MXSMANIC - The posts don't add up

Dave Stadt writes:

But you have not flown for even one minute. 30 minutes in the air is worth
hundreds of hours behind a game.

Why?

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

Neil Gould writes:

Sorry, but it's your usage of the example that is completely wrong. The
Navy is not using MSFS *in lieu* of flight training, the point under
discussion here.

That is not the point under discussion. Few simulators are suitable
for use in place of actual flight in the simulated aircraft. None
that don't include motion would be suitable.

Without
flight training, you wind up with the kinds of notions and questions that
have been posted here recently.

Whereas with flight training, you become convinced that you know the
answers and never bother to ask.

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

Grumman-581 writes:

Probably depends upon what type of plane you want to be simming...
grin How much does an intro flight on a 737 go for?

I stumbled across that web page awhile back while looking for something
else (that's kind of how Google works, I guess)... Of course, it piqued
my interest a bit, so I read some more... Some of these guys are really
into it...

http://www.ch-hangar.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3573

Unfortunately, adding complexity without being faithful to real life
only drives the simulation further away from reality, rather than
towards it.

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

Peter Clark writes:

Minor league compared to some.

You want to see touched, check out http://www.hyway.com.au/747/

At least that one seems like a more serious attempt, one that tries to
duplicate the real-life environment instead of just adding eye candy
and gadgets.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Dave Stadt writes:

But you have not flown for even one minute. 30 minutes in the air is
worth
hundreds of hours behind a game.

Why?

You would never understand.

Recently, Tom Conner posted:

Okay. This is the entire post I responded to:

"
Intro flights are typically well below $100.

I've already logged nearly a hundred hours in my simulated
Baron, for far less money than that.

But you have not flown for even one minute. 30 minutes in the
air is worth hundreds of hours behind a game.
"

Again, reading comprehension in this group is abysmal. I wonder if it
carries over to the pilot population in general?

Is it?

1) We are not mind readers. We can only base our understanding on what you
choose to present.

2) Although you now state that the above is the "entire post" you
responded to, it includes a comment to a previous post (mine regarding the
cost of intro flights). Therefore, it was reasonable to think that my
comment is somehow relevant. My comment had to do with the benefits of
actual flight experience in comparison to *only* sim time, as that is the
underlying subject of this thread.

3) It is reasonable to presume that responders to a thread are on-topic,
unless otherwise clarified. The original topic was established with the
comment, "While no mention has been made of a physical issue that would
prevent him from working, he has not made that a point as to why he will
not fly planes..." Your post was about people who *do* fly planes, and
thus my comment distinguishing between the original subject and your new
topic is apparently a correct interpretation.

4) According to your above statement, my comment is not relevant to your
point at all, and should have been excluded from your excerpt. Instead,
you went further and tied your post to the original topic with your
comment, "Not to encourage the village idiot..." To make matters worse,
you included my comment *again* in your current message. So, what about my
comment were you responding to, given that I don't see anything regarding
the cost of intro lessons?

If that is your idea of clear writing, then it's a small wonder that you
think that others can't read.

Neil

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Neil Gould writes:

Sorry, but it's your usage of the example that is completely wrong.
The Navy is not using MSFS *in lieu* of flight training, the point
under discussion here.

That is not the point under discussion.

AFICT, it's still about you not flying anything real. When and where did
that discussion change (your claim doesn't count)?

Few simulators are suitable
for use in place of actual flight in the simulated aircraft. None
that don't include motion would be suitable.

Wrong, yet again. Pilots don't require motion to be able to use simulators
for many, if not most aviation scenarios. I can tell you that my time in a
Link trainer was not nearly as useful as my time in non-motion simulators
available today.

Without
flight training, you wind up with the kinds of notions and questions
that have been posted here recently.

Whereas with flight training, you become convinced that you know the
answers and never bother to ask.

Wrong, yet again. You have to learn the answers to the elementary
questions you're asking well prior to getting a certificate, and in our
flight school, well before you can even solo.

Neil

Neil Gould writes:

AFICT, it's still about you not flying anything real. When and where did
that discussion change (your claim doesn't count)?

It didn't. Nobody has ever suggested simulation in place of flight
training in a real aircraft, as far as I can recall.

Wrong, yet again. Pilots don't require motion to be able to use simulators
for many, if not most aviation scenarios.

If one intends to use simulation entirely in place of real flight to
prepare pilots to fly an actual aircraft without further practice or
instruction, a full-motion simulator is pretty much a necessity at
some point.

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

Dave Stadt writes:

You would never understand.

There's nothing to understand. Thirty minutes is not worth hundreds
of hours of simulation in most contexts, unless, for example, one
wishes to die at the end of a spin, instead of surviving.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
There's nothing to understand. Thirty minutes is not worth hundreds
of hours of simulation in most contexts, unless, for example, one
wishes to die at the end of a spin, instead of surviving.

It depends on what you're trying to understand. As much as I defend
your asking naive questions about flight, it's also perfectly clear to
everyone here that 30 minutes in a real airplane would utterly change
your (mis)conceptions of flying (that you've gained over hundreds of
sim hours).

In one actual flight, you would understand:

1) Why trim is so important and thus why MSFS is so unrealistic.
2) What forces you feel when slipping or skidding.
3) What power vs attitude is all about.
4) How a GA plane is parked, etc.
5) What procedures are followed pre-take-off.
6) What real ATC is like.

And that's just scratching the surface! In other words, yes it would
be worth far far more than sim time, and sim time is only useful IMO if
you have real flight time.

Kev