Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
The visuals are nothing like reality unless you have at least three screens
so when you look out the side window you see the view on that side of the
aircraft. And the screens need to be bigger than 21 inch.
All visuals are _something_ like reality; it's only a matter of degree.
MSFS actually has better visuals than some more expensive simulators, because
visuals are costly to generate and not all simulation applications require a
realistic rendering of the world through the windows.
What part of the visuals are nothing like reality unless you have at least
three screens so when you look out the side window you see the view on that
side of the aircraft did you not understand?
This has nothing to do with generated "visuals".
The weakest part of desktop simulation is the total absense of any of the
physical forces you will feel flying a real airplane.
Yes. But for many types of flying, the physical forces are irrelevant. MSFS
is a poor choice for aerobatics, though.
Yeah, physical forces are mostly irrelevant for teaching procedures, but
that doesn't change the fact that the weakest part of desktop simulation
is the total absense of any of the physical forces you will feel flying a
real airplane.
Technically possible maybe, economically not likely as the best of the
simulators, which still don't totally simulate actual flight, cost tens of
millions of dollars and a basic trainer can be had for much less than $100K.
I'm not sure what you mean by "totally simulate actual flight." Fighter pilots
(and occasionally airline pilots) leave simulators soaked with sweat, so it
would seem that they get a pretty good simulation.
People leave The Taco Hut soaked with sweat.
Nice try at dodging the issue.
People who aren't told otherwise sometimes believe they are actually going
somewhere on rides like Star Tours, even though they never leave the room
(this particular attraction uses full-motion simulators).
Some people, like you, are easily deluded.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.