Recently, gatt posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
.. .

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

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

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

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

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

I guess that's why they have flight simlators.

I completely agree with you under the "...useful to those who fly real
airplanes" statement that you snipped. Simulators *are* useful, even those
that don't even remotely simulate the actual flight environment, if the
task that they are put to is well structured. I found the time spent in a
Link trainer some 40 years ago useful, but it didn't ever make me think it
was real flying. I've also seen people sweat while playing "Space
Invaders", and I doubt that they thought that was real, either. So,
perhaps it's the investment in "winning" that causes such reactions rather
than being fooled?

Neil