If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC
When I listen to real ATC on liveatc.net, it sounds just as bad. The
quality problems aren't the same, but their magnitude is. I'm surprised more aircraft aren't running into each other. I can only hope that the audio quality is much better aboard the actual aircraft, but I doubt it. My experience is that controllers are always pretty clear, although they may talk rapid fire. I think this is because controllers have good headsets.. not much background noise, and powerful (?) ground based transmitters. As opposed to pilots who have lots of noise around them. For someone like me that is more visual than auditory (it sounds like you are similar) it takes practice to be able to visualize what I just heard. It helps that for almost everything it follows a very standard format (and controllers are good at following that format) as opposed to us pilots that tend to try it on the cool, i.e. "uh, up from 4 for 5.2" etc. Those Don Brown columns I pointed you to earlier has a whole bunch of columns on phraseology and its usefuleness for safety. Do you listen to Vatsim on a headset? Might make it easier. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC
bdl writes:
Do you listen to Vatsim on a headset? Might make it easier. Yes, a headset with a microphone. SquawkBox (the interface module for VATSIM) complains that I have too much background noise, but when I ask for a radio check people say I sound fine. Unfortunately, very often I can't hear them. I don't need to hear other pilots, of course, but I do need to hear controllers, and sometimes the quality is so bad that I just use text. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC
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! |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC
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. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC
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 |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 Mxsmanic wrote: A Guy Called Tyketto writes: Not often. For the most, visual approaches are used over ILS approaches. When cleared for the visual approach, you won't be using autoland, as you won't be on an ILS approach, regardless of if you join the localizer and track it. You're still on the visual approach. Yes, from a regulatory standpoint. But I can still configure for autoland. It looks like any other landing from the tower, heh heh. I'd hate to see what would happen if tower tells you that you have a 40 or 50kt overtake on the traffic you're following, and to S-turn. Kills your autoland. If you want the realism, you should and fly the approach and land, and use your instruments when you need them. Should you get the helmet and can't see them, you would be screwed... royally. 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 v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFnaHYyBkZmuMZ8L8RAj7oAJ4+6uimAAwC0MsrBciICf cc2pI6bwCeJFBJ GqSi/+r/pNBg5ZPYWENsT+0= =X5cu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC
"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. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC
Mxsmanic wrote: Do you listen to Vatsim on a headset? Might make it easier. Yes, a headset with a microphone. SquawkBox (the interface module for VATSIM) complains that I have too much background noise, but when I ask for a radio check people say I sound fine. Unfortunately, very often I can't hear them. I don't need to hear other pilots, of course, but I do need to hear controllers, and sometimes the quality is so bad that I just use text. FYI, i listen to other pilots as well as the controllre instructions to them. A lot of times it will help with the big picture situational awareness. For example, knowing that I'm likely to be asked to keep my speed up on that ILS, because he's vectoring a Hawker behind me for the same ILS. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC
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. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|