Simulators

On Jun 5, 11:39*pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"Peter Dohm" wrote

Oh, Please!!

The only reason that anyone is dragging MSFS into this, or anything even
remotely related to aviation, is the existence (and persistence) of
another frequent contributor who asserts that MSFS is the same as
realtity--only better--which is about as stupid as saying that reality is
a crutch for people who can't handle drugs.

Exactly my point. *I was relatively sure that the simulator in question was
well above MSFS, but at the time I didn't know what the simulator type was
that had been used.
--
Jim in NC

There's another component to this sim question. I think pilots often
use them, including MSFS, for training purposes -- beyond the edge of
the envelop kinds of things, or as a way of gaining an initial
familiarization with an airplane's panel. My pilot friends and I have
coined a phrase when one of us updates our instrumentation -- "Panel
Envy" -- and it might actually be good to test fly a new gadget in a
sim if you can't get behind a real one in an airplane.

Our resident most frequent poster has written about sitting at his
desk as PIC watching an entire flight simulated under automatic/
autopilot control, for God's sake. It can't be true, but I seem to
remember him writing about enduring gate holds or traffic delays too.
I'd find simming an entire flight mind numbing, but he in a recent
thread talked about doing it from before start check list and "Clear"
to tie down. That experience makes him, he has claimed, something of
an expert. I am reminded of the definition of 'expert', one has to
take the word apart to understand it. An Ex is a has been, and a spurt
is a drip under pressure. He's not an Ex, he's a 'never was'. Worse
than that, the attitude most of us perceive turned many against sims
in general, as evidenced in other threads here.

If you've read other of my comments, this may make you smile. It's VFR
here, but I think we'll go flying anyway.

a writes:

Our resident most frequent poster has written about sitting at his
desk as PIC watching an entire flight simulated under automatic/
autopilot control, for God's sake.

I don't know of any aircraft that allows for fully automated flight from
takeoff to landing, although some modern transport-category aircraft can come
close, and the concept was successfully demonstrated decades ago. Even in
MSFS, you cannot carry out an entire flight on autopilot or under FMS control
(since you can't do it in real life).

It can't be true, but I seem to remember him writing about enduring
gate holds or traffic delays too.

That is possible when flying on VATSIM with MSFS. As far as I know, the
built-in ATC won't do this.

I'd find simming an entire flight mind numbing, but he in a recent
thread talked about doing it from before start check list and "Clear"
to tie down.

Flying for hours in a real aircraft can be mind-numbing, too, just like
driving down a highway for hours at a time.

The advantage of a simulator is that you can skip the parts of real flight
that you don't like, as long as you don't mind the nominal loss of realism.

On Jun 6, 9:17*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

Flying for hours in a real aircraft can be mind-numbing, too, just like
driving down a highway for hours at a time.

What experiences do you have to support this IN THE REAL WORLD OF
FLYING????? Let me guess, it's zero.

Much to your chagrin, there are plenty of options. But obviously you
have no clue since you only simulate flying on MSFS.

On Jun 6, 12:11*pm, " wrote:
On Jun 6, 9:17*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

Flying for hours in a real aircraft can be mind-numbing, too, just like
driving down a highway for hours at a time.

What experiences do you have to support this IN THE REAL WORLD OF
FLYING????? * *Let me guess, it's zero.

Much to your chagrin, there are plenty of options. *But obviously you
have no clue since you only simulate flying on MSFS.

In most cases, MX's remarks can be dismissed as irrelevant. From time
to time there's a meaningful contribution and sometines errors that
should be pointed out, but for the most part why dignify inane crap
with responses?

"a" wrote

In most cases, MX's remarks can be dismissed as irrelevant. From time
to time there's a meaningful contribution and sometines errors that
should be pointed out, but for the most part why dignify inane crap
with responses?

But his presence here is always disruptive.

Think of a marriage where one partner ****es off the other 90% of the time.
That partner also does not care if the other is ****ed off, at all.

Does the marriage have a chance of surviving? No way. The only way for it
to work is for one to leave, for good.

Same thing with MX being here. The only way the group will not continue to
suck eggs is for him to be ignored all of the time. It does not matter if
he is right 10% of the time. He is disruptive and needs to go.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:

"a" wrote

In most cases, MX's remarks can be dismissed as irrelevant. From time
to time there's a meaningful contribution and sometines errors that
should be pointed out, but for the most part why dignify inane crap
with responses?

But his presence here is always disruptive.

Think of a marriage where one partner ****es off the other 90% of the time.
That partner also does not care if the other is ****ed off, at all.

Does the marriage have a chance of surviving? No way. The only way for it
to work is for one to leave, for good.

Same thing with MX being here. The only way the group will not continue to
suck eggs is for him to be ignored all of the time. It does not matter if
he is right 10% of the time. He is disruptive and needs to go.

Since there is nothing that forces anyone to read any article or thread
posted to USENET, I find the use of the word "disruptive" to be a bit
strange.

Any article, thread, or poster can be ignored.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"a" wrote

In most cases, MX's remarks can be dismissed as irrelevant. From time
to time there's a meaningful contribution and sometines errors that
should be pointed out, but for the most part why dignify inane crap
with responses?

But his presence here is always disruptive.

Think of a marriage where one partner ****es off the other 90% of the
time. That partner also does not care if the other is ****ed off, at all.

Does the marriage have a chance of surviving? No way. The only way for
it to work is for one to leave, for good.

Same thing with MX being here. The only way the group will not continue
to suck eggs is for him to be ignored all of the time. It does not matter
if he is right 10% of the time. He is disruptive and needs to go.
--
Jim in NC

Well said.