Flight simulator

[haribole]

Hello

Would appreciate any recommendations for a realistic PC based flight
simulator that can be used to learn the principles of flying.

Any experience on using a PC based flight simulator to enhance the
learning experience would be welcome.

Thanks
Hari

[Tom Duhamel]

haribole wrote:
> Hello
>
> Would appreciate any recommendations for a realistic PC based flight
> simulator that can be used to learn the principles of flying.
>
> Any experience on using a PC based flight simulator to enhance the
> learning experience would be welcome.
>
> Thanks
> Hari
>

The debate is over two of them currently:

Microsoft Flight Simulator

This one is by far the most popular. You can buy version 10 (called X)
for $50 to $80, depending of the area you live in. If you computer isn't
exactly the best on the market, you could consider version 9 (2004)
since FS X is very demanding on the machine. I don't know if you can buy
it new anymore though.

X-Plane

A nice competitor is X-Plane, which I haven't tried myself so far but
most people who did will try to convince you it is equal, or better than
MS FS. This one has a commercial version which is FAA approved, but the
standard edition is less expensive than MS FS as I understand.

For more information or help, please join alt.games.microsft.flight-sim
We are very friendly and mature. Some of us are even more friendly than
me, and some are much more mature (see both definitions of the word
here). And heck, we even have fun together!

Hope this helps,
Tom :)

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Jun 16, 2:55*pm, haribole > wrote:
> Hello
>
> Would appreciate any recommendations for a realistic PC based flight
> simulator that can be used to learn the principles of flying.
>
> Any experience on using a PC based flight simulator to enhance the
> learning experience would be welcome.
>
> Thanks
> Hari

There are several desktop sims you could use. As a flight instructor
and an advisor for Microsoft I naturally prefer MSFS. I use their
FS2004 version.
I will also note that I recommend the use of the sim only before
starting actual flight training and after solo; before as a
familiarization tool, and after solo as a procedures aid.
I don't recommend the use of the sim at all during the pre solo period
as it is paramount during this period that control pressures used
flying the actual aircraft in use as a trainer be learned.
Other than this, the sim can be an interesting and useful tool for
learning and entertainment.
Dudley Henriques
MVP Microsoft Flight Simulator 2006-2007
CFI Retired

[Ross]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2:55 pm, haribole > wrote:
>> Hello
>>
>> Would appreciate any recommendations for a realistic PC based flight
>> simulator that can be used to learn the principles of flying.
>>
>> Any experience on using a PC based flight simulator to enhance the
>> learning experience would be welcome.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Hari
>
> There are several desktop sims you could use. As a flight instructor
> and an advisor for Microsoft I naturally prefer MSFS. I use their
> FS2004 version.
> I will also note that I recommend the use of the sim only before
> starting actual flight training and after solo; before as a
> familiarization tool, and after solo as a procedures aid.
> I don't recommend the use of the sim at all during the pre solo period
> as it is paramount during this period that control pressures used
> flying the actual aircraft in use as a trainer be learned.
> Other than this, the sim can be an interesting and useful tool for
> learning and entertainment.
> Dudley Henriques
> MVP Microsoft Flight Simulator 2006-2007
> CFI Retired

Hey, Dubley, most know that I have had to sell my airplane and stop PIC
due to medical. It MSFS something that would keep ones interest if I
purchased the control wheel, rudder peddles, etc? I had an instrument
rating and still marvel at the design of these procedures and what can
be accomplished. Now, I am not sure that I want to go as far as Jay did
with Kiwi.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
Sold :(
KSWI

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Jun 17, 12:10*pm, Ross > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > On Jun 16, 2:55 pm, haribole > wrote:
> >> Hello
>
> >> Would appreciate any recommendations for a realistic PC based flight
> >> simulator that can be used to learn the principles of flying.
>
> >> Any experience on using a PC based flight simulator to enhance the
> >> learning experience would be welcome.
>
> >> Thanks
> >> Hari
>
> > There are several desktop sims you could use. As a flight instructor
> > and an advisor for Microsoft I naturally prefer MSFS. I use their
> > FS2004 version.
> > I will also note that I recommend the use of the sim only before
> > starting actual flight training and after solo; before as a
> > familiarization tool, and after solo as a procedures aid.
> > I don't recommend the use of the sim at all during the pre solo period
> > as it is paramount during this period that control pressures used
> > flying the actual aircraft in use as a trainer be learned.
> > Other than this, the sim can be an interesting and useful tool for
> > learning and entertainment.
> > Dudley Henriques
> > MVP Microsoft Flight Simulator 2006-2007
> > CFI Retired
>
> Hey, Dubley, most know that I have had to sell my airplane and stop PIC
> due to medical. It MSFS something that would keep ones interest if I
> purchased the control wheel, rudder peddles, etc? I had an instrument
> rating and still marvel at the design of these procedures and what can
> be accomplished. Now, I am not sure that I want to go as far as Jay did
> with Kiwi.
>
> --
>
> Regards, Ross
> C-172F 180HP
> Sold :(
> KSWI

Absolutely! What has been developed for the sim is wonderful and
accurate. Some add on aircraft are real beyond belief. I'm flying an
F86 Sabre right now in FS2004 that is real enough that I could
actually use it as a tool to help check out a pilot in the aircraft.
Take a look at this Sabre if you like.
http://www.sectionf8.com/

I believe there are add on Cessna 182's that the group might know
about that are excellent as well.
BY all means use the sim. It's a great program.
Sorry to hear about your medical. You and I share this together as I
am no longer flying for the same reason.
Best to you,
Dudley Henriques

[Tom Duhamel]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Absolutely! What has been developed for the sim is wonderful and
> accurate. Some add on aircraft are real beyond belief. I'm flying an
> F86 Sabre right now in FS2004 that is real enough that I could
> actually use it as a tool to help check out a pilot in the aircraft.
> Take a look at this Sabre if you like.
> http://www.sectionf8.com/
>
> I believe there are add on Cessna 182's that the group might know
> about that are excellent as well.
> BY all means use the sim. It's a great program.
> Sorry to hear about your medical. You and I share this together as I
> am no longer flying for the same reason.
> Best to you,
> Dudley Henriques

Dudley, I would really like to hear your impression about Carenado
aircraft. I currently own and fly their C182RG for FS9, being told it
was quite realistic. I have never flown a real aircraft... yet.

http://www.carenado.com

Tom :)

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Jun 17, 8:58*pm, Tom Duhamel > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > Absolutely! What has been developed for the sim is wonderful and
> > accurate. Some add on aircraft are real beyond belief. I'm flying an
> > F86 Sabre right now in FS2004 that is real enough that I could
> > actually use it as a tool to help check out a pilot in the aircraft.
> > Take a look at this Sabre if you like.
> >http://www.sectionf8.com/
>
> > I believe there are add on Cessna 182's that the group might know
> > about that are excellent as well.
> > BY all means use the sim. It's a great program.
> > Sorry to hear about your medical. You and I share this together as I
> > am no longer flying for the same reason.
> > Best to you,
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> Dudley, I would really like to hear your impression about Carenado
> aircraft. I currently own and fly their C182RG for FS9, being told it
> was quite realistic. I have never flown a real aircraft... yet.
>
> http://www.carenado.com
>
> Tom :)

I've never evaluated their aircraft as much of the work I've done for
add on devs deals with military fighters. I can say that their art
work is extremely well done and very realistic. Their Cessna 152 is
practically a photograph quality of the actual cockpit.
I would assume their flight models are well done.
Not much to go on I'm afraid. Wish I could be of more help. I know
there are folks on the forum who have their products installed. I'm
sure if you post on this issue specifically you will get a ton of
useful information.
Best,
-DH

[Dallas]

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:58:08 -0400, Tom Duhamel wrote:

> I would really like to hear your impression about Carenado
> aircraft.

Hi Tom.. I can answer that, I own many of their products.

I love that they model old 1970's and 1980's aircraft which is more likely
to be what casual pilots fly. I also love the high level of detail in
their 3-D modeling.

But... (you knew a "but" was coming) they also infuriate me with little
mistakes due to a lack of attention to detail. The flight model of the
C-152 II took me several days to correct to make it fly like the real
thing. I'm fortunate in that I know how to manipulate the flight dynamics
files, others are just out of luck.

Here's just one example of one of several infuriating mistakes:

When flying straight and level the attitude indicator show a significant
climb. If you are practicing IMC flight, that's a deal breaker. That's
not a big problem with most vendors as their AI gauge has a calibration
knob, Carenado's does not.

Overall, I'd give them a B+.

--
Dallas

[Ross]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> On Jun 17, 12:10 pm, Ross > wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>> On Jun 16, 2:55 pm, haribole > wrote:
>>>> Hello
>>>> Would appreciate any recommendations for a realistic PC based flight
>>>> simulator that can be used to learn the principles of flying.
>>>> Any experience on using a PC based flight simulator to enhance the
>>>> learning experience would be welcome.
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Hari
>>> There are several desktop sims you could use. As a flight instructor
>>> and an advisor for Microsoft I naturally prefer MSFS. I use their
>>> FS2004 version.
>>> I will also note that I recommend the use of the sim only before
>>> starting actual flight training and after solo; before as a
>>> familiarization tool, and after solo as a procedures aid.
>>> I don't recommend the use of the sim at all during the pre solo period
>>> as it is paramount during this period that control pressures used
>>> flying the actual aircraft in use as a trainer be learned.
>>> Other than this, the sim can be an interesting and useful tool for
>>> learning and entertainment.
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> MVP Microsoft Flight Simulator 2006-2007
>>> CFI Retired
>> Hey, Dubley, most know that I have had to sell my airplane and stop PIC
>> due to medical. It MSFS something that would keep ones interest if I
>> purchased the control wheel, rudder peddles, etc? I had an instrument
>> rating and still marvel at the design of these procedures and what can
>> be accomplished. Now, I am not sure that I want to go as far as Jay did
>> with Kiwi.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards, Ross
>> C-172F 180HP
>> Sold :(
>> KSWI
>
> Absolutely! What has been developed for the sim is wonderful and
> accurate. Some add on aircraft are real beyond belief. I'm flying an
> F86 Sabre right now in FS2004 that is real enough that I could
> actually use it as a tool to help check out a pilot in the aircraft.
> Take a look at this Sabre if you like.
> http://www.sectionf8.com/
>
> I believe there are add on Cessna 182's that the group might know
> about that are excellent as well.
> BY all means use the sim. It's a great program.
> Sorry to hear about your medical. You and I share this together as I
> am no longer flying for the same reason.
> Best to you,
> Dudley Henriques

Thanks, I might have to try that for the fun of it. I promise I will not
become a MXer.....

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
Sold :(
KSWI

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Ross" > wrote

> Thanks, I might have to try that for the fun of it. I promise I will not
> become a MXer.....

Thanks for that, but I don't think you are nearly unbalanced enough for that!
<g>

Remember, if it is a pure sim question, the sim group is your best support. ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[Ross]

Morgans wrote:
>
> "Ross" > wrote
>
>> Thanks, I might have to try that for the fun of it. I promise I will
>> not become a MXer.....
>
> Thanks for that, but I don't think you are nearly unbalanced enough for
> that! <g>
>
> Remember, if it is a pure sim question, the sim group is your best
> support. ;-)

Yes, but I would then want to ask questions on how sim flying applies to
real life flying, you remember the questions.........just kidding.

I guess I need to go over there and find out what is a reasonable to buy
and not go way out. Again, I am not building a Kiwi (sorry Jay)

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
Sold :(
KSWI

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Ross" > wrote >> support. ;-)
>
> Yes, but I would then want to ask questions on how sim flying applies to real
> life flying, you remember the questions.........just kidding.

And then argue that the answer giver is wrong, and they really are just an angry
young male that lets testosterone rule their reactions and thoughts, and that
all pilots in general do not know the subject as good as you do.

Oh, for good measure, throw in the fact that the reason you are a failure in
life is because everyone has it out for you, because you are so smart.

Does that about cover it?

Not that I'm complaining, but it sure is nice he blew out as quickly as he blew
in. I wish the word would get out so we could get back to the quality and
quantity of discussions we used to have. I wonder if it will ever recover to
those days.
--
Jim in NC

[Bob Noel[_6_]]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> I wish the word would get out so we could get back to the quality and
> quantity of discussions we used to have. I wonder if it will ever recover...

With ISPs dropping newsgroups and the web forums, I kind of doubt
there will be much recovery.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Jun 18, 5:53*pm, Bob Noel > wrote:
> In article >,
>
> *"Morgans" > wrote:
> > I wish the word would get out so we could get back to the quality and
> > quantity of discussions we used to have. *I wonder if it will ever recover...
>
> With ISPs dropping newsgroups and the web forums, I kind of doubt
> there will be much recovery.

RCN (my ISP) dropped Usenet some time ago. I liked the venue and hated
to leave it altogether. I know most people hate Google Groups, but I
signed on and have been using this reader now for some time. It's not
too bad really. It's up more than it's down and I'm not a kill file
freak (simply ignore those worth ignoring :-) so the filter issues
that seem to bug everyone else don't seem to be bothering me. I also
don't need a bianary capability; just text so Google is fine for me.
I in fact would recommend Google Groups for Usenet if people have an
ISP problem with access. It's a free reader and for some that's a big
plus.
I'm on a Mac so it's a double good hit for me as good news readers
for Macs are not as plentiful as they are for PC's.
Just throwing this out for general consumption.
Dudley Henriques

[Tom Duhamel]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> I'm on a Mac so it's a double good hit for me as good news readers
> for Macs are not as plentiful as they are for PC's.

Mozilla Thunderbird, which I use and love, is available for more
operating systems than you could name.

I would say that the Google reader is probably fine for the casual user,
just not flexible enough for the more demanding users. I know, I demand
too much :)

Tom :)

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "DH" == Dudley Henriques > writes:

DH> There are several desktop sims you could use. As a flight
DH> instructor and an advisor for Microsoft I naturally prefer
DH> MSFS. I use their FS2004 version.

I heard that MS was discontinuing their FS?

--
Free from desire, you realize the mystery. Caught in desire, you see
only the manifestations.
~ Tao Te Ching

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Jun 18, 7:34*pm, Tom Duhamel > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > *I'm on a Mac so it's a double good hit for me as good news readers
> > for Macs are not as plentiful as they are for PC's.
>
> Mozilla Thunderbird, which I use and love, is available for more
> operating systems than you could name.
>
> I would say that the Google reader is probably fine for the casual user,
> just not flexible enough for the more demanding users. I know, I demand
> too much :)
>
> Tom :)

I used Thunderbird as well before RCN stopped handling Usenet. The
only trouble with TB is that being a mail program and news reader, it
still requires an ISP that handles Usenet. With Google Groups you
don't need an ISP who handles Usenet as it's an online reader. If you
have online access, you have Usenet :-))
DH

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Jun 18, 7:51*pm, Bob Fry > wrote:
> >>>>> "DH" == Dudley Henriques > writes:
>
> * * DH> There are several desktop sims you could use. As a flight
> * * DH> instructor and an advisor for Microsoft I naturally prefer
> * * DH> MSFS. I use their FS2004 version.
>
> I heard that MS was discontinuing their FS?
>
> --
> Free from desire, you realize the mystery. Caught in desire, you see
> only the manifestations.
> *~ Tao Te Ching

They have actually. FSX was the last version before they fired the
entire ACES team. (Unfortunate and unwarranted as THAT was)
Many people use FSX with the service packs 1 and 2 and like it. I
happen to like the prior version FS2004 much better than FSX, but
either way, the Microsoft product is out there to use and very much
available.
-DH

[vaughn]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...

>I know most people hate Google Groups

You can count me in that group.

>I in fact would recommend Google Groups for Usenet if people have an
>ISP problem with access. It's a free reader and for some that's a big
>plus.

Hey! Use what you like! For me, it is not just a matter of filtering
the nitwits. Google Groups serves as an easy pathway for spammers. At a
wild guess, 90% of the spam you see on Usenet comes through Google Groups,
and Google could care less. Those of us using NNTP servers and news readers
are spared much of that spam, both from the filtering the NNTP folks do and
from a few obvious filters that anyone can set in their news reader. I
can't help you on the Apple reader, but access to an NNTP server is neither
hard to find nor expensive. Just see my sig file.


Vaughn

.................................................. .......
Nothing personal, but if you are posting through Google Groups I may not
receive
your message. Google refuses to control the flood of spam messages
originating
in their system, so on any given day I may or may not have Google blocked.
Try
a real NNTP server & news reader program and you will never go back. All
you
need is access to an NNTP server (AKA "news server") and a news reader
program.
You probably already have a news reader program in your computer (Hint:
Outlook
Express). Assuming that your Usenet needs are modest, use
http://www.cnntp.org/
and/or, http://news.aioe.org/ and/or http://www.motzarella.org/ and/or
https://www.x-privat.org/index.php for free, and/or
http://www.teranews.com/ for a one-time $3.95 setup fee. Newsguy,
http://www.newsguy.com/ offers a variety of reasonably priced services. If
you
wish to experiment with real Usenet access, they will give you a free 2-day
trial account.
........

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote


RCN (my ISP) dropped Usenet some time ago. I liked the venue and hated
to leave it altogether. I know most people hate Google Groups, but I
signed on and have been using this reader now for some time. It's not
too bad really. It's up more than it's down and I'm not a kill file
freak (simply ignore those worth ignoring :-) so the filter issues
that seem to bug everyone else don't seem to be bothering me. I also
don't need a bianary capability; just text so Google is fine for me.
I in fact would recommend Google Groups for Usenet if people have an
ISP problem with access. It's a free reader and for some that's a big
plus.
I'm on a Mac so it's a double good hit for me as good news readers
for Macs are not as plentiful as they are for PC's.
Just throwing this out for general consumption.
Dudley Henriques

Try nntp.aioe.org, for a server. Free, no binaries. No ISP news server needed.
--
Jim in NC

[george]

On Jun 19, 11:23*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> On Jun 18, 5:53*pm, Bob Noel > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
>
> > *"Morgans" > wrote:
> > > I wish the word would get out so we could get back to the quality and
> > > quantity of discussions we used to have. *I wonder if it will ever recover...
>
> > With ISPs dropping newsgroups and the web forums, I kind of doubt
> > there will be much recovery.
>
> RCN (my ISP) dropped Usenet some time ago. I liked the venue and hated
> to leave it altogether. I know most people hate Google Groups, but I
> signed on and have been using this reader now for some time. It's not
> too bad really. It's up more than it's down and I'm not a kill file
> freak (simply ignore those worth ignoring :-) so the filter issues
> that seem to bug everyone else don't seem to be bothering me. I also
> don't need a bianary capability; just text so Google is fine for me.
> I in fact would recommend Google Groups for Usenet if people have an
> ISP problem with access. It's a free reader and for some that's a big
> plus.
> *I'm on a Mac so it's a double good hit for me as good news readers
> for Macs are not as plentiful as they are for PC's.
> Just throwing this out for general consumption.

Look up Greasemonkey. It's designed to work as a Killfile in Google
Groups

[Bob Noel[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> I'm on a Mac so it's a double good hit for me as good news readers
> for Macs are not as plentiful as they are for PC's.
> Just throwing this out for general consumption.

Well, MT-Newswatcher is better than anything I've seen on PCs

[Mike Ash]

In article
>,
Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> On Jun 18, 5:53*pm, Bob Noel > wrote:
> > In article >,
> >
> > *"Morgans" > wrote:
> > > I wish the word would get out so we could get back to the quality and
> > > quantity of discussions we used to have. *I wonder if it will ever
> > > recover...
> >
> > With ISPs dropping newsgroups and the web forums, I kind of doubt
> > there will be much recovery.
>
> RCN (my ISP) dropped Usenet some time ago. I liked the venue and hated
> to leave it altogether. I know most people hate Google Groups, but I
> signed on and have been using this reader now for some time. It's not
> too bad really. It's up more than it's down and I'm not a kill file
> freak (simply ignore those worth ignoring :-) so the filter issues
> that seem to bug everyone else don't seem to be bothering me. I also
> don't need a bianary capability; just text so Google is fine for me.
> I in fact would recommend Google Groups for Usenet if people have an
> ISP problem with access. It's a free reader and for some that's a big
> plus.
> I'm on a Mac so it's a double good hit for me as good news readers
> for Macs are not as plentiful as they are for PC's.
> Just throwing this out for general consumption.

I'm using eternal-september.org (previously motzarella.org) for my news
service. They provide a real news server that's 100% free and pretty
good. You sound like you're happy, but for others who don't like Google
Groups, that's a good alternative.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[John Smith]

>> I'm on a Mac so it's a double good hit for me as good news readers
>> for Macs are not as plentiful as they are for PC's.
>> Just throwing this out for general consumption.
>
> Well, MT-Newswatcher is better than anything I've seen on PCs

I prefer Thunderbird. No whistles or bells and limited filter
management, but simple, fast and straight forward.

[James Robinson]

Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> I used Thunderbird as well before RCN stopped handling Usenet. The
> only trouble with TB is that being a mail program and news reader, it
> still requires an ISP that handles Usenet. With Google Groups you
> don't need an ISP who handles Usenet as it's an online reader. If you
> have online access, you have Usenet :-))

You don't need an ISP that offers Usenet . There are a number of
newsservers available, some that you pay for, and some that are free. The
free servers typically only carry text groups, with no binaries.

Here, for example, is a list of free servers:

http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Usenet/Public_News_Servers/

The most popular are Albasani, Motzarella, and AIOE:

http://albasani.net/
http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://www.news.aioe.org/

Using a newsserver means you can use a newsreader, rather than the more
awkward web access, but the downside, as you mention, is that you need the
software loaded, and don't have the universal access of a web browser.

[John E. Carty]

"Mike Ash" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> >,
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> On Jun 18, 5:53 pm, Bob Noel > wrote:
>> > In article >,
>> >
>> > "Morgans" > wrote:
>> > > I wish the word would get out so we could get back to the quality and
>> > > quantity of discussions we used to have. I wonder if it will ever
>> > > recover...
>> >
>> > With ISPs dropping newsgroups and the web forums, I kind of doubt
>> > there will be much recovery.
>>
>> RCN (my ISP) dropped Usenet some time ago. I liked the venue and hated
>> to leave it altogether. I know most people hate Google Groups, but I
>> signed on and have been using this reader now for some time. It's not
>> too bad really. It's up more than it's down and I'm not a kill file
>> freak (simply ignore those worth ignoring :-) so the filter issues
>> that seem to bug everyone else don't seem to be bothering me. I also
>> don't need a bianary capability; just text so Google is fine for me.
>> I in fact would recommend Google Groups for Usenet if people have an
>> ISP problem with access. It's a free reader and for some that's a big
>> plus.
>> I'm on a Mac so it's a double good hit for me as good news readers
>> for Macs are not as plentiful as they are for PC's.
>> Just throwing this out for general consumption.
>
> I'm using eternal-september.org (previously motzarella.org) for my news
> service. They provide a real news server that's 100% free and pretty
> good. You sound like you're happy, but for others who don't like Google
> Groups, that's a good alternative.
>
> --
> Mike Ash
> Radio Free Earth
> Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

I only see 13 available groups when I try this server :-(

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
"John E. Carty" > wrote:

> "Mike Ash" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article
> > >,
> > Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >
> >> On Jun 18, 5:53 pm, Bob Noel > wrote:
> >> > In article >,
> >> >
> >> > "Morgans" > wrote:
> >> > > I wish the word would get out so we could get back to the quality and
> >> > > quantity of discussions we used to have. I wonder if it will ever
> >> > > recover...
> >> >
> >> > With ISPs dropping newsgroups and the web forums, I kind of doubt
> >> > there will be much recovery.
> >>
> >> RCN (my ISP) dropped Usenet some time ago. I liked the venue and hated
> >> to leave it altogether. I know most people hate Google Groups, but I
> >> signed on and have been using this reader now for some time. It's not
> >> too bad really. It's up more than it's down and I'm not a kill file
> >> freak (simply ignore those worth ignoring :-) so the filter issues
> >> that seem to bug everyone else don't seem to be bothering me. I also
> >> don't need a bianary capability; just text so Google is fine for me.
> >> I in fact would recommend Google Groups for Usenet if people have an
> >> ISP problem with access. It's a free reader and for some that's a big
> >> plus.
> >> I'm on a Mac so it's a double good hit for me as good news readers
> >> for Macs are not as plentiful as they are for PC's.
> >> Just throwing this out for general consumption.
> >
> > I'm using eternal-september.org (previously motzarella.org) for my news
> > service. They provide a real news server that's 100% free and pretty
> > good. You sound like you're happy, but for others who don't like Google
> > Groups, that's a good alternative.
>
> I only see 13 available groups when I try this server :-(

I think that's what happens when you log in anonymously. You have to
sign up (for free, but you still need an account) to get access to the
full list of groups. Go to http://eternal-september.org/ and click User
Registration to get an account, then set up your newsreader to
authenticate with the account information and you should be set.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[John E. Carty]

"Mike Ash" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "John E. Carty" > wrote:
>
>> "Mike Ash" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article
>> > >,
>> > Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Jun 18, 5:53 pm, Bob Noel > wrote:
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> >
>> >> > "Morgans" > wrote:
>> >> > > I wish the word would get out so we could get back to the quality
>> >> > > and
>> >> > > quantity of discussions we used to have. I wonder if it will ever
>> >> > > recover...
>> >> >
>> >> > With ISPs dropping newsgroups and the web forums, I kind of doubt
>> >> > there will be much recovery.
>> >>
>> >> RCN (my ISP) dropped Usenet some time ago. I liked the venue and hated
>> >> to leave it altogether. I know most people hate Google Groups, but I
>> >> signed on and have been using this reader now for some time. It's not
>> >> too bad really. It's up more than it's down and I'm not a kill file
>> >> freak (simply ignore those worth ignoring :-) so the filter issues
>> >> that seem to bug everyone else don't seem to be bothering me. I also
>> >> don't need a bianary capability; just text so Google is fine for me.
>> >> I in fact would recommend Google Groups for Usenet if people have an
>> >> ISP problem with access. It's a free reader and for some that's a big
>> >> plus.
>> >> I'm on a Mac so it's a double good hit for me as good news readers
>> >> for Macs are not as plentiful as they are for PC's.
>> >> Just throwing this out for general consumption.
>> >
>> > I'm using eternal-september.org (previously motzarella.org) for my news
>> > service. They provide a real news server that's 100% free and pretty
>> > good. You sound like you're happy, but for others who don't like Google
>> > Groups, that's a good alternative.
>>
>> I only see 13 available groups when I try this server :-(
>
> I think that's what happens when you log in anonymously. You have to
> sign up (for free, but you still need an account) to get access to the
> full list of groups. Go to http://eternal-september.org/ and click User
> Registration to get an account, then set up your newsreader to
> authenticate with the account information and you should be set.
>
> --
> Mike Ash
> Radio Free Earth
> Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Now I've got them all, Thanks :-)

[Stubby[_3_]]

On Jun 16, 2:55*pm, haribole > wrote:
> Hello
>
> Would appreciate any recommendations for a realistic PC based flight
> simulator that can be used to learn the principles of flying.
>
> Any experience on using a PC based flight simulator to enhance the
> learning experience would be welcome.
>
> Thanks
> Hari

Before starting to work on my Instrument Rating in the real world, I
decided to grease the rails by using a simulator. I picked
Instrument Pilot because it has a built in "instructor" and had a good
reputation. I worked through the initial lessons and found them a
bit difficult to pass until I got used to the "plane". I tripped when
I hit the descending turns to a heading. I never could pass that. I
even bought the upgraded version but do it! I gave up.

The same company makes OnTop which gives the pilot missions like fly
to KXXX and watch out for the weather! I have never seen the product
in use but I used to know an ex F-117A pilot that said he zipped
through all the exercises in one weekend with no failures!

[John Smith]

haribole wrote:

> Would appreciate any recommendations for a realistic PC based flight
> simulator that can be used to learn the principles of flying.
>
> Any experience on using a PC based flight simulator to enhance the
> learning experience would be welcome.

From my personal experience, I strongly believe that for primary
training, PC based flight simulators are not only worthless, but even
counter-productive. What I want a beginner to learn is to get the feel
of the controls, the feel in the butt, to learn to deal with the new
visual perspective and clues and to get accustomed to always have a good
look out in all directions. These things cannot be learned with a PC
based sim, and even worse, it completly spoils the look out, because you
have to focus forward to that tiny screen rather than turn your head in
all directions and look back over the shoulder.

A PC based sim can be very useful for procedure training, be it simple
VFR VOR navigation or complicated IFR procedures, but I strongly
recommend not to use a sim while doing primary flight training.

That said, X-plane has a pretty realistic aerodynamic model while the MS
sim is just a toy. But being a glider pilot, I use Condor anyway.

[Peter Dohm]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>> I used Thunderbird as well before RCN stopped handling Usenet. The
>> only trouble with TB is that being a mail program and news reader, it
>> still requires an ISP that handles Usenet. With Google Groups you
>> don't need an ISP who handles Usenet as it's an online reader. If you
>> have online access, you have Usenet :-))
>
> You don't need an ISP that offers Usenet . There are a number of
> newsservers available, some that you pay for, and some that are free. The
> free servers typically only carry text groups, with no binaries.
>
> Here, for example, is a list of free servers:
>
> http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Usenet/Public_News_Servers/
>
> The most popular are Albasani, Motzarella, and AIOE:
>
> http://albasani.net/
> http://www.eternal-september.org/
> http://www.news.aioe.org/
>
> Using a newsserver means you can use a newsreader, rather than the more
> awkward web access, but the downside, as you mention, is that you need the
> software loaded, and don't have the universal access of a web browser.

Thanks for those. ATT/Bellsouth have announced that they are terminating
usenet services in the middle of next month and I was considering the
possibility of saying goodbye for a while. I took a look at Google Groups
when Dudley mentioned it, but at the moment the standard NNTP interface of
eternal-september seems much easier to use.

So, thanks again to both of you and also to Mike Ash for pointing out the
need to sign-up first even when there is a free service involved.

Peter

[Dallas]

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:41:43 +0200, John Smith wrote:

> I strongly recommend not to use a sim while doing primary flight training.

....and I strongly disagree.

I think a conservative estimate of how much I saved during training by
using MSFS as a practice tool was about $1,000.00.


--
Dallas

[Martin Hotze[_3_]]

Bob Noel schrieb:
> With ISPs dropping newsgroups (...)

Bob - as you know - there is at least a solution for folks using
rec.aviation.*

#m

[Martin Hotze[_3_]]

Peter Dohm schrieb:
> Thanks for those. ATT/Bellsouth have announced that they are terminating
> usenet services in the middle of next month and I was considering the
> possibility of saying goodbye for a while. I took a look at Google Groups
> when Dudley mentioned it, but at the moment the standard NNTP interface of
> eternal-september seems much easier to use.

for the r.a.p folks we here also offer free access to our newsserver.

> Peter

#m

[John Smith]

Dallas wrote:

> I think a conservative estimate of how much I saved during training by
> using MSFS as a practice tool was about $1,000.00.

Nothing personal, as I don't know you, but how fast you've passed your
check ride doesn't tell the whole story. I've seen lots of pilots who
have never learnt to have an acceptable lookout, who are not able to
judge attitude by reference to the natural horizon, who can't use the
pedals, etc. etc.

As I said, a sim is good for procedure training such as VOR navigation,
which happens to be part of the PP syllabus, so yes, you can save money
there. But a PC based sim not only doesn't help with stick and rudder
skill, it even tends to destroy them. There's a reason why even the
professional (non-moving) sims are called FNPTs.

[Jim Logajan]

John Smith > wrote:
> From my personal experience,

You're posting anonymously, so everything you posted after that lead-in is
less than useless.

> I strongly believe

Facts, not beliefs. If you insist on posting anonymously but still want
your posts to be influential, you might want to consider presenting
testable facts, not your beliefs.

[John Smith]

Jim Logajan schrieb:

> but still want your posts to be influential,

Posts on Usenet influential? <:-)

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Jun 22, 4:13*am, John Smith > wrote:
> Jim Logajan schrieb:
>
> > but still want your posts to be influential,
>
> Posts on Usenet influential? <:-)

When an individual comes to Usenet on a specialized forum like
"Piloting", they bring whatever their intelligence level is right
along with them.

Individuals are well advised to start the process immediately of
separating what they find here into two very distinct and different
categories; one is fact, the other sheer nonsense. The ability to form
these two categories and act accordingly with each one can be directly
equated to the knowledge, the experience level, and the basic
intelligence of each individual.
Some who come to Usenet exist here quite well. Some never quite manage
to get the two categories established.
The bottom line is that every time you click on a Usenet header, your
ability to differentiate is tested. :-))))))))))))))))
Dudley Henriques

[Robert Moore]

Dudley Henriques wrote
> The bottom line is that every time you click on a Usenet header, your
> ability to differentiate is tested.

And Dudley, I might add that "real" pilots tend to use their "real" name.

Bob Moore

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Robert Moore > wrote:

> Dudley Henriques wrote
> > The bottom line is that every time you click on a Usenet header, your
> > ability to differentiate is tested.
>
> And Dudley, I might add that "real" pilots tend to use their "real" name.

Why should there be any link between one's ability to fly an airplane
and one's preference to use a pseudonym on the internet?

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Richard[_11_]]

On Jun 22, 10:37*am, Mike Ash > wrote:
> In article >,
> *Robert Moore > wrote:
>
> > Dudley Henriques wrote
> > > The bottom line is that every time you click on a Usenet header, your
> > > ability to differentiate is tested.
>
> > And Dudley, I might add that "real" pilots tend to use their "real" name.
>
> Why should there be any link between one's ability to fly an airplane
> and one's preference to use a pseudonym on the internet?
>
> --
> Mike Ash
> Radio Free Earth
> Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

In the air, no one knows you're a dog with excellent English skills.
Getting a set of cans to fit your head can be somewhat problematic for
the smaller breeds...

:-)

[John E. Carty]

"Robert Moore" > wrote in message
5.250...
> And Dudley, I might add that "real" pilots tend to use their "real" name.
>
> Bob Moore

Here's a perfect example of sheer nonsense :-)

[Tom Duhamel]

Robert Moore wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote
>> The bottom line is that every time you click on a Usenet header, your
>> ability to differentiate is tested.
>
> And Dudley, I might add that "real" pilots tend to use their "real" name.
>
> Bob Moore

I use my real name. I must be an airline pilot with over 100,000 hours
accumulated over a period of 30 years.

Actually I'm not. I only have a few hundred hours on Flight Simulator.
Nothing more.

I don't know of Dallas real name, but can tell you I trust him more than
many others.

Tom :)

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Tom Duhamel" > wrote in message
...
> I don't know of Dallas real name, but can tell you I trust him more than
> many others.
>
> Tom :)

I do know his name, and you judge him well.
I don't use my real name, but anyone with the slightest suggestion of
intelligence would be able to find it out with less than 10 minutes
investigation. It makes no difference what you call yourself here.
Crash Lander

[ManhattanMan]

Tom Duhamel wrote:

>
> I don't know of Dallas real name, but can tell you I trust him more
> than many others.
>


Dallas's real name is Varmit...

Just kidding Tom, I think you know from where this is coming from... :)

I got my private back in '67, however spent about four decades with no PIC
time, but have been using the MSFS since the mid '80's. Finally got to go
up for a little actually real life flying a year ago, with Varmit down in
Dallas, and guess what - it's like I'd only went a year or so without
actually flying the real hardware. Naturally I'd have flunked any serious
tests on procedures and current regs, but the flying was as natural as ever,
which I definitely contribute to the FS......

Of course opinions vary, and everybody has one, no matter how wrong they
are................

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Jun 22, 9:57*pm, "Crash Lander" > wrote:
> "Tom Duhamel" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > I don't know of Dallas real name, but can tell you I trust him more than
> > many others.
>
> > Tom :)
>
> I do know his name, and you judge him well.
> I don't use my real name, but anyone with the slightest suggestion of
> intelligence would be able to find it out with less than 10 minutes
> investigation. It makes no difference what you call yourself here.
> Crash Lander

I knew a guy in the Air Force named Frank Phurter and we have a
plumber in our home town named Donald Duck.
EITHER one of these guys would all set for Usenet!! :-))
-DH

[Ross]

Morgans wrote:
>
> "Ross" > wrote >> support. ;-)
>>
>> Yes, but I would then want to ask questions on how sim flying applies
>> to real life flying, you remember the questions.........just kidding.
>
> And then argue that the answer giver is wrong, and they really are just
> an angry young male that lets testosterone rule their reactions and
> thoughts, and that all pilots in general do not know the subject as good
> as you do.
>
> Oh, for good measure, throw in the fact that the reason you are a
> failure in life is because everyone has it out for you, because you are
> so smart.
>
> Does that about cover it?
>
> Not that I'm complaining, but it sure is nice he blew out as quickly as
> he blew in. I wish the word would get out so we could get back to the
> quality and quantity of discussions we used to have. I wonder if it
> will ever recover to those days.

AMEN!!! I wasn't sure if they just left or the mail filters were doing
what they were supposed to. I would like for the old group to come back
because I like this format much better than the forums. Takes too much
time. I used to belong to Cessna Pilots Association and I tried to use
that. At least they had a summary that would print each day so I could
at least see what was going on then jump in if I found something of
interest.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
Sold :(
KSWI

[Ross]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> On Jun 18, 7:34 pm, Tom Duhamel > wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>> I'm on a Mac so it's a double good hit for me as good news readers
>>> for Macs are not as plentiful as they are for PC's.
>> Mozilla Thunderbird, which I use and love, is available for more
>> operating systems than you could name.
>>
>> I would say that the Google reader is probably fine for the casual user,
>> just not flexible enough for the more demanding users. I know, I demand
>> too much :)
>>
>> Tom :)
>
> I used Thunderbird as well before RCN stopped handling Usenet. The
> only trouble with TB is that being a mail program and news reader, it
> still requires an ISP that handles Usenet. With Google Groups you
> don't need an ISP who handles Usenet as it's an online reader. If you
> have online access, you have Usenet :-))
> DH

I have at home verizon and they still have it. My work network still
lets it though. I use TB at work because I cannot stand Lotus Notes.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
Sold :(
KSWI

[[email protected]]

On Jun 17, 4:35*am, Tom Duhamel > wrote:
> haribole wrote:
> > Hello
>
> > Would appreciate any recommendations for a realistic PC basedflight
> > simulator that can be used to learn the principles of flying.
>
> > Any experience on using a PC basedflightsimulator to enhance the
> > learning experience would be welcome.
>
> > Thanks
> > Hari
>
> The debate is over two of them currently:
>
> MicrosoftFlightSimulator
>
> This one is by far the most popular. You can buy version 10 (called X)
> for $50 to $80, depending of the area you live in. If you computer isn't
> exactly the best on the market, you could consider version 9 (2004)
> since FS X is very demanding on the machine. I don't know if you can buy
> it new anymore though.
>
> X-Plane
>
> A nice competitor is X-Plane, which I haven't tried myself so far but
> most people who did will try to convince you it is equal, or better than
> MS FS. This one has a commercial version which is FAA approved, but the
> standard edition is less expensive than MS FS as I understand.
>
> For more information or help, please join alt.games.microsft.flight-sim
> We are very friendly and mature. Some of us are even more friendly than
> me, and some are much more mature (see both definitions of the word
> here). And heck, we even have fun together!
>
> Hope this helps,
> Tom :)

sir,
i am working on flight dynamics in iit madras. in my project i
need fly the aircraft from angle attack 0 to 90 deg. and get all the
stability derivatives.
so which soft ware i prefer x plane or MSFS ?

[Tom Duhamel]

wrote:
> sir,
> i am working on flight dynamics in iit madras. in my project i
> need fly the aircraft from angle attack 0 to 90 deg. and get all the
> stability derivatives.
> so which soft ware i prefer x plane or MSFS ?

Please don't take my reply as an ultimate one, or even remotely a
professional advice. I am not a pilot, nor an expert. I am really an
aviation enthusiast and an avid MSFS user.

If you only need to perform casual experiences, any of those simulator
will be fine. If you need the best simulator in regards to flight
dynamics, I was told that x-plane was slightly more realistic in that
regards, although I have never tried that one myself.

If you ever go with MSFS, I would recommend that you also buy at least
one payware aircraft, or at least get a really good freeware, since many
of them include better flight dynamics than those included in the box.
Again do some research. You may want to join
alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim where me an others will be happy to help.

You might also want to check out (read 'research') Flight Gear, an open
source flight simulator which was originally developed around some
flight dynamic simulator. It is not as advanced when compared with MSFS
or X-Plane, but possibly will be better regarding flight dynamics. But
again, do some research to see what others think of it, I did not have
an occasion to try it out yet, although I plan to soon.

By the way, your aircraft will have stalled long before you ever get an
angle of attack of 90 degrees, but that you probably already know :)

Hope this helps,

Tom :)