MS Flight Sim As a Training Tool

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

The spring in the Cirrus is there to help show where center is because of
the unusual side grip stick. It doesn't reduce the feedback from the
control
surfaces..

Why do you need to know where center is?

Isn't a grip stick awfully like a joystick in front of a PC?

You're both morons.

The spring in the Cirrus is there because the Cirrus doesn't have trim
tabs. Changing the center position of the spring is how you trim. And
yes, it does reduce (but does not eliminate) feedback from the control
surfaces. And no, it isn't like a joystick in front of a PC because
unless you have an extremely sophisticated joystick it gives you no
force feedback at all.

And in case you're wondering, I know these things because I fly a (real,
not simulated) SR22 (among other things).

rg

There is also a 3D stereo goggle set that tracks head movement. It only
works with software that supports it, but MSFS does support it. Don't know
if Combat does. That would be cool, though. I might have to consider a set.

They cost about $579 (down from $1000). Saw them on HGTV on the Techtoys
segment. I wished they worked on the various game stations.

mike

"randyw" wrote in message
...
Mxsmanic wrote:
Sitting in front of a PC, you have no
movement, and not much in the way of visibility.

Not true as far as the visibility is concerned. If you fly using MSFS's
virtual cockpits, then you have full eye movement around the inside and
out all the windows. I can even move up and down, left and right in the
seat. There's even IR head-tracking software that let's you look around
the cockpit by moving your head.

Here it is in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMKtkPR0idY

Randy

Stalls and slow flight are the biggest I've noticed.

What are the differences between MSFS and real aircraft in the domains
of stalls and slow flight?

A lot. Take a flight to find out.

What's missing from MSFS is the buffeting and deck angle -- both which
would require a full-motion sim. Otherwise, I find stalls and slow
flight to be very well modeled in the Kiwi.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

It seems obvious to me, that one really needs to spend some time in an
airplane with another pilot to get the basics down. Your manager has had the
benefit of watching others as well as having you standing over his shoulder
coaching him, - right? That's a far cry from "trial and error" learning on
your own - that's a tough row to hoe. (Note that no one ever calls it "trial
and succeed".) Jay, would you agree that stepping into an airplane would
still be a chalenge for your manager? And, (again with someone instructing
or coaching) would it give his skills a big boost?

Oh, absolutely. You guys seem to think that I'm advocating doing away
with the flight school here in Iowa City -- and that's far from what I
believe. Nothing will replace an instructor and a real airplane.

But, on the other hand, to dismiss the Kiwi as a mere "game" is to
unfairly minimize what we've accomplished here. As an example, last
night (at Movie Night) a young pilot (they DO exist!) showed up, not to
see the movie ("Flying Tigers", BTW) but to fly the Kiwi.

He flew for 20 minutes or so, made some nice approaches into Mackinac
and Madeline Islands, and had a great time. He then pronounced the
Kiwi as superior to the mega-thousand dollar, PC-based flight sim at
the flight school.

Since the time on that machine CAN be logged, what does that say about
the Kiwi?

I think this kind of simulator can _augment_ training in an aircraft, but
it doesn't replace it.

No one (with any brains) ever suggested otherwise.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination

Jay Honeck wrote:
It seems obvious to me, that one really needs to spend some time in an
airplane with another pilot to get the basics down. Your manager has had the
benefit of watching others as well as having you standing over his shoulder
coaching him, - right? That's a far cry from "trial and error" learning on
your own - that's a tough row to hoe. (Note that no one ever calls it "trial
and succeed".) Jay, would you agree that stepping into an airplane would
still be a chalenge for your manager? And, (again with someone instructing
or coaching) would it give his skills a big boost?

Oh, absolutely. You guys seem to think that I'm advocating doing away
with the flight school here in Iowa City -- and that's far from what I
believe. Nothing will replace an instructor and a real airplane.

But, on the other hand, to dismiss the Kiwi as a mere "game" is to
unfairly minimize what we've accomplished here. As an example, last
night (at Movie Night) a young pilot (they DO exist!) showed up, not to
see the movie ("Flying Tigers", BTW) but to fly the Kiwi.

He flew for 20 minutes or so, made some nice approaches into Mackinac
and Madeline Islands, and had a great time. He then pronounced the
Kiwi as superior to the mega-thousand dollar, PC-based flight sim at
the flight school.

Since the time on that machine CAN be logged, what does that say about
the Kiwi?

I think this kind of simulator can _augment_ training in an aircraft, but
it doesn't replace it.

No one (with any brains) ever suggested otherwise.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination

Jay I agree with you in 95% of what you've said throughout this
discussion, there is one person I don't agree with who is a pain and is
now in my killfile (not a literal gung-ho rambo killfile, just a file
on my computer that blocks messages, I want to be clear on that before
the FBI shows up at my building).

I will not agree with you, however, in saying that a sim flight model
can be close to the real thing, it's a great piece of entertainment and
can be faily engaging, but let's be honest, it just doesn't act the
same in MSFS as it would in real life, it can be misleadingly close,
but it's not the same.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Sensations are a HUGE part of flying.

Perhaps they are for you. They aren't necessarily that way for
everyone.

That's where you're WAY wrong. I only have the basic instruments in my
plane. I have airspeed, needle and ball, altimeter, tachometer, VSI,
magnetic compass (I now have a working gyro compass. Just got it a couple of
years ago.), and oil temp and pressure. Notice there's no artificial
horizon. I've only had one real flight that approached the sim experience.
That was a flight from Block Island to Barnes. One slight turn after takeoff
and a straight, hands-off flight practically to touchdown. It was the
smoothest air I've ever flown in. I've also had flights where I had a hard
time changing frequencies or getting my hand on the throttle I was bouncing
around so much. I've been (as a student) kicked into a 45 degree bank by a
gust on short final that had me looking another pilot on the apron in the
eye. My recovery from this attitude depended entirely on the physical
sensations + visual cues. Instruments would have been useless. If you have
any aversion to feeling alternately weightless and extremely heavy, you may
not react properly. If you can't handle a roller coaster, stay out of a real
cockpit or only fly on the calmest of days.

Vision-
The average person has between 170 and 175 degrees of vision and uses it
all
in real flight.
In SIM flight depending on screen used you might have 90 degrees. Yes
this
can be improved but the cost is significant and I'd guess the vast
majority
of MSFS users don't have multiple monitors.

I have 360° in MSFS.

I've been really tempted to get those 3D stereo, head tracking goggles. I
think that would really enhance MSFS (and the function is enabled in MSFS).
I'd like it even better in MSFS Combat.

In real flight you feel the stick or yoke and the forces acting against
it.

That depends on the aircraft.

You also feel the aircraft moving and changing direction.

Unfortunately, you cannot always trust what you feel.

If you can combine it with visual cues, you most certainly can.

This movement when backed up with visual clues, either from outside the
plane or instruments help you finely control the aircraft.

Or, more specifically, the visual and instrument information allow you
to control the aircraft. The movement isn't always trustworthy.

Unless IFR, the instruments are only a backup and verification tool. You
keep your wings level by looking at the wingtips. You hold altitude by
developing a sight picture over the nose. You briefly scan your instruments
to verify and refine altitude and heading.

In sim flight there are no forces acting on the stick/yoke with the
exception of springs or in the best case force feedback which doesn't
simulate reality well at all.

That depends on the aircraft being simulated. Cirrus aircraft use
springs, too.

But the control forces are also there, and they vary under varying
conditions.

With a proper set up I'll give the sims a real A+ on this issue and will
say
that it is damn good a simulating reality.

Not that the drone of engines gradually driving you deaf is terribly
useful to flying.

That's what headphones are for. They actually cut out over 30 db, depending
on the brand. Active NC does even better.

mike

Nope. Sorry. You seriously *underestimate* the importance of sensations.

mike

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Neil Gould writes:

You don't understand the sensations associated with flying,
so you dismiss their importance.

You overestimate the importance of sensations associated with flying,
and so you exaggerate their significance.

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

I will not agree with you, however, in saying that a sim flight model
can be close to the real thing, it's a great piece of entertainment and
can be faily engaging, but let's be honest, it just doesn't act the
same in MSFS as it would in real life, it can be misleadingly close,
but it's not the same.

Well, I can only offer an invitation to come fly the Kiwi.

If, after pulling up to the gas pumps (really!) at little Sylvania
Field (C89) in Racine County, WI, having just sweated your way through
a cross-wind landing on that 30-foot-wide, 2300-foot-long runway,
(after taking a lakefront-tour of Racine), you *still* think that this
thing isn't as real as it gets (outside of an airplane) -- I'll buy the
beer.

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

those that think they can become pilots simply by flying the sim.

They can, they just won't be as good at flying as someone who also has
flown a real aircraft.

WOW!!

This is what my dialog yesterday with Anthony was all about. To get him into
a position where I could ask him if there was any way he could be incorrect.
Clearly he doesn't see that he could ever be incorrect. So he is either a
troll or a sociopath.

I'm done. I'm not going to create a kill file that blocks any message with
"mxsmanic" anywhere in the body. I'd suggest you all do the same.


"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Of the pilots that have spoken up none have agreed with you.

Some have, some haven't. All of the research sources I've consulted
have agreed with me. Perhaps most of the pilots here are not
instrument rated. I don't know.

Do you really think that you could not be wrong here?

I think that if I see the same thing over and over in multiple
information sources, there's a good chance that it's correct, the
illusions of a few pilots notwithstanding.

What I've learned from my research is that sensations are _never_ to
be trusted in an aircraft without visual backup and/or instrument
confirmation; and I've learned that visual sources of information and
instruments are in themselves entirely sufficient--sensations aren't
required at all.

This is why it puzzles me when pilots here emphasize sensations. I
suppose that's the part they _like_, and so it's the part they think
is _important_. But piloting does not depend on sensations, it
depends mostly on vision (out the window or of the instruments).

If you do decide that you could be wrong what will be needed
for you to admit it?

The more I read, the more right I become. Research helps correct any
misconceptions I have.

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