like he was about to do
> > > in "real life". Very cool!
>
> > > I know there are those here who don't think sims are very useful, but
> > > this new (to me) feature really enhances the overall experience. And
> > > our pilot-guest certainly agreed!
>
> > This option exists in FS 2004 as well.
>
> Jays Kiwi is a flight simulator that can be used by real live pilots
> to enhance their real flying skills.
> What you have is a game!

uh, the 'kiwi' is a metal frame with a computer screen and a joystick
attached.

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> Jays Kiwi is a flight simulator that can be used by real live pilots
> to enhance their real flying skills.
> What you have is a game!

He is running the same software I am. The only real difference between the
two is in your attitude towards their owners.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> george writes:
>
>> Jays Kiwi is a flight simulator that can be used by real live pilots
>> to enhance their real flying skills.
>> What you have is a game!
>
> He is running the same software I am. The only real difference
> between the two is in your attitude towards their owners.


Neither sim is anything like a real airplane.

But the idiot attached to your's is definitely the genuine article.



Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> I clicked on it, not knowing what to expect. Well, quicker than I can
> check ADDS weather, Flight Simulator X had gone on-line and downloaded
> the current weather at their home airport. It then incorporated this
> weather into the sim, and within moments our guest was getting tossed
> around in real-life turbulence, fighting a stiff, 80-degree cross wind
> to land -- at his very own airport -- EXACTLY like he was about to do
> in "real life". Very cool!
>
> I know there are those here who don't think sims are very useful, but
> this new (to me) feature really enhances the overall experience. And
> our pilot-guest certainly agreed!

So how did they do, on landing the sim? Did they strike out for home, or
wait, and was the sim partly responsible for helping make their decision?
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:

> Oh jeez. The line between fantazy and reality just keeps getting thinner
> with our expert simmer.

Try it.

[Mxsmanic]

Paul Tomblin writes:

> How the **** would you know? You've never been in real life.

All I have to do is look up to compare.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Oh jeez. The line between fantazy and reality just keeps getting
>> thinner with our expert simmer.
>
> Try it.
>

What, blurring the line between fantasy and reality?

Most people need assistance to get to the level of skill you've achieved in
that area.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Paul Tomblin writes:
>
>> How the **** would you know? You've never been in real life.
>
> All I have to do is look up to compare.
>



Bwawhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhhahw hahwhahwhahwhahw !

What, MSFS simulates colons now?


Bertie

[Darkwing]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Oh jeez. The line between fantazy and reality just keeps getting thinner
>> with our expert simmer.
>
> Try it.

I already do! I've had every MSFS since the mid-80's when it was still wire
frames on my hard drive-less Tandy, but as an ACTUAL pilot it isn't
near the fun and experience that I get sitting behind the controls of an
actual airplane. I also fly RC planes but it isn't near as much fun as
flying a
real plane as well. Tomorrow I'm going overseas for business and I have to
sit in the back of a Delta flight and I'm sure that won't be as much fun as
flying the plane either.

------------------------------------------
DW

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
:

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> Oh jeez. The line between fantazy and reality just keeps getting
>>> thinner with our expert simmer.
>>
>> Try it.
>
> I already do! I've had every MSFS since the mid-80's when it was still
> wire frames on my hard drive-less Tandy, but as an ACTUAL pilot it
> isn't near the fun and experience that I get sitting behind the
> controls of an actual airplane. I also fly RC planes but it isn't near
> as much fun as flying a
> real plane as well. Tomorrow I'm going overseas for business and I
> have to sit in the back of a Delta flight and I'm sure that won't be
> as much fun as flying the plane either.


well, flying an RC airplane is a lot closer to flying a real airplane than
any sim I've been in.


Bertie
>
>

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
>Paul Tomblin writes:
>> How the **** would you know? You've never been in real life.
>
>All I have to do is look up to compare.

When you start to look *down* on clouds, we'll respect your opinion about
weather.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"Microsoft is a cross between the Borg and the Ferengi. Unfortunately,
they use Borg to do their marketing and Ferengi to do their programming."
-- Simon Slavin in asr

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

SockPuppet > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> says...
>> Neither sim is anything like a real airplane.
>>
>>
> I don't agree that MSFS 2004 isn't "anything like a real airplane".


K


Bertie
>

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, SockPuppet > said:
>The weather stuff is okay but innacurate -- it often only gets the
>weather kind of close to the airport selected.

So does Flight Service.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"Dumbass PowarRanger Voltron is like the original PowarRanger Voltron,
except no one can agree who forms the head, so all you're left with is
five assholes." - siln

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:

>
>
> well, flying an RC airplane is a lot closer to flying a real airplane than
> any sim I've been in.

Indeed.

And it will actually *help* you learn to fly a full scale airplane, as opposed
to MSFS, which will teach you bad habits you will have to unlearn.

Most pilots who are good at both RC and full scale will tell you RC is more
difficult to learn, and knowing how to fly the big ones first isn't much help.

I was one of the club instructors back in my RC days. Occasionally we would
have a pilot show up with his pride-and-joy scale P-51 or some such he had
built, but without a minute of RC stick time. He would be referred by the
shop where he bought the kit.

Sometimes these were twenty thousand-hour guys. It was a humbling experience
for them to find out they had no shot at soloing their hot scale fighter, and
had to go back to the RC equivalent of a 150.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[george]

On Oct 23, 10:17 am, buttman > wrote:

>
> > Jays Kiwi is a flight simulator that can be used by real live pilots
> > to enhance their real flying skills.
> > What you have is a game!
>
> uh, the 'kiwi' is a metal frame with a computer screen and a joystick
> attached.

Yes. And?

It doesn't change.
mixedup is playing a game
Those who try the Kiwi appear to, in the main, be real live pilots.
Or do you think that a sim flight game player is a 'pilot' ?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> well, flying an RC airplane is a lot closer to flying a real airplane
>> than any sim I've been in.
>
> Indeed.
>
> And it will actually *help* you learn to fly a full scale airplane, as
> opposed to MSFS, which will teach you bad habits you will have to
> unlearn.
>
> Most pilots who are good at both RC and full scale will tell you RC is
> more difficult to learn, and knowing how to fly the big ones first
> isn't much help.
>
> I was one of the club instructors back in my RC days. Occasionally we
> would have a pilot show up with his pride-and-joy scale P-51 or some
> such he had built, but without a minute of RC stick time. He would be
> referred by the shop where he bought the kit.
>
> Sometimes these were twenty thousand-hour guys. It was a humbling
> experience for them to find out they had no shot at soloing their hot
> scale fighter, and had to go back to the RC equivalent of a 150.
>

Been there done that got the t shirt!

Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote

> Been there done that got the t shirt!

Did you manage to get off without a crash, or did you roll up your RC into a
little ball?
--
Jim in NC

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> george writes:
>
>> Jays Kiwi is a flight simulator that can be used by real live pilots
>> to enhance their real flying skills.
>> What you have is a game!
>
> He is running the same software I am. The only real difference between
> the
> two is in your attitude towards their owners.

The difference isn't the tool - the difference is how it's used.

--
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.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:

>
> Been there done that got the t shirt!

One of the hottest RC pilots in the Houston area in those days was also a 737
jockey.

He built a large scale ducted fan '37 in full company livery and got his
rocks off doing aerobatics with it.


--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
>> Been there done that got the t shirt!
>
> Did you manage to get off without a crash, or did you roll up your RC
> into a little ball?

First time? A crash. Relatively simple 4ch trainer, but no help. Came
fairly quickly after repairs and a second session. it's th ecoming towards
you thing of course.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:
>
>>
>> Been there done that got the t shirt!
>
> One of the hottest RC pilots in the Houston area in those days was
> also a 737 jockey.
>
> He built a large scale ducted fan '37 in full company livery and got
> his
> rocks off doing aerobatics with it.
>
>

Yeah, I thought of doing a slope soarer of one aiplane I used to fly but
never got around to it.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in
news:GqGdnZ4k2L_HrYDanZ2dnUVZ_sOrnZ2d@wideopenwest .com:

> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> george writes:
>>
>>> Jays Kiwi is a flight simulator that can be used by real live pilots
>>> to enhance their real flying skills.
>>> What you have is a game!
>>
>> He is running the same software I am. The only real difference between
>> the
>> two is in your attitude towards their owners.
>
> The difference isn't the tool - the difference is how it's used.
>

In Anthony's case it's kind of like using his head as a jackhammer.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

> A student who does his required x-countries first in MSFS and uses all
> his tools (EB6 & flight plan, doing the whole thing with writing down
> times to checkpoints etc) will have an easier time of it on the real
> deal. I tried it both ways and whenever I flew the x-country first in
> the simulator the real thing went much smoother. If nothing else that
> practice gets you in tune with how fast you have to note everthing on
> your flight plan to keep up.
>
> But for actually handling the plane: stalls, unusual attitudes, spins,
> wind gust corrections on landing, real emergency procedures, etc, it
> does not help you (IMHO).
>
> The weather stuff is okay but innacurate -- it often only gets the
> weather kind of close to the airport selected.

I think I hit send by accident, so apologies if there are two
postings. In any case I think its a fair point to say that good sims
are useful for many aspects of flying like those mentioned above. They
are also probably a good supplement to instrument training. But in
general sims are quite boring compared to the real thing. I find the
scenery to be pretty dull especially closer to the ground and the
scenery add-ons make it even worse. I am still waiting for the day
when the scenery will be absolutely dead real.. that would be fun even
if the airplane does not handle like it does in real life.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote

>. it's th ecoming towards
> you thing of course.
>

"Push the stick towards the low wing!" we used to say.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Viperdoc" wrote:

> How can anyone who thinks they are so smart keep presenting themselves as an
> idiot, and not get it?
>
> Perhaps if he looks up and sees some **** coming he'll know where his head
> is located.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in news:13hqg2u74hkbvd2
@news.supernews.com:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote
>
>>. it's th ecoming towards
>> you thing of course.
>>
>
> "Push the stick towards the low wing!" we used to say.
>
>
>

Yeah. Got t now!


Bertie

[Jay Honeck]

> So how did they do, on landing the sim? Did they strike out for home, or
> wait, and was the sim partly responsible for helping make their decision?

Our guy had a tough landing in the sim (he could re-use the plane
again, but that's about it) and decided to wait it out until the wind
died down.

They departed KIOW about 4 PM, and the winds had diminished to less
than 10 knots by the time they landed in Missouri, some 2.4 hours
later. All in all, waiting was a wise move.

I don't think the sim was the reason for waiting -- this guy has been
flying for decades, and knew precisely what kind of turbulence awaited
him in the real sky. But it was good practice.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[ManhattanMan]

Viperdoc wrote:
> How can anyone who thinks they are so smart keep presenting
> themselves as an idiot, and not get it?
>
> Perhaps if he looks up and sees some **** coming he'll know where his
> head is located.


Here's a candid shot of Mx, before he gained the extra 300kg

http://www.members.cox.net/drpics/hua2.jpg

[Jose]

> I picked up one bad habit from MSFS from the way the joystick worked
> while touching down and my instructor caught it early on during training
> and I made the problem go away without further ado.

What bad habit was it?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[DaveB]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 03:04:56 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> I picked up one bad habit from MSFS from the way the joystick worked
>> while touching down and my instructor caught it early on during training
>> and I made the problem go away without further ado.
>
>What bad habit was it?
>
>Jose
>--
>You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
>for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

picking nose?
Daveb

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
> First time? A crash. Relatively simple 4ch trainer, but no help. Came
> fairly quickly after repairs and a second session. it's th ecoming towards
> you thing of course.

I try to think of it not as coming towards you, or anything else, but like
being in the cockpit.

As I start a turn, I think, turning left, turning left, more left, (if I
need to tighten the turn) less left, less left, (if I need to decrease the
bank angle) then, straightening out with less left, and so forth. That way,
it does not matter in the least, if it is coming towards you, or going away,
or transitioning between the two.

Try it, and I think it will help.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>>
>> First time? A crash. Relatively simple 4ch trainer, but no help. Came
>> fairly quickly after repairs and a second session. it's th ecoming
>> towards you thing of course.
>
> I try to think of it not as coming towards you, or anything else, but
> like being in the cockpit.
>
> As I start a turn, I think, turning left, turning left, more left, (if
> I need to tighten the turn) less left, less left, (if I need to
> decrease the bank angle) then, straightening out with less left, and
> so forth. That way, it does not matter in the least, if it is coming
> towards you, or going away, or transitioning between the two.
>
> Try it, and I think it will help.



I fly them fine now . UI only had a poblem with them for a couple of days a
looong time ago.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

SockPuppet > wrote in
:

> In article om>,
> says...
>> Our guy had a tough landing in the sim (he could re-use the plane
>> again, but that's about it) and decided to wait it out until the wind
>> died down.
>>
>>
>
> In some ways a sim is harder to fly, I think.

That's becase they don't have any wings and the L/D is crap.




Bertie

[Jay Honeck]

> And I thought he'd gone away for a few days... Since mxsmanic has never
> flown anything other than his computer game, he will never be able to make a
> comparison to actual flying, no matter how much he tries to argue to the
> contrary.

So what? Aren't you (and the rest of you never-say-die MX-bashers)
getting just a BIT tired of this game?

MX is a harmless (if persistent) lad, and you guys are polluting every
thread on this group with your competition to see who can most
creatively insult him. PLEASE give it a rest?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

SockPuppet > wrote in news:MPG.21872f2936054301989692
@news-server.hot.rr.com:

> In article >,
> says...
>> What bad habit was it?
>>
>>
> Joystick inputs (for the one I have anyway) are impossible to adjust
> correclty to mimic a real yoke. There are dead areas and voltage jumps
> in the pots that don't exist in a cable control system, so you wind up
> making sudden small corrections to keep a SIM landing smooth.
>
> In a Cessna 152 on landing I tended to make very small, jerky, periodic
> pull-backs on the yoke -- completely unnecessary and WRONG.
>
> But once she pointed it out it wasn't hard to stop doing.
>
> I imagine the fly by wire sticks in sophisticated newer aircraft don't
> have dead spots and voltage jumps.
>


I fly some of the most sophisticated sims ever made and they still don't
fly like real airplanes.

they're good for procedures and illustrating how an ADF approach should
look and that is about it.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in
oups.com:

>> And I thought he'd gone away for a few days... Since mxsmanic has
>> never flown anything other than his computer game, he will never be
>> able to make a comparison to actual flying, no matter how much he
>> tries to argue to the contrary.
>
> So what? Aren't you (and the rest of you never-say-die MX-bashers)
> getting just a BIT tired of this game?

Nope.



Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> Yes. And?

And the same software drives the sim in both cases. It's the same "game."

> Those who try the Kiwi appear to, in the main, be real live pilots.

Whether or not the sim is a game has nothing to do with the people using it
(or "playing the game"). If a six-year-old steps into a full-motion sim, that
doesn't turn the sim into a game.

> Or do you think that a sim flight game player is a 'pilot' ?

Some are, some aren't. But that has nothing to do with the nature of the sim.

You're making a distinction that doesn't really exist. Better to be
controlled by reason than by emotion.

[Mxsmanic]

SockPuppet writes:

> Though I haven't
> done it you can also play with various GPS devices without having to buy
> them (much of those devices' functionality is recreated).

The Garmin GPS units are recreated with complete accuracy if you use certain
add-ons, since the simulation software is actually written by Garmin. They do
everything the real ones do, and you can step away from the sim and into a
cockpit equipped with the same real-world unit and use it effectively without
missing a beat.

> But for actually handling the plane: stalls, unusual attitudes, spins,
> wind gust corrections on landing, real emergency procedures, etc, it
> does not help you (IMHO).

The weaknesses of a PC sim are the lack of motion, limited visibility, and the
differences in controls. Anything that depends on either of these will be
hard to simulate, although more elaborate sim set-ups can mitigate some of
these problems. Since there's a lot more to flying than VFR, these
limitations are not as great as they seem, unless flying a tiny plane strictly
under VFR is your only ambition.

> The weather stuff is okay but innacurate -- it often only gets the
> weather kind of close to the airport selected.

If you use something like ActiveSky, the weather will be identical to that of
the real world (although obviously the individual clouds will not have the
same shape).

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> george writes:
>
>> Yes. And?
>
> And the same software drives the sim in both cases. It's the same
> "game."
>
>> Those who try the Kiwi appear to, in the main, be real live pilots.
>
> Whether or not the sim is a game has nothing to do with the people
> using it (or "playing the game"). If a six-year-old steps into a
> full-motion sim, that doesn't turn the sim into a game.


Maybe not, but if you stepped into a photo booth it would turn it into a
horror show.

>
>> Or do you think that a sim flight game player is a 'pilot' ?
>
> Some are, some aren't. But that has nothing to do with the nature of
> the sim.
>
> You're making a distinction that doesn't really exist. Better to be
> controlled by reason than by emotion.
>



You don't fly, therefore you can't say.

You will never fly.


Ever.

Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:

> I already do! I've had every MSFS since the mid-80's when it was still wire
> frames on my hard drive-less Tandy, but as an ACTUAL pilot it isn't
> near the fun and experience that I get sitting behind the controls of an
> actual airplane.

And yet you've had every MSFS since the mid-80s. Hmm. It's not that fun but
you keep buying it.

This past year I've put in over 720 hours of simulation. If I wanted to do
that in real life, even on a very tiny airplane, it would cost me $253,800 in
rental fees (not counting $56,000 to get the pilot's license and IR).
Overall, even if the sim doesn't provide quite the same experience, it
provides a lot more bang for the buck. And unless you're absolutely hellbent
on experiencing some aspect of flying that only the real aircraft provides,
simulation can be more than sufficient to deal with a love of aviation.

The situation is even more lopsided if you like to fly airliners.

> I also fly RC planes but it isn't near as much fun as flying a
> real plane as well.

I've never been able to get into RC aircraft. When they can fly at a speed
that matches their scale, maybe I'll be more interested. Flying at Mach 7 and
pulling 350 Gs isn't very realistic.

> Tomorrow I'm going overseas for business and I have to
> sit in the back of a Delta flight and I'm sure that won't be as much fun as
> flying the plane either.

Nor will it be as much fun as the simulator.

[Mxsmanic]

Dan Luke writes:

> And it will actually *help* you learn to fly a full scale airplane, as opposed
> to MSFS, which will teach you bad habits you will have to unlearn.

There are important differences between RC flight and real flight, at least as
many as there are between sim flight and real flight.

[Mxsmanic]

Paul Tomblin writes:

> When you start to look *down* on clouds, we'll respect your opinion about
> weather.

I've done that, too. Your respect for my opinion (or lack thereof) is
irrelevant to me.

[Mxsmanic]

SockPuppet writes:

> In some ways a sim is harder to fly, I think.
>
> One time my flight instructor was over at my house. She wanted to try
> out the MSFS because she thought it might have been helping me advance
> faster (I don't know that it did, but maybe).
>
> My instructor is rated for aerobatics instruction.
>
> The sim is so limiting in terms of feedback and vision and control
> inputs that she just couldn't do any of the tricks she normally can do.
> She and I got a good laugh as she jerked around in her chair and then
> get lost on final and stalled out 100 feet above the runway. KABOOSH! Of
> course the price of "fokking up" is nil in a sim. So what if you spin in
> from 100 feet in MSFS?
>
> This illustrates the point several people made of a) sims not being
> enough like real planes and b) not being as much fun, but also I think
> c) you can put the plane in places you'd never put it in real life (not
> necessarily stalls at 100 feet above the runway) and then go have a
> whiskey after it explodes -- if it explodes.

It also makes it easy to identify pilots who can't fly on instruments (because
if you can fly on instruments, you can fly the sim).

Aerobatics is probably about the worst thing to attempt in MSFS.

> I picked up one bad habit from MSFS from the way the joystick worked
> while touching down and my instructor caught it early on during training
> and I made the problem go away without further ado.

What bad habit was that?

[Mxsmanic]

SockPuppet writes:

> I imagine the fly by wire sticks in sophisticated newer aircraft don't
> have dead spots and voltage jumps.

I'm sure they do, but they are replaced when such problems develop, or perhaps
before they develop, if the right schedules or diagnostic tools are in place.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> SockPuppet writes:
>
>> Though I haven't
>> done it you can also play with various GPS devices without having to
>> buy them (much of those devices' functionality is recreated).
>
> The Garmin GPS units are recreated with complete accuracy


No, they aren't.


>> But for actually handling the plane: stalls, unusual attitudes,
>> spins, wind gust corrections on landing, real emergency procedures,
>> etc, it does not help you (IMHO).
>
> The weaknesses of a PC sim are the lack of motion, limited visibility,
> and the differences in controls. Anything that depends on either of
> these will be hard to simulate, although more elaborate sim set-ups
> can mitigate some of these problems. Since there's a lot more to
> flying than VFR, these limitations are not as great as they seem,
> unless flying a tiny plane strictly under VFR is your only ambition.
>
>> The weather stuff is okay but innacurate -- it often only gets the
>> weather kind of close to the airport selected.#
>
> If you use something like ActiveSky, the weather will be identical to
> that of the real world (although obviously the individual clouds will
> not have the same shape).
>


No, it won;'t you dozy fjukk


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> I already do! I've had every MSFS since the mid-80's when it was
>> still wire frames on my hard drive-less Tandy, but as an ACTUAL pilot
>> it isn't near the fun and experience that I get sitting behind the
>> controls of an actual airplane.
>
> And yet you've had every MSFS since the mid-80s. Hmm. It's not that
> fun but you keep buying it.


Probably keeps hoping it will be fun. Like you keep hoping you'll be a
real boy someday.

>
> This past year I've put in over 720 hours of simulation. If I wanted
> to do that in real life, even on a very tiny airplane, it would cost
> me $253,800 in rental fees (not counting $56,000 to get the pilot's
> license and IR). Overall, even if the sim doesn't provide quite the
> same experience, it provides a lot more bang for the buck. And unless
> you're absolutely hellbent on experiencing some aspect of flying that
> only the real aircraft provides, simulation can be more than
> sufficient to deal with a love of aviation.
>
> The situation is even more lopsided if you like to fly airliners.


No it isn't I've flown airliners more than that in a year, and
guess,what? It didn't cost me anything.

Quite the contrary.


But then, I can fly.


>
>> I also fly RC planes but it isn't near as much fun as flying a
>> real plane as well.
>
> I've never been able to get into RC aircraft. When they can fly at a
> speed that matches their scale, maybe I'll be more interested. Flying
> at Mach 7 and pulling 350 Gs isn't very realistic.
>
>> Tomorrow I'm going overseas for business and I have to
>> sit in the back of a Delta flight and I'm sure that won't be as much
>> fun as flying the plane either.
>
> Nor will it be as much fun as the simulator.
>


What a complete jerkoff you are.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Paul Tomblin writes:
>
>> When you start to look *down* on clouds, we'll respect your opinion
>> about weather.
>
> I've done that, too.


No you haven't. You don't fly.


Your respect for my opinion (or lack thereof) is
> irrelevant to me.
>


That's because reality is irrelevant to you.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dan Luke writes:
>
>> And it will actually *help* you learn to fly a full scale airplane,
>> as opposed to MSFS, which will teach you bad habits you will have to
>> unlearn.
>
> There are important differences between RC flight and real flight, at
> least as many as there are between sim flight and real flight.
>



Nope, They are both flight.



Fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> SockPuppet writes:
>
>> In some ways a sim is harder to fly, I think.
>>
>> One time my flight instructor was over at my house. She wanted to try
>> out the MSFS because she thought it might have been helping me
>> advance faster (I don't know that it did, but maybe).
>>
>> My instructor is rated for aerobatics instruction.
>>
>> The sim is so limiting in terms of feedback and vision and control
>> inputs that she just couldn't do any of the tricks she normally can
>> do. She and I got a good laugh as she jerked around in her chair and
>> then get lost on final and stalled out 100 feet above the runway.
>> KABOOSH! Of course the price of "fokking up" is nil in a sim. So what
>> if you spin in from 100 feet in MSFS?
>>
>> This illustrates the point several people made of a) sims not being
>> enough like real planes and b) not being as much fun, but also I
>> think c) you can put the plane in places you'd never put it in real
>> life (not necessarily stalls at 100 feet above the runway) and then
>> go have a whiskey after it explodes -- if it explodes.
>
> It also makes it easy to identify pilots who can't fly on instruments
> (because if you can fly on instruments, you can fly the sim).
>
> Aerobatics is probably about the worst thing to attempt in MSFS.


How would you know? You don't fly.


>
>> I picked up one bad habit from MSFS from the way the joystick worked
>> while touching down and my instructor caught it early on during
>> training and I made the problem go away without further ado.
>
> What bad habit was that?
>

What's it to you?

You don't fly?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> SockPuppet writes:
>
>> I imagine the fly by wire sticks in sophisticated newer aircraft
>> don't have dead spots and voltage jumps.
>
> I'm sure they do,

Not as part of theri design, fjukwit.




So, worng agian.


Bertie

[Snowbird]

"Mxsmanic"wrote ...
> This past year I've put in over 720 hours of simulation. If I wanted to
> do
> that in real life, even on a very tiny airplane, it would cost me $253,800
> in
> rental fees (not counting $56,000 to get the pilot's license and IR).

How many simulated dollars have you caused in aircraft repairs, medical
treatment costs and insurance payments?

[george]

On Oct 24, 5:56 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> george writes:
> > Yes. And?
>
> And the same software drives the sim in both cases. It's the same "game."

The difference is that the 'Kiwi' is populated by pilots who give each
other feedback on real life problems they have observed throughout
their flying careers both as PPL's and CPL's and testing the different
solutions possible in safety.

> > Those who try the Kiwi appear to, in the main, be real live pilots.
>
> Whether or not the sim is a game has nothing to do with the people using it
> (or "playing the game"). If a six-year-old steps into a full-motion sim, that
> doesn't turn the sim into a game.

Bad simile.
For the 6 year old it -is- a game!
For trainee flight crew it is a full on 90 minute hour and for line
flight crew it is maintaining ratings, route famil and the constant
training/revision required..

[Jay Honeck]

> > The Garmin GPS units are recreated with complete accuracy
>
> No, they aren't.

Yes, 'fraid they are.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder 56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > The Garmin GPS units are recreated with complete accuracy
>
> No, they aren't.

Yes, 'fraid they are.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder 56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1193168837.925665.294690
@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com:

>> > The Garmin GPS units are recreated with complete accuracy
>>
>> No, they aren't.
>
> Yes, 'fraid they are.


Right, they fail when you fly near Iraq, do they?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1193168888.248907.85890
@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com:

>> > The Garmin GPS units are recreated with complete accuracy
>>
>> No, they aren't.
>
> Yes, 'fraid they are.


No, they aren't


Bertie

[Jay Honeck]

> >> And it will actually *help* you learn to fly a full scale airplane,
> >> as opposed to MSFS, which will teach you bad habits you will have to
> >> unlearn.
>
> > There are important differences between RC flight and real flight, at
> > least as many as there are between sim flight and real flight.
>
> Nope, They are both flight.

While it's true, they are both flight, I didn't find much in flying R/
C that translated directly into the cockpit of a full-sized plane.

R/C is, in fact, quite different. The controls, view, weather
minimums, flight characteristics, starting procedures, safety
precautions -- in short, EVERYTHING --is different from learning to
fly in full-sized aircraft.

Compare this to our Kiwi flight simulator, where the controls, view,
weather, flight characteristics, and starting procedures are virtually
identical. (Our "safety precautions" consist of setting your beer
down before departure; we may then pick it up again and imbibe whilst
en route... :-)

In the end, I'd say the Kiwi (Note: NOT sitting at your desk, flying
MSFS with a mouse or joystick) is far more beneficial to budding young
pilots than flying R/C.

Not that flying R/C isn't a LOT of fun, mind you...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder 56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> This past year I've put in over 720 hours of simulation. If I wanted to do
> that in real life, even on a very tiny airplane, it would cost me $253,800 in
> rental fees (not counting $56,000 to get the pilot's license and IR).

$352 per hour to rent a plane? What're you comparing this to,
renting a Caravan?

And where I live, you can get the Private *and* Instrument ratings for
around $10K.

I find it incredible that you have spent the equivalent of 4.3 MONTHS
sitting in front of Microsoft Flight Simulator this *year*??? I
can't decide whether that's awesome, sick, or both...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder 56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1193169388.907928.15120
@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com:

>> >> And it will actually *help* you learn to fly a full scale
airplane,
>> >> as opposed to MSFS, which will teach you bad habits you will have
to
>> >> unlearn.
>>
>> > There are important differences between RC flight and real flight,
at
>> > least as many as there are between sim flight and real flight.
>>
>> Nope, They are both flight.
>
> While it's true, they are both flight, I didn't find much in flying R/
> C that translated directly into the cockpit of a full-sized plane.
>
> R/C is, in fact, quite different. The controls, view, weather
> minimums, flight characteristics, starting procedures, safety
> precautions -- in short, EVERYTHING --is different from learning to
> fly in full-sized aircraft.

Nope, they both fly, sims don't, that's the difference.

If you can't see the similarites beyond that statement you just made,
then you aren't flying either one correctly.

>
> Compare this to our Kiwi flight simulator, where the controls, view,
> weather, flight characteristics, and starting procedures are virtually
> identical. (Our "safety precautions" consist of setting your beer
> down before departure; we may then pick it up again and imbibe whilst
> en route... :-)
>
> In the end, I'd say the Kiwi (Note: NOT sitting at your desk, flying
> MSFS with a mouse or joystick) is far more beneficial to budding young
> pilots than flying R/C.


I disagree. I think sims like your's do more harm than good when they're
used to teach aircraft handling.

In fact, I am sure they do.

Sims can teach procedure and that's all. And I have done sim instructing
in much better contraptions than that thing you call a sim.
For lightplane flying they will, unfortunately, continue to drag
handling standads down below their already abyssmal level until those
skills are as rare as a muleskinner's.



Bertie

[Dallas]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:48:08 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

> Yes, 'fraid they are.

Sorta yes and no...

The RXP Garmin 430/530 for Flight Sim can't be upgraded with WAAS software,
topographic map databases/terrain awareness or the datalink receiver for
NEXRAD, METARs, TAFs and lightning data.

But oddly enough, it can cross-fill if you have two of them... something
even the Garmin Trainer can't do.

--
Dallas

[Dallas]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:01:46 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

> I find it incredible that you have spent the equivalent of 4.3 MONTHS
> sitting in front of Microsoft Flight Simulator

Ha... too bad he can't get paid for it.

--
Dallas

[Jay Honeck]

> >> > The Garmin GPS units are recreated with complete accuracy
>
> >> No, they aren't.
>
> > Yes, 'fraid they are.
>
> Right, they fail when you fly near Iraq, do they?

Probably not, although I don't really know. (An existential
question: Would that be a failure when flying your virtual aircraft
near virtual Iraq, or a failure when your PC is located near *real*
Iraq?)

:-)

I do know this (and this is the best part): Garmins don't cost as much
as a nice motorcycle to own, in MSFS...

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder 56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1193171995.958041.27240
@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

>> >> > The Garmin GPS units are recreated with complete accuracy
>>
>> >> No, they aren't.
>>
>> > Yes, 'fraid they are.
>>
>> Right, they fail when you fly near Iraq, do they?
>
> Probably not, although I don't really know.



I do.


(An existential
> question: Would that be a failure when flying your virtual aircraft
> near virtual Iraq, or a failure when your PC is located near *real*
> Iraq?)

You can't fly a virtual airplane.
>
>:-)
>
> I do know this (and this is the best part): Garmins don't cost as much
> as a nice motorcycle to own, in MSFS...
>
>


Neither does an inflatible girl.



Bertie
>

[Dallas]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:43:03 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Neither does an inflatible girl.

Can you get an inflatable girl in MSFS?

--
Dallas

[dgs[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Your respect for my opinion (or lack thereof) is
> irrelevant to me.

Your opinion is irrelevant.
--
dgs

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dallas > wrote in news:mj9lmsgk3rmb
:

> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:43:03 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Neither does an inflatible girl.
>
> Can you get an inflatable girl in MSFS?
>

Probably. these guys are the ones that seem to know all that crap, though.


Bertie

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Dallas wrote:
>> I find it incredible that you have spent the equivalent of 4.3 MONTHS
>> sitting in front of Microsoft Flight Simulator
>
>Ha... too bad he can't get paid for it.
>

Dallas wrote:
>> I find it incredible that you have spent the equivalent of 4.3 MONTHS
>> sitting in front of Microsoft Flight Simulator
>
>Ha... too bad he can't get paid for it.


I used to fly sims quite a bit back when my daughter was first born ( to wean
me off the post-partum- discontinued-real-piloting ) and I got paid as a beta
tester and evaluator for market research. Which also helped me tolerate the
withdrawl.

Maybe we can get the manic-boy hooked up and paid.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200710/1

[buttman]

On Oct 23, 1:01 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > This past year I've put in over 720 hours of simulation. If I wanted to do
> > that in real life, even on a very tiny airplane, it would cost me $253,800 in
> > rental fees (not counting $56,000 to get the pilot's license and IR).
>
> $352 per hour to rent a plane? What're you comparing this to,
> renting a Caravan?
>
> And where I live, you can get the Private *and* Instrument ratings for
> around $10K.
>
> I find it incredible that you have spent the equivalent of 4.3 MONTHS
> sitting in front of Microsoft Flight Simulator this *year*??? I
> can't decide whether that's awesome, sick, or both...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder 56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

thats 2 hours a day, everyday.

I spend about that much time watching TV or being on the internet in a
typical day.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
>Paul Tomblin writes:
>
>> When you start to look *down* on clouds, we'll respect your opinion about
>> weather.
>
>I've done that, too. Your respect for my opinion (or lack thereof) is
>irrelevant to me.

Maybe you should simulate being respected.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"using Outlook to read e-mail is like licking public toilets; using Outlook
with a virus checker is like taking antibiotics and then licking public
toilets (it might work, but it's hardly optimal" -- David Megginson

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

(Paul Tomblin) wrote in
:

> In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
>>Paul Tomblin writes:
>>
>>> When you start to look *down* on clouds, we'll respect your opinion
>>> about weather.
>>
>>I've done that, too. Your respect for my opinion (or lack thereof) is
>>irrelevant to me.
>
> Maybe you should simulate being respected.
>

It's kinda what he does.


Kind of his only good point. His delusion allows a self sufficiency tht
allows him to live with himself.


Almost impressive if you don't consider the state that it has him in.


Bertie

[buttman]

On Oct 23, 7:17 am, Jay Honeck > wrote:

> So what? Aren't you (and the rest of you never-say-die MX-bashers)
> getting just a BIT tired of this game?
>
> MX is a harmless (if persistent) lad, and you guys are polluting every
> thread on this group with your competition to see who can most
> creatively insult him. PLEASE give it a rest?

You have to understand, many of those people have nothing else better
in their life to do.

I remember watching this documentary about this old lady who was a
retired medical doctor who spend all her days at the casino playing
slots. After her husband died, she really had nothing to do to fill
her days. So she moved to Vegas and spends 50 hours a week playing
slots. I think I remember her saying she has lost over 3 million
dollars since she started. As much as I want to get angry, or
insulting towards her for being an idiot, I can't help but feel sorry
for her. The same goes for all those people that truly have nothing
better to do with their time that to follow around another usenet
poster, replying to EVERY single post with juvenile insults. Because
the two aren't too far apart in the dumb-ness factor.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

buttman > wrote in news:1193176363.852591.243320
@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> On Oct 23, 7:17 am, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>> So what? Aren't you (and the rest of you never-say-die MX-bashers)
>> getting just a BIT tired of this game?
>>
>> MX is a harmless (if persistent) lad, and you guys are polluting every
>> thread on this group with your competition to see who can most
>> creatively insult him. PLEASE give it a rest?
>
> You have to understand, many of those people have nothing else better
> in their life to do.
>
> I remember watching this documentary about this old lady who was a
> retired medical doctor who spend all her days at the casino playing
> slots. After her husband died, she really had nothing to do to fill
> her days. So she moved to Vegas and spends 50 hours a week playing
> slots. I think I remember her saying she has lost over 3 million
> dollars since she started. As much as I want to get angry, or
> insulting towards her for being an idiot, I can't help but feel sorry
> for her. The same goes for all those people that truly have nothing
> better to do with their time that to follow around another usenet
> poster, replying to EVERY single post with juvenile insults. Because
> the two aren't too far apart in the dumb-ness factor.
>
>

Beats being a perambulating navigation hazard


Bertie

[Tina]

Re MX -- he has also spent some considerable time offering his
writings for our benefit -- 100 odd this month, 5700 lifetime,
according the "about this group" button. A non pilot is one of the
most frequent posters to an aviation/piloting group: how wierd is
that?

If you don't have a real life, simulating one is an alternative, I
suppose.




On Oct 23, 4:01 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > This past year I've put in over 720 hours of simulation. If I wanted to do
> > that in real life, even on a very tiny airplane, it would cost me $253,800 in
> > rental fees (not counting $56,000 to get the pilot's license and IR).
>
> $352 per hour to rent a plane? What're you comparing this to,
> renting a Caravan?
>
> And where I live, you can get the Private *and* Instrument ratings for
> around $10K.
>
> I find it incredible that you have spent the equivalent of 4.3 MONTHS
> sitting in front of Microsoft Flight Simulator this *year*??? I
> can't decide whether that's awesome, sick, or both...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder 56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Tina]

Re MX -- he has also spent some considerable time offering his
writings for our benefit -- 100 odd this month, 5700 lifetime,
according the "about this group" button. A non pilot is one of the
most frequent posters to an aviation/piloting group: how wierd is
that?

If you don't have a real life, simulating one is an alternative, I
suppose.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> george writes:
>
>> Jays Kiwi is a flight simulator that can be used by real live pilots
>> to enhance their real flying skills.
>> What you have is a game!
>
> He is running the same software I am. The only real difference between
> the two is in your attitude towards their owners.
>

The same laser can be used to:

1) Point out information to students on a classroom blackboard
2) Guide a handheld weapon
3) Create perfectly level beams in a construction project
4) Detect paper thickness in a paper manufacturing plant
5) Distract drivers as a prank on a highway

One tool, numerous uses...

The ONLY difference is the weilder of the tool and the manner of its use.

Just because you have a laser and a blackboard, doesn't mean that you are
a schoolteacher... You might just be a prankster.

MSFS is a tool. Enjoy it as you like.

[The Old Bloke[_6_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> And I thought he'd gone away for a few days... Since mxsmanic has never
>> flown anything other than his computer game, he will never be able to
>> make a
>> comparison to actual flying, no matter how much he tries to argue to the
>> contrary.
>
> So what? Aren't you (and the rest of you never-say-die MX-bashers)
> getting just a BIT tired of this game?
>
> MX is a harmless (if persistent) lad, and you guys are polluting every
> thread on this group with your competition to see who can most
> creatively insult him. PLEASE give it a rest?
> --

Spot on Jay!

[Dallas]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:40:02 -0000, buttman wrote:

> thats 2 hours a day, everyday.

Yeah Jay... what's up with that?...
I think you're using fuzz math.

Mx says: 720 hours in 11 months.
720/24 = 30 days... not 4.3 months

So Mx only spends 1/11th of his time on earth Flight Simulating.

I'd be willing to bet he spends much more time than that on Usenet.

--
Dallas

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> The difference is that the 'Kiwi' is populated by pilots who give each
> other feedback on real life problems they have observed throughout
> their flying careers both as PPL's and CPL's and testing the different
> solutions possible in safety.

That's not a difference at all. You're confusing the user with the simulator.
The simulator is the same. No matter who uses the simulator, it will remain
the same. Therefore, if the simulator is adequate in one instance, it is also
adequate in another. It cannot be simultaneously good and bad.

> For the 6 year old it -is- a game!

But not for everyone else.

If the user's opinion counts, then my set-up is a sim, since I consider it to
be so.

[Mxsmanic]

Dallas writes:

> The RXP Garmin 430/530 for Flight Sim can't be upgraded with WAAS software,
> topographic map databases/terrain awareness or the datalink receiver for
> NEXRAD, METARs, TAFs and lightning data.

All the buttons work the same.

[Mxsmanic]

Snowbird writes:

> How many simulated dollars have you caused in aircraft repairs, medical
> treatment costs and insurance payments?

That's difficult to assess--but I'm talking about real money, not virtual
money.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dallas writes:
>
>> The RXP Garmin 430/530 for Flight Sim can't be upgraded with WAAS
>> software, topographic map databases/terrain awareness or the datalink
>> receiver for NEXRAD, METARs, TAFs and lightning data.
>
> All the buttons work the same.
>

How would you know, fjukkwit?


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> $352 per hour to rent a plane? What're you comparing this to,
> renting a Caravan?

No, I'm just in Europe, where 250 euro per hour is not uncommon (and with the
current exchange rate, that's a lot more in dollars).

> And where I live, you can get the Private *and* Instrument ratings for
> around $10K.

Where I live, the private pilot costs between $21,000 and $28,000 to obtain,
and an instrument rating is another $28,000 or so. Some pilots actually find
it cheaper to go to the U.S. for their IR than to pass it here, although a
U.S. instrument rating has some restrictions on it in Europe (in particular,
you can only fly a plane IR if it has a U.S. registration).

> I find it incredible that you have spent the equivalent of 4.3 MONTHS
> sitting in front of Microsoft Flight Simulator this *year*??? I
> can't decide whether that's awesome, sick, or both...

I was surprised, too. But 720 hours isn't 4.3 months, it's about 90 days
full-time. It represents essentially all my leisure time.

[Mxsmanic]

buttman writes:

> thats 2 hours a day, everyday.

Yes. Actually it's more like many hours on a weekend, and far less during the
week, but it works out to about 2 hours a day. A typical flight is an hour in
the air or so, plus planning time.

> I spend about that much time watching TV or being on the internet in a
> typical day.

I do use the Internet, but I don't have a TV. Some form of activity on the
computer represents 100% of my leisure time, and flight simulation is a major
part of that.

[Mxsmanic]

Dallas writes:

> I'd be willing to bet he spends much more time than that on Usenet.

You'd lose. I spend a lot more time on simulation.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> george writes:
>
>> The difference is that the 'Kiwi' is populated by pilots who give
>> each other feedback on real life problems they have observed
>> throughout their flying careers both as PPL's and CPL's and testing
>> the different solutions possible in safety.
>
> That's not a difference at all. You're confusing the user with the
> simulator. The simulator is the same. No matter who uses the
> simulator, it will remain the same. Therefore, if the simulator is
> adequate in one instance, it is also adequate in another. It cannot
> be simultaneously good and bad.
>
>> For the 6 year old it -is- a game!
>
> But not for everyone else.


No, for you it's definitely something else



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Snowbird writes:
>
>> How many simulated dollars have you caused in aircraft repairs, medical
>> treatment costs and insurance payments?
>
> That's difficult to assess--but I'm talking about real money, not virtual
> money.


Why? you'll never fly and you'll never have any real money.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> buttman writes:
>
>> thats 2 hours a day, everyday.
>
> Yes. Actually it's more like many hours on a weekend, and far less
> during the week, but it works out to about 2 hours a day. A typical
> flight is an hour in the air or so, plus planning time.
>

You make no "flight" fjukwit.




Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> And you still can't fly a plane.

Since I've never tried to fly a real plane, it's impossible to know whether I
could fly one or not.

> I soloed in 10 hours.

That's okay; it's not a race.

> At the time, the plane and instructor totaled $18/hr.

I wasn't around in World War II.

> You've spent 720 hours, and what have you accomplished other
> than indulge your fantasies?

A great deal of enjoyment. I like flight simulation.

> You can't fly.
> You never will fly.

That has not been established, but it doesn't really matter, since I prefer
simulation.

[Mxsmanic]

Paul Tomblin writes:

> Maybe you should simulate being respected.

Why?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> $352 per hour to rent a plane? What're you comparing this to,
>> renting a Caravan?
>
> No, I'm just in Europe, where 250 euro per hour is not uncommon (and
> with the current exchange rate, that's a lot more in dollars).


Well, since you don't have any of either, it's immaterial.

>
>> And where I live, you can get the Private *and* Instrument ratings
>> for around $10K.
>
> Where I live, the private pilot costs between $21,000 and $28,000 to
> obtain, and an instrument rating is another $28,000 or so. Some
> pilots actually find it cheaper to go to the U.S. for their IR than to
> pass it here, although a U.S. instrument rating has some restrictions
> on it in Europe (in particular, you can only fly a plane IR if it has
> a U.S. registration).


Nope. Wrong again.





Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> And you still can't fly a plane.
>
> Since I've never tried to fly a real plane, it's impossible to know
> whether I could fly one or not.

No it isn't.



>
>> I soloed in 10 hours.
>
> That's okay; it's not a race.

You're not even watching the race on TV, fjukkwit.


>
>> At the time, the plane and instructor totaled $18/hr.
>
> I wasn't around in World War II.


That would have been in the seventies, not WW2, fjukkwit.


>
>> You've spent 720 hours, and what have you accomplished other
>> than indulge your fantasies?
>
> A great deal of enjoyment. I like flight simulation.
>
>> You can't fly.
>> You never will fly.
>
> That has not been established, but it doesn't really matter, since I
> prefer simulation.
>

Because you can't fly.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Paul Tomblin writes:
>
>> Maybe you should simulate being respected.
>
> Why?
>

Exactly


Bertie

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" wrote:

> I got paid as a beta tester and evaluator for market research.

> Maybe we can get the manic-boy hooked up and paid.

Pardon me if I expose a tiny flaw in your plan:

*He's a blathering twit.*

This will almost certainly cause a prospective employer to be unenthusiastic
about adding him to "the team."

Please consider this before you take any action.

Thank you,

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Judah]

Dallas > wrote in news:mj9lmsgk3rmb
:

> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:43:03 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Neither does an inflatible girl.
>
> Can you get an inflatable girl in MSFS?

You mean MX's wife, Sally?

MX says she's got all the same buttons as my wife. But her buttons aren't
nearly as fun as my wife's.

[george]

On Oct 24, 11:14 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > Nomen Nescio writes:
>
> >> And you still can't fly a plane.
>
> > Since I've never tried to fly a real plane, it's impossible to know
> > whether I could fly one or not.
>
> No it isn't.
>
>
>
> >> I soloed in 10 hours.
>
> > That's okay; it's not a race.
>
> You're not even watching the race on TV, fjukkwit.
>
>
>
> >> At the time, the plane and instructor totaled $18/hr.
>
> > I wasn't around in World War II.
>
> That would have been in the seventies, not WW2, fjukkwit.

In 1962 the rate per hour solo (NZ pounds) was 3 Pound 10 shillings in
a C150
When I did my PPL (in 1967) the rate was $10(NZ) per hour solo and $12
dual in a C150.

[george]

On Oct 25, 4:50 am, Judah > wrote:
> Dallas > wrote in news:mj9lmsgk3rmb
> :
>
> > On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:43:03 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> >> Neither does an inflatible girl.
>
> > Can you get an inflatable girl in MSFS?
>
> You mean MX's wife, Sally?
>
> MX says she's got all the same buttons as my wife. But her buttons aren't
> nearly as fun as my wife's.

and mixedups vinyl Vera can't play with any buttons .
A sad and lonely loser with a puncture kit lest his love goes down on
him :-)

[Dallas]

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:39:34 -0700, george wrote:

> A sad and lonely loser with a puncture kit lest his love goes down on
> him :-)

There goes another keyboard.

:-)
--
Dallas

[ManhattanMan]

Dallas wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:39:34 -0700, george wrote:
>
>> A sad and lonely loser with a puncture kit lest his love goes down on
>> him :-)
>
> There goes another keyboard.
>


Not to worry, Mx don't do sex, he'd rather sim! Said so HIMSELF!!!

[Ron A.[_3_]]

Sorry Jay, you obviously don't use the Garmin sim for approaches. It is
pathetic how bad it is. My FSX with SP1 flying the GPS 30 into IOW (your
airport) does the following. By the way I have visited your hotel and seen
Kiwi, it is nice.

Distance showing in the main NAV screen has no decimal point showing only
whole numbers, No indication of the CDI scaling to verify the proper
approach modes are active, cannot go direct to a flight plan fix either in a
regular flight plan or part of an approach without manually typing it in and
losing the rest of the flight plan or approach functionality.

And here is a very serious error. The TO/FROM flag doesn't switch in
Holding or SUSP mode. When flying past the missed approach fix it doesn't
switch into SUSP and flip the TO/FROM to FROM, it sequences directly to a
waypoint called 1500 which happens to be the initial missed approach
altitude for that approach.

You can't customize the fields on the pages, etc, etc.. It is a poor
excuse for the real thing.

Ron A.


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> > The Garmin GPS units are recreated with complete accuracy
>>
>> No, they aren't.
>
> Yes, 'fraid they are.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder 56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Ron A.[_3_]]

Sorry Jay, you obviously don't use the Garmin sim for approaches. It is
pathetic how bad it is. My FSX with SP1 flying the GPS 30 into IOW (your
airport) does the following. By the way I have visited your hotel and seen
Kiwi, it is nice.

Distance showing in the main NAV screen has no decimal point showing only
whole numbers, No indication of the CDI scaling to verify the proper
approach modes are active, cannot go direct to a flight plan fix either in a
regular flight plan or part of an approach without manually typing it in and
losing the rest of the flight plan or approach functionality.

And here is a very serious error. The TO/FROM flag doesn't switch in
Holding or SUSP mode. When flying past the missed approach fix it doesn't
switch into SUSP and flip the TO/FROM to FROM, it sequences directly to a
waypoint called 1500 which happens to be the initial missed approach
altitude for that approach.

You can't customize the fields on the pages, etc, etc.. It is a poor
excuse for the real thing.

Ron A.


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> > The Garmin GPS units are recreated with complete accuracy
>>
>> No, they aren't.
>
> Yes, 'fraid they are.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder 56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Peter Clark]

I don't think they're talking about the "stock" FS Garmin unit (which
does not do a lot of things the real unit does), but the Reality-XP
style integrated GNS430/530 trainer which is as real as a sim GNS can
get since it's based on the downloadable unit trainer at Garmin's
website.

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:19:51 GMT, "Ron A." > wrote:

>Sorry Jay, you obviously don't use the Garmin sim for approaches. It is
>pathetic how bad it is. My FSX with SP1 flying the GPS 30 into IOW (your
>airport) does the following. By the way I have visited your hotel and seen
>Kiwi, it is nice.
>
>Distance showing in the main NAV screen has no decimal point showing only
>whole numbers, No indication of the CDI scaling to verify the proper
>approach modes are active, cannot go direct to a flight plan fix either in a
>regular flight plan or part of an approach without manually typing it in and
>losing the rest of the flight plan or approach functionality.
>
>And here is a very serious error. The TO/FROM flag doesn't switch in
>Holding or SUSP mode. When flying past the missed approach fix it doesn't
>switch into SUSP and flip the TO/FROM to FROM, it sequences directly to a
>waypoint called 1500 which happens to be the initial missed approach
>altitude for that approach.
>
>You can't customize the fields on the pages, etc, etc.. It is a poor
>excuse for the real thing.
>
>Ron A.
>
>
>"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>> > The Garmin GPS units are recreated with complete accuracy
>>>
>>> No, they aren't.
>>
>> Yes, 'fraid they are.
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder 56993
>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>>

[Jay Honeck]

> You can't customize the fields on the pages, etc, etc.. It is a poor
> excuse for the real thing.

Interesting. This is *not* what other pilots have told me. (I don't
have a Garmin 430/530 in the panel, so can only parrot what others
have told me...)

I've heard that the Garmin 430 in the AOPA Cherokee Six is close to
perfect. Have you seen this version? (It's a freely downloadable
aircraft, but I think it only works in FS2004.)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Yeah Jay... what's up with that?...
> I think you're using fuzz math.
>
> Mx says: 720 hours in 11 months.
> 720/24 = 30 days... not 4.3 months
>
> So Mx only spends 1/11th of his time on earth Flight Simulating.

Sorry, I was figuring this based on a standard 8-hour work day.
720 hours is 90 work days. Figure working 5 days per week, that's
actually 18 weeks, or 4.3 months.

However you slice it, it's a lot of time spent sitting in front of a
sim.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > The same goes for all those people that truly have nothing
> > better to do with their time that to follow around another usenet
> > poster, replying to EVERY single post with juvenile insults. Because
> > the two aren't too far apart in the dumb-ness factor.
>
> Beats being a perambulating navigation hazard

Bertie, you clearly have much to offer here. Obsessive MX-bashing
isn't proving anything except that you have WAY too much time on your
hands...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1193268741.852496.53060
@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

>> > The same goes for all those people that truly have nothing
>> > better to do with their time that to follow around another usenet
>> > poster, replying to EVERY single post with juvenile insults. Because
>> > the two aren't too far apart in the dumb-ness factor.
>>
>> Beats being a perambulating navigation hazard
>
> Bertie, you clearly have much to offer here. Obsessive MX-bashing
> isn't proving anything except that you have WAY too much time on your
> hands..


It's not supposed to prove anything. Don;'t like it? Killfile me.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Judah > wrote in
:

> Dallas > wrote in news:mj9lmsgk3rmb
> :
>
>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:43:03 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>> Neither does an inflatible girl.
>>
>> Can you get an inflatable girl in MSFS?
>
> You mean MX's wife, Sally?
>
> MX says she's got all the same buttons as my wife. But her buttons
> aren't nearly as fun as my wife's.



Plus you get to use your fingers on your wife instead of a mouse cursor.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

george > wrote in
ups.com:

> On Oct 24, 11:14 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > Nomen Nescio writes:
>>
>> >> And you still can't fly a plane.
>>
>> > Since I've never tried to fly a real plane, it's impossible to know
>> > whether I could fly one or not.
>>
>> No it isn't.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> I soloed in 10 hours.
>>
>> > That's okay; it's not a race.
>>
>> You're not even watching the race on TV, fjukkwit.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> At the time, the plane and instructor totaled $18/hr.
>>
>> > I wasn't around in World War II.
>>
>> That would have been in the seventies, not WW2, fjukkwit.
>
> In 1962 the rate per hour solo (NZ pounds) was 3 Pound 10 shillings in
> a C150
> When I did my PPL (in 1967) the rate was $10(NZ) per hour solo and $12
> dual in a C150.
>
>

It's still pretty reasonable and do-able in most places. Any
enterprising 15 year old that really wanted to fly could probably manage
to find a way to do two hours a month.


Bertie

[Jay Honeck]

> It's not supposed to prove anything. Don;'t like it? Killfile me.

Augh. You're not supposed to fall on your sword so easily...

;-)

I don't killfile anyone. I've learned something from EVERYONE who
posts on this group, even if sometimes it's not precisely what they
thought they were teaching...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[ahl]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Yeah Jay... what's up with that?...
>> I think you're using fuzz math.
>>
>> Mx says: 720 hours in 11 months.
>> 720/24 = 30 days... not 4.3 months
>>
>> So Mx only spends 1/11th of his time on earth Flight Simulating.
>
> Sorry, I was figuring this based on a standard 8-hour work day.
> 720 hours is 90 work days. Figure working 5 days per week, that's
> actually 18 weeks, or 4.3 months.
>
> However you slice it, it's a lot of time spent sitting in front of a
> sim.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

If you were to factor a little bit for exaggeration, sectors 'simmed' in
autopilot while doing something else, etc it's not too peculiar.

MX likes simming. Some people like doing other things. Such is life...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1193273934.295876.162120
@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

>> It's not supposed to prove anything. Don;'t like it? Killfile me.
>
> Augh. You're not supposed to fall on your sword so easily...


I'm not falling on anything,. I'm spelling out the facts of life for you.
>
> ;-)
>
> I don't killfile anyone.

Then don't whine, it won't get you anything.


You could always e-mail me. Be sure to read the addie fist, though.

Or you could whine to my server. they enjoy a good laugh from time to time.


Bertie

[ManhattanMan]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> It's still pretty reasonable and do-able in most places. Any
> enterprising 15 year old that really wanted to fly could probably
> manage to find a way to do two hours a month.
>


That eliminates Mx.........

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"ManhattanMan" > wrote in news:ZGSTi.53$Tw.13
@newsfe14.lga:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> It's still pretty reasonable and do-able in most places. Any
>> enterprising 15 year old that really wanted to fly could probably
>> manage to find a way to do two hours a month.
>>
>
>
> That eliminates Mx.........
>
>
>

Xachery


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Ron A. writes:

> Sorry Jay, you obviously don't use the Garmin sim for approaches. It is
> pathetic how bad it is. My FSX with SP1 flying the GPS 30 into IOW (your
> airport) does the following.

The GPS 30? I was talking about the GPS units in add-ons to MSFS, which (in
the case of Reality XP instruments) are powered directly by Garmin's own
simulation software. They look and work like the real thing.

Serious simmers do not simply use the base MSFS product. There are many
ultrarealistic add-ons that go far beyond the compromises embodied in the
standard default aircraft.

[Mxsmanic]

ahl writes:

> If you were to factor a little bit for exaggeration, sectors 'simmed' in
> autopilot while doing something else, etc it's not too peculiar.

VATSIM keeps track of the exact number of hours spent simming online. I have
just over 735 hours of that in exactly one year. Hours spent offline are not
counted.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Ron A. writes:
>
>> Sorry Jay, you obviously don't use the Garmin sim for approaches.
>> It is pathetic how bad it is. My FSX with SP1 flying the GPS 30
>> into IOW (your airport) does the following.
>
> The GPS 30? I was talking about the GPS units in add-ons to MSFS,
> which (in the case of Reality XP instruments) are powered directly by
> Garmin's own simulation software. They look and work like the real
> thing.

No, they don't



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> ahl writes:
>
>> If you were to factor a little bit for exaggeration, sectors 'simmed'
>> in autopilot while doing something else, etc it's not too peculiar.
>
> VATSIM keeps track of the exact number of hours spent simming online.
> I have just over 735 hours of that in exactly one year. Hours spent
> offline are not counted.
>


Fjukkwit


Bertie

[ahl]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> ahl writes:
>
>> If you were to factor a little bit for exaggeration, sectors 'simmed' in
>> autopilot while doing something else, etc it's not too peculiar.
>
> VATSIM keeps track of the exact number of hours spent simming online. I
> have
> just over 735 hours of that in exactly one year. Hours spent offline are
> not
> counted.

So you sit there in front of the PC the whole time and don't wander off to
other things during the boring bits?

Sh#t you're keen....

[Jay Honeck]

> > Sorry Jay, you obviously don't use the Garmin sim for approaches. It is
> > pathetic how bad it is. My FSX with SP1 flying the GPS 30 into IOW (your
> > airport) does the following.
>
> The GPS 30? I was talking about the GPS units in add-ons to MSFS, which (in
> the case of Reality XP instruments) are powered directly by Garmin's own
> simulation software. They look and work like the real thing.

He was referring to flying the GPS Rwy 30 approach, not a Garmin GPS
model number...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I'm not falling on anything,. I'm spelling out the facts of life for you.
>
> > I don't killfile anyone.
>
> Then don't whine, it won't get you anything.
>
> You could always e-mail me. Be sure to read the addie fist, though.
>
> Or you could whine to my server. they enjoy a good laugh from time to time.
>
> Bertie

Well, I guess everyone needs a hobby. Yours appears to be obsessing
over a Usenet poster names Mxmanic. It doesn't seem healthy or
productive, but then, neither is golf...

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

[Andrew Gideon]

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:56:35 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> well, flying an RC airplane is a lot closer to flying a real airplane
> than any sim I've been in.

Ugh! I hope not.

I've never landed an RC plane in a "fully successful" manner. My record
with real aircraft is significantly better <laugh>.

I suspect it has to do with my inability adopt the perspective of the RC
airplane. That is, I can see the runway environment from a real plane; I
have to imagine it for an RC plane, and I'm apparently not capable of
doing so well enough.

On the other hand, I've many hundreds of real landings, and a far smaller
number of RC "landings". So it may merely be a matter of experience.

[I did used to start a lesson with any new CFI explaining my experience
with RC aircraft, just to keep them on their toes <laugh>.]

- Andrew

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in
ps.com:

>> I'm not falling on anything,. I'm spelling out the facts of life for
>> you.
>>
>> > I don't killfile anyone.
>>
>> Then don't whine, it won't get you anything.
>>
>> You could always e-mail me. Be sure to read the addie fist, though.
>>
>> Or you could whine to my server. they enjoy a good laugh from time to
>> time.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Well, I guess everyone needs a hobby. Yours appears to be obsessing
> over a Usenet poster names Mxmanic. It doesn't seem healthy or
> productive, but then, neither is golf...
>
> ;-)


It's not asupposed to be.

It's stil healthier than pertendin that your nintendo powered soapbox derby
racer is anything like an airplane.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Andrew Gideon > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:56:35 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> well, flying an RC airplane is a lot closer to flying a real airplane
>> than any sim I've been in.
>
> Ugh! I hope not.
>
> I've never landed an RC plane in a "fully successful" manner. My
> record with real aircraft is significantly better <laugh>.
>
> I suspect it has to do with my inability adopt the perspective of the
> RC airplane. That is, I can see the runway environment from a real
> plane; I have to imagine it for an RC plane, and I'm apparently not
> capable of doing so well enough.


It's just practice.

>
> On the other hand, I've many hundreds of real landings, and a far
> smaller number of RC "landings". So it may merely be a matter of
> experience.


Yep.

>
> [I did used to start a lesson with any new CFI explaining my
> experience with RC aircraft, just to keep them on their toes <laugh>.]
>

I've found it helps. I've taught a few guys who flew RC first to fly and
they took to it fairly quickly. I've only had one major problem with
them and that was with a guy who was an RC aerobatic champ. He did
everything right first time every time up until I taught him spins. His
recovery was to go to the vertical line when rotation stopped!
OTOH, I've had a few students who had "leaned" in sims. It took twice as
long as it would teaching from scratch to undo all the damage that had
been done.


Bertie

[Jay Honeck]

> > Well, I guess everyone needs a hobby. Yours appears to be obsessing
> > over a Usenet poster names Mxmanic. It doesn't seem healthy or
> > productive, but then, neither is golf...
>
> > ;-)
>
> It's not asupposed to be.
>
> It's stil healthier than pertendin that your nintendo powered soapbox derby
> racer is anything like an airplane.

Hmmmm. Is the fool more foolish than the guy who becomes obsessed
with him?

I'd call it a toss-up.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in
oups.com:

>> > Well, I guess everyone needs a hobby. Yours appears to be obsessing
>> > over a Usenet poster names Mxmanic. It doesn't seem healthy or
>> > productive, but then, neither is golf...
>>
>> > ;-)
>>
>> It's not asupposed to be.
>>
>> It's stil healthier than pertendin that your nintendo powered soapbox
>> derby racer is anything like an airplane.
>
> Hmmmm. Is the fool more foolish than the guy who becomes obsessed
> with him?
>

Is anymone more foolish than the idiot who tries to argue with a bunyip?

**** off


Bertie

[Dallas]

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:38:18 -0400, Peter Clark wrote:

> I don't think they're talking about the "stock" FS Garmin unit (which
> does not do a lot of things the real unit does),

Ron can't be talking about the RealityXP Garmin because it won't run with
FSX.. he must be talking about the "default" GPS that comes with FSX.

--
Dallas

[Mxsmanic]

ahl writes:

> So you sit there in front of the PC the whole time and don't wander off to
> other things during the boring bits?

Yes. Most flights are 2 hours or less, so there are no boring bits.

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
> > No, I'm just in Europe, where 250 euro per hour is not uncommon
>
> A C15x or DA20 can be chartered for EUR 100 - 120 EUR wet, often below
> EUR 100 through a flying club.
>
> >> And where I live, you can get the Private *and* Instrument ratings
> >> for around $10K.
> >
> > Where I live, the private pilot costs between $21,000 and $28,000 to
> > obtain,
>
> A PPL can be had for total costs of:
>
> EUR 5,500 750 kg
> EUR 7,500 2 tons
>
> EUR 4,500 3-axis microlight (comparable to US light sports aircraft) is
> also an option.
>
> These are "realistic" prices meaning they're not theoretical minimums
> that hardly anyone achieves in practice, but real life.
>
> > and an instrument rating is another $28,000 or so.
>
> I find prices around EUR 13,000.

So 735 hours would cost me only $132,500. Somehow I don't find that very
consoling.

And I live in France, where the prices are different. Are your flying club
memberships free?

> Only some pilots, because if you factor in additional costs like flight
> to the US, accomodation, and the bureaucracy of having the US licence
> transferred to a European one, the difference melts away. It is really
> only attractive for people who travel to the US frequently anyway.

I saw the figures and they looked favorable, although it's expensive no matter
how you obtain it. Plus, in France, you need a higher medical for IR, for
some reason.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

SockPuppet > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> says...
>> Is anymone more foolish than the idiot who tries to argue with a
>> bunyip?
>>
>>
> The Bunyip:
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Bunyip_%281935%29.jp
> g
>


How many trolls do you know who have their own Wickepedia entry?


BTW, I didn't do it myself.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> ahl writes:
>
>> So you sit there in front of the PC the whole time and don't wander
>> off to other things during the boring bits?
>
> Yes. Most flights are 2 hours or less, so there are no boring bits.
>



But you're your own co-pilot. That has to be as boring as hell for both of
you.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Wolfgang Schwanke writes:
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > No, I'm just in Europe, where 250 euro per hour is not uncommon
>>
>> A C15x or DA20 can be chartered for EUR 100 - 120 EUR wet, often
>> below EUR 100 through a flying club.
>>
>> >> And where I live, you can get the Private *and* Instrument ratings
>> >> for around $10K.
>> >
>> > Where I live, the private pilot costs between $21,000 and $28,000
>> > to obtain,
>>
>> A PPL can be had for total costs of:
>>
>> EUR 5,500 750 kg
>> EUR 7,500 2 tons
>>
>> EUR 4,500 3-axis microlight (comparable to US light sports aircraft)
>> is also an option.
>>
>> These are "realistic" prices meaning they're not theoretical minimums
>> that hardly anyone achieves in practice, but real life.
>>
>> > and an instrument rating is another $28,000 or so.
>>
>> I find prices around EUR 13,000.
>
> So 735 hours would cost me only $132,500. Somehow I don't find that
> very consoling.
>
> And I live in France, where the prices are different. Are your flying
> club memberships free?


You know nothing of flying in France.

I, OTOH< do.

ho travel to the US frequently
>> anyway.
>
> I saw the figures and they looked favorable, although it's expensive
> no matter how you obtain it. Plus, in France, you need a higher
> medical for IR, for some reason.
>



You're not flying, you fjukkwit.

[KAE]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:47:17 -0700, Jay Honeck >
wrote:

>> > The Garmin GPS units are recreated with complete accuracy
>>
>> No, they aren't.
>
>Yes, 'fraid they are.

During the last 8 months I have been working with the FAA to get my
3rd class reinstated, so of course I have not been able to fly.
However, I have been using FS2004 and FSX to see if it these flight
sims would, at a minimum, help keep me from forgetting some of the
basic procedures.
Since my recent experience has been in Piper Archer III aircraft, I
wanted a sim aircraft that was as identical to that as possible. After
looking around the 'net for a while I ran across an Archer III that
incorporates the Garmin 430 trainer for the GPS in the sim. This
aircraft is only available for the FS2004 version, so I have abandoned
FSX altogether.
So far, the sim GPS seems to be as functional as the 430's in the real
Archers I have flown. But I have yet to fly enough to fully try out
all the capabilities of the 430s.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Wolfgang Schwanke > wrote in :

> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> So 735 hours would cost me only $132,500. Somehow I don't find that
>> very consoling.
>
> If you fly that much you should buy a plane which will bring costs
> down.

He couldn't affrd a chuck glider.


Bertie

[ManhattanMan]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> ahl writes:
>>
>>> So you sit there in front of the PC the whole time and don't wander
>>> off to other things during the boring bits?
>>
>> Yes. Most flights are 2 hours or less, so there are no boring bits.
>>
>
>
>
> But you're your own co-pilot. That has to be as boring as hell for
> both of you.
>
> Bertie

No problem for Mx - he also has conversations with HIMSELF on usenet.....

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"ManhattanMan" > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> ahl writes:
>>>
>>>> So you sit there in front of the PC the whole time and don't wander
>>>> off to other things during the boring bits?
>>>
>>> Yes. Most flights are 2 hours or less, so there are no boring bits.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But you're your own co-pilot. That has to be as boring as hell for
>> both of you.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> No problem for Mx - he also has conversations with HIMSELF on
> usenet.....
>
>

You almost have to admire his self reliance.


Nah.


Bertie
>

[Mxsmanic]

ManhattanMan writes:

> No problem for Mx - he also has conversations with HIMSELF on usenet.....

Actually, if you are flying an aircraft that requires two pilots, flying alone
keeps you exceptionally busy. It can become a bit nerve-wracking during
critical phases of flight.

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> If you fly that much you should buy a plane which will bring costs
> down.

I fly a Baron in simulation. That's about $1.9 million to buy. And I also
fly a 737 and 747; those are around $135 million and $280 million,
respectively.

> But you'll have a hard time flying 700 hrs in a year. That is
> about 1/2 of all the VMC hours there are in northern Europe.

In simulation, I fly in the Great American Southwest, which is VMC almost
every day of the year.

> Admittedly, but presumably not very much so. I was giving rough
> estimates anyway.

From my standpoint, $132,000 isn't really any better than $250,000.

> No, but you'll reach the break even point pretty quickly. I find
> membership fees equivalent to 1 hour per 3 months or so, negligible
> compared to the hours you quote.

Can you fly 747s at the club?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> ManhattanMan writes:
>
>> No problem for Mx - he also has conversations with HIMSELF on
>> usenet.....
>
> Actually, if you are flying an aircraft that requires two pilots,
> flying alone keeps you exceptionally busy. It can become a bit
> nerve-wracking during critical phases of flight.
>
How would you know, fjukkwit?


You don't fly.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Wolfgang Schwanke writes:
>
>> If you fly that much you should buy a plane which will bring costs
>> down.
>
> I fly a Baron in simulation.

No, you don't.


That's about $1.9 million to buy.

No, it isn't.


And I
> also fly a 737 and 747;

No, you don't.


those are around $135 million and $280
> million, respectively.

No they aren;t.

>
>> But you'll have a hard time flying 700 hrs in a year.

No, I don;t.

That is
>> about 1/2 of all the VMC hours there are in northern Europe.

No, it isn't.


>
> In simulation, I fly in the Great American Southwest,

No you don't.


which is VMC
> almost every day of the year.


No, it isn't.


>
>> Admittedly, but presumably not very much so. I was giving rough
>> estimates anyway.
>
> From my standpoint, $132,000 isn't really any better than $250,000.

You're an idiot.


>
>> No, but you'll reach the break even point pretty quickly. I find
>> membership fees equivalent to 1 hour per 3 months or so, negligible
>> compared to the hours you quote.
>
> Can you fly 747s at the club?



I can! It's a pretty exclusive club, though.

We don't let fjukktards in.

Bertie

[george]

On Oct 27, 6:32 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :

> > Can you fly 747s at the club?
>
> I can! It's a pretty exclusive club, though.
>

Makes you wonder how mixedup doesn't know just what you need to join
that exclusive club.


Or that you get paid to be there (until you fail a medical)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

george > wrote in
ups.com:

> On Oct 27, 6:32 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> :
>
>> > Can you fly 747s at the club?
>>
>> I can! It's a pretty exclusive club, though.
>>
>
> Makes you wonder how mixedup doesn't know just what you need to join
> that exclusive club.
>
>
> Or that you get paid to be there (until you fail a medical)


He'd have to leave his house first, of course....



bertie