Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC

Viperdoc wrote:
For example, the Extra 300 model is extremely poor. The acceleration is
slower than the real aircraft, and the roll rate is much, much less than the
full scale plane.

Plus, I'm not pulling or pushing 8 g's or rolling at 400 degrees a second in
the chair. Sims, even full motion ones, can not mimic the visceral cues
found in real flight.

Additionally, the visual cues looking at a computer monitor are not the
same, since there is no peripheral vision input on the simple models such as
MSFS. There are some advantages to multiple monitor systems with motion.

Even without motion, having a full size cockpit with real instruments adds a
lot to the realism (at least this was my experience at Simcomm). Sitting in
front of a computer screen flying with a joystick, pedals, and throttle
really don't come close to the actual experience of flying.



It's not a Extra 300 but I had the opportunity years ago to "fly" the
American Airlines Fokker F100 at their DFW training center at full
motion. I thought that was pretty realistic for this general aviation pilot.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

gpsman writes:

Spurious conclusion. Those who agree with you are honest, those who
don't are not?

No. The honest ones admit it; the dishonest or disingenuous ones
argue about it endlessly.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Viperdoc writes:

For example, the Extra 300 model is extremely poor. The acceleration is
slower than the real aircraft, and the roll rate is much, much less than the
full scale plane.

Perhaps so. I presume the Extra 300 is a "fun" plane, not a serious
one, like many of the others.

Note that the accuracy of simulation depends not only on the
simulation engine, but also on the parameters for each aircraft model.
The default aircraft are rather casually defined.

Plus, I'm not pulling or pushing 8 g's or rolling at 400 degrees a second in
the chair. Sims, even full motion ones, can not mimic the visceral cues
found in real flight.

Yes, yes. I'm getting tired of hearing about this. That's not a flaw
in the simulation, anyway.

Additionally, the visual cues looking at a computer monitor are not the
same, since there is no peripheral vision input on the simple models such as
MSFS. There are some advantages to multiple monitor systems with motion.

I can look left and right by twisting the stick, although I'll grant
that it's not like the real thing. However, that's not a defect in
the simulator software, either.

Even without motion, having a full size cockpit with real instruments adds a
lot to the realism (at least this was my experience at Simcomm). Sitting in
front of a computer screen flying with a joystick, pedals, and throttle
really don't come close to the actual experience of flying.

I tried a much more elaborate simulator about a week ago (still
without motion). I wasn't familiar with the aircraft it
simulated--apparently something like a Piper Cub--but I managed to do
several ILS approaches successfully with an instructor alongside.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Viperdoc writes:

For example, the Extra 300 model is extremely poor. The acceleration is
slower than the real aircraft, and the roll rate is much, much less than the
full scale plane.



Perhaps so. I presume the Extra 300 is a "fun" plane, not a serious
one, like many of the others.



It does't get much more serious than an Extra 300 when it comes to
general aviation aircraft!

Nomen Nescio wrote:

Landings are waaaay too easy. A poor landing in reality is a lot more
exciting than the MSFS models.

No ****.

I have about 150 hours in MSFS and 10 hours
and 5 or 6 landings in a real plane. *Nothing*
in FS prepares you for the instructor shouting..

"Steer with your feet"
"You're flaring 20 feet too high"
"Steer with your feet"
"Hold the nose up"
"Steer with your feet"
"Watch your speed"

As the ground rushes up towards you at 60 knots
and the feeling that you're just about to
literally drag your ass down the runway.

I wonder if Max could even handle the
degree of psychological battering it takes
to become a good real-world pilot.

Jim Stewart wrote in
:

"Steer with your feet"
"You're flaring 20 feet too high"
"Steer with your feet"
"Hold the nose up"
"Steer with your feet"
"Watch your speed"

As the ground rushes up towards you at 60 knots
and the feeling that you're just about to
literally drag your ass down the runway.

Don't forget "right rudder, right rudder" being drilled in your head from
your instructor for takeoffs.

Allen

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
So it would probably be best to set the MCP to prevent any descent
until I'm cleared, then?

MCP = max continuous power? Sorry- not familiar with the term as used on an
FMS. The important thing is to not set the altitude hold for descent until
cleared by ATC.

In simulation, too, even though traffic is sometimes too light to
justify it (the ATCs need practice as well). In fact, it seems that I
almost never follow the arrival procedure as published. Often just as
I'm beginning it, ATC gives me other instructions. I suppose it's a
bit of a relief as then all I have to do is follow their instructions,
rather than try to follow the arrival chart (but if the FMC is doing
it, it's easy).

A good center controller will have all of the arrivals spaced like pearls
before everyone hits the arrival's gate. That way everyone can follow the
arrival as charted with ATC isssuing speed changes to maintain spacing.

Is there a specific phrasing that means "you can do your own lateral
AND vertical navigation"? Or does ATC as a rule never let IFR flights
select their own altitudes?

The most common is a clearance to cross a fix at an assigned altitude
(crossing restriction). Say for example you are cruising at FL290 and the
controller isues you a clearance to cross a fix at 12000'. It is your
perogative as to when to start your descent so long as you cross the fix at
the assigned altitude.

During the climb, ATC sees the final altitude we requested on our flight
plan. They try to get us up there, traffic permitting. After that we request
from ATC any altitude changes we want and they work us to that altitude,
traffic permitting.

What does ATC say if they want you
to follow everything on the plate, including the indicated altitudes?

"DESCEND via the Korry 3"

Did your colleague get into significant trouble?

No, because seperation wasn't lost.

OK, so should I say something like "leaving FL290 for 12000 at CLARR,"
assuming I'm already cleared to descend at my discretion?

Sounds professional.

So there is no equivalent of "resume own navigation" for altitude,
like "resume own altitude," or whatever?

In the IFR world, altitude is all important. There are crossing restrictions
and block altitudes, but most of the time we follow

If ATC regularly overrides the plates and (apparently) doesn't often
clear anyone to follow the altitude indications on the plates, why do
all the approach plates seem to mention altitudes? Just for radio
loss?

In the real world we usually follow the arrival procedures with the
altitudes as published. When flying the big jets, just remember that you
will need 3 miles for every 1000' you want to descend plus another 5 miles
to slow for the 250 knot speed restriction at 10000'.

D.

Nomen Nescio writes:

The rudder is a joke. It changes the direction that the nose is pointed,
but does not control flight path.

What does a real aircraft do?

Ground effect is either poorly modeled, or not modeled at all.

You don't sound very certain.

Actual aerodynamic effects of wind such as wind shear are either pooly
modeled, or not modeled at all.

See above.

Stalls are not poorly modeled, but not entirely accurate.

What parts are inaccurate?

"Turbulence" is pathetic. The plane just twitches around a bit. This
does not even come close to reality.

I didn't know there was a standard form of turbulence.

Landings are waaaay too easy. A poor landing in reality is a lot more
exciting than the MSFS models.

Why do so many real pilots have trouble landing in the sim, then?

Most real pilots have told me that it's much easier to fly an aircraft
for real.

Mass and moment of inertia effects range from poorly modeled to
weak, depending on the modeled aircraft (some add ons are pretty
fair, but the limitations of MSFS calculations limit the accuracy of the
models).

Which limitations of the MSFS calculations produce which flaws?

High altitude flight results in highly unrealistic control responses and overall
aerodynamic behavior.

What are the unrealistic details?

I could probably come up with a few more if I spent a few more minutes
thinking about it.

It would be better to quantify and isolate the ones you've already
mentioned, in order to make it possible to verify them.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

An Extra 300 is a pretty serious plane- extremely sensitive on the controls,
and can be pretty much flown with three finger touch. It is much harder to
land than most spam cans due to limited forward visibility, and in fact it
comes in over the fence at the same speed as the Baron, only with no view
forward.

Also, pulling or pushing over six g's is pretty serious flying, let alone
while doing rolls at 400 degrees a second or tumbling end over end.

MSFS does not even come remotely close to the visceral sensations or flight
model of the Extra.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

No. The honest ones admit it; the dishonest or disingenuous ones
argue about it endlessly.

How do you know who is honest and who is lying?