Wayne Paul writes:

I believe you grossly underestimate the capabilities of good cockpit
simulators. Even the air combat, carrier landing, etc simulators of
the 1970s far surpass the capabilities of a PC based system.

That depends on what you're simulating, as I've said. And desktop simulators
offer unmatched value for the price. A $35 million simulator would probably
offer a better experience than a desktop simulator in most ways, but it costs
$34,999,960 more than the desktop simulator--so it had _better_ provide a
vastly superior experience.

If you had flight experience the view from the cockpit flying one-on-one
or two-on-one with pilots in adjoining simulators could even convince
you that you were experiencing high Gs.

Certainly some simulators can simulate this (thanks especially to various
defects in human perception). I wouldn't want to simulate that, however; I
like placid, ordinary flight. I've never had any interest in aerobatics or
extreme maneuvers.

The same was true with a night carrier landing simulator. As the simulated
weather deteriorated and the fuel state became critical your heart beat
would increase, palms would sweat, etc. A non-pilot didn't relate the
flight conditions with death; therefore, did not experience the same
physiological symptoms; therefore, gaining little form the training other
then a bit of hand/eye coordination. In fact in many cases it actually
caused complacency instead of developing skill under stress.

That would depend on the "pilot." Profiting from simulation requires that one
take it seriously, whether it be on a desktop or in a multimillion-dollar
full-motion simulator. People who constantly dismiss simulation as unrealistic
tend not to profit from simulation.

Chess is just a very abstract simulation of combat, and yet some chess players
react strongly and physiologically to the evolution of a game.

This is why I consider a non-pilot in a simulator simply playing
a game with only minor aviation training relevance.

You're entitled to your opinion.