This should settle it!

Mark T. Dame wrote:
That fact is that your insistence that MSFS is a more valuable training
aid than it really is makes me glad that you aren't flying a real plane.

(Dammit, I'm feeding the trolls again. Somebody smack me.)


-m

SMACK!

MSFS is one hell of a simulator. It certainly isn't a training device,
however.

With MSFS I can land a 747 without bouncing or pancaking the damn thing
(which I still do occasionally in a tiny 150). I can also nail the
centerline in a large jet (I'm always off a bit to the left in a 150).

MSFS is great to get started, but just like anything, you HAVE to forget
all the bad habits you've taught yourself with the simulator because
real world flying is much different. A steep turn IRL is easier because
you can feel it in your ass. You can feel and see if it's too steep,
too fast, slow, whatever. In MSFS, you have to stare at the instruments
and watch the horizon and guess. Landing in MSFS is easier because it's
so damn forgiving.

You can go ahead and spend the $2,000-$4,000 on all of that high end
simulator stuff, the yoke, the rudder pedals, the instrument panel. You
can also spend upwards of $2,000 on one of those "real dolls" that will
simulate sex for you. The fantasy and the reality, in both cases (I'm
only guessing about the dolls) are far removed from each other and
should not be mistaken. (I am referring to MSFS and not an actual
training device)

Don't fall in love with your Real Doll, the arguments are bitter, bitter
affairs.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

muff528 wrote:

"Oz Lander" wrote in message
...
http://overtheairwaves.com/

I refer to the first article on this page.

--
Oz Lander.
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong.


From the article-
"Fortunately for the good guys, FAR 61.65(e) limits the use of flight
simulators to 10 or 20 out of the required 40 hours required for the
instrument rating. This means that the instrument student must actually fly
a real airplane for a minimum of 20 to 30 hours in either simulated or
actual instrument conditions."

Now, I'm not a pilot (real or imagined) but I'm surprised that ANY simulator
time is credited toward the actual "40 hours required for the instrument
rating".

I would think that the simulator would be a good tool to acclimate the
student to the environment prior to making the requisite 40 hours of

actual flight time but not to replace flying time. (Is simulator time
credited hour-for-hour?)

I would like to point out that (and most pilots here already
know this) X-Plane has been approved by the FAA for training towards
an Airline Transport certificate, when used in a full motion simulator.

Not MSFS. X-Plane.

Details about this are at http://www.x-plane.com/FTD.html .

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGI7BMyBkZmuMZ8L8RAv07AJ9CWBLcSEcAcb4iEcqI3k ExfeUYTACgjrVj
h0hf4Jre3/lwnzealXbYJPs=
=jqLg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I would like to point out that (and most pilots here already
know this) X-Plane has been approved by the FAA for training towards
an Airline Transport certificate, when used in a full motion simulator.

Not MSFS. X-Plane.

Details about this are at http://www.x-plane.com/FTD.html .

You know it's bad when you have to correct yourself!

Not only is it for the Airline Transport Certificate, but also
for an Instrument Rating, and Commercial Certificate. Additionally, not
only has the FAA approved this but Transport-Canada has as well.

Details about this are at the above link as well.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGI8BPyBkZmuMZ8L8RAsa0AJ4t3v4Q40tzPIoJUQYbOM xF0+NgrQCfckt7
CvxVi2kas9GthhPI+wJz8bo=
=tV+k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I would like to point out that (and most pilots here already
know this) X-Plane has been approved by the FAA for training towards
an Airline Transport certificate, when used in a full motion simulator.

Out of curiosity, what are the limitations of a full motion simulator?
I am guessing it can't simulate G-forces or other extreme manuevers.

writes:

Out of curiosity, what are the limitations of a full motion simulator?
I am guessing it can't simulate G-forces or other extreme manuevers.

Most full-motion simulators engage in various tricks to persuade the occupants
that they are experiencing large G forces. You're correct that they cannot
produce significant G forces directly, at least not for any length of time.

G force in acceleration can be simulated by tilting the simulator in just the
right way. Gravity then pulls the occupants "backwards," producing an
acceleration vector that pretty much matches the real thing, except for
magnitude. Visual input and other factors do the rest.

For a climb, the simulator moves upwards. However, at all times it gradually
approaches a neutral position, which is gentle enough that the occupants don't
notice. The first suggestion of acceleration is enough (along with other
factors) to persuade the occupants that they are being continuously
accelerated. So the simulator moves up very briefly, and then slowly sinks
back into a neutral position. Human perception is such that the occupants
will still think they are being accelerated upward, if this motion is
accomplished correctly. Then a slight downward motion convinces them that the
acceleration is stopping. And so on.

Simulators can also move directly forward and back, from side to side, and
vertically up and down to add some additional sensations.

If you've never been in a full-motion aircraft simulator, go through the Star
Tours attraction at Disneyland, which uses full-motion simulators.

There's a way to detect that you're in a simulator. Hold your body upright
and your head straight ahead, and compensate for any movement you feel so that
you remain upright and straight ahead. If you're in a real vehicle, this will
have only a slight effect on the sensation of movement. If you're in a
simulator, it will nearly destroy the sensation of movement, and you'll
quickly perceive that you aren't really moving very much at all.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
writes:

Out of curiosity, what are the limitations of a full motion simulator?
I am guessing it can't simulate G-forces or other extreme manuevers.


snip --- inexperienced commentary

Luke!! Luke!! Snap out of it boy, you are talking to yourself again. Next
thing you know you will be playing with it.

You can simulate momentary g forces, but not sustained.

mike

wrote in message
ups.com...

I would like to point out that (and most pilots here already
know this) X-Plane has been approved by the FAA for training towards
an Airline Transport certificate, when used in a full motion simulator.

Out of curiosity, what are the limitations of a full motion simulator?
I am guessing it can't simulate G-forces or other extreme manuevers.

On Apr 15, 9:01 am, "Oz Lander" wrote:
http://overtheairwaves.com/

I refer to the first article on this page.

He also questions whether training for an Instrument license using
sims and view limiting devices is valid. FAA says yes.

Kev

Oz Lander writes:

http://overtheairwaves.com/

I refer to the first article on this page.

It's just another expression of opinion, exactly similar to what has been
given here.

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

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Oz Lander writes:

http://overtheairwaves.com/

I refer to the first article on this page.

It's just another expression of opinion, exactly similar to what has been
given here.


You're an idiot., Go back to playing Froggit or space invaders, jerkoff.

Bertie