MS Flight Sim As a Training Tool

http://www.flypfc.com/avionics/avionics.html

Interesting. This should be added to the kiwi. Ho wmuch was it?
(the web site is price-free)

I like the line "Note: The GNS430.530 can only be used in simulator and
cannot be used in your aircraft."

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Jon Kraus" wrote in message
...
Oh really. Have you flown in any clouds so you can make that statement
honestly?

Yes.

I agree with Jay. I used MFS2004 to practice a VFR flight from TTD to
Paine Field, and then set it to real-time weather (IFR) to fly back.

The next day, I made the actual flight. The flight sim didn't model the
C-7 that I got to see popping out of one cloud and disappearing into
another or possible spatial disorientation issues, but on the IFR panel on
the sim you have to ignore physical stimulus (lack thereof) and you're
pretty much under the hood.

-c


And that, IMO, really hits the nail on the head. It's how you use the
software. It isn't what MSFS brings to you, it's what you bring to MSFS.

At one end of the spectrum there are those who want to go out and fly a 747
inverted under a bridge .. at the other are those who spend both the time
and the money to immerse themselves as completely as possible via both
hardware (bleeding edge computer systems and things like the radio stack
Peter R posted about) and software (better terrain mesh, more accurate
airport scenics, etc.) When you slap that level of commitment behind three
(or more) high-quality 24" monitors using good quality control peripherals
and go to the extent of building a "Kiwi" of your own, it isn't too bad a
flight simulator exprience.

Google some screenshots taken using the best hardware/software and I think
you'd be suprised at the visual fidelity that some are able to achieve. If
you bring any desire to fly your sim "by the book" then you can (..and I do)
get satisfaction from MSFS. You may not be able to keep your body connected
to flying with MSFS but you can keep your brain in gear.

Just my $0.02 ...

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

wrote:
Really?

Spin the plane, stall it and put it in a spin... the models are not
full, it won't do a spin.


The Maule in FSX spins like a champ (not to be confused with "like a
Champ", though they may in fact spin in a similar manner). I think spins
have been possible since FS98 in fact. I've been flying since MS95, and
I get some of the previous versions mixed up in my head.

MSFS was a great tool for helping me knock out my private ticket
quickly. I've heard some simmers transition to *real* airplanes and have
a problem looking out the window (they get gauge fixation). I've always
been a big fan of the hat switch on my joystick and like looking outside
as much as scanning the gauges.

Here are a few screenshots I've taken:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pixelra...7594322710096/

Happy landings,

Randy
KSTS, Sonoma County CA
PPSEL

N2310D writes:

Well, no I won't.

I know.

Since you have in the past not been willing to accept statements
provided by experienced pilots ...

You're right: I won't accept unsupported, unexplained assertions, no
matter who makes them. The appeal to authority does not work with me.

... and, on several occasions not been willing to back up your
own cryptic statements and told us that you've done your research
to get your information ...

I explain my assertions. I don't provide lists of citations. Others
have the same resources for research that I have.

... I think it is appropriate for me to tell you that you need
to go for a ride in an airplane and find out for yourself.

If you cannot explain the difference after riding in a plane yourself,
why would I be able to do so?

I am NOT going to give you an opportunity to impugn my hard earned
knowledge in your typical puerile manner.

I have seen virtually nothing in the way of hard-earned knowledge in
this newsgroup. I've seen a great deal of puerile behavior, however.
But that is par for the course on USENET, which is filled with angry
young male "experts."

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

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

Gatt this thread and many others lately are here because of posts written by
an idiot named Anthony aka msxmaniac who not only has never flown and
aircraft and has no desire to, thinks that most of us that do fly don't know
what the hell we are talking about because our real world experience doesn't
jive with his playing of MSFS.

There is no doubt that MSFS is great for use as you describe but it doesn't
make anyone an aviation expert as Anthony thinks it does.

I don't know Anthony, but his posts have been informative and well
written. He also hasn't personally attacked anyone, or made
misrepresentations of his flight experience (real or not). I know a lot
of real pilots that think they're aviation experts when in fact the
little guy with glasses sitting behind his computer desk flying flight
sims has a lot more knowledge, even though he lacks seat time.

I fly both sims and Cessnas, I find that the flight models to be good
enough to simulate (that's what it's doing, right?) flight in a manner
that feels like it does in reality. The plane stalls when and how it
should, P-factor is there, and I can fly by the numbers just when I do
when flying real approaches.

I always know I'm flying a sim, and I guess for some people it's always
just going to be a game until one can't tell the difference between the
sim and real life. Thankfully I have a great imagination and I can fill
in the gaps. If only I could press the Y button and slew when flying in
real life...

Randy
KSTS Sonoma County CA
PPSEL

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

randyw writes:

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.

True, but it's not as easy to do as it would be in real life. I have
a rotary on my throttle quadrant set to "turn my head," and that works
pretty well if I must look out the side windows.

One advantage to MSFS (at least with some aircraft) is that you can
turn to look completely behind the aircraft, whereas in real life the
aircraft itself blocks many angles of view. Not all aircraft let you
turn off the virtual cockpit though (making it invisible so you can
look anywhere).

Hmm ... maybe I should assign a rotary to vertical pan as well.

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

You know I really hate the fact that all you do is claim that
simulators are just as good as real flight or better, their not even
close. And I'll give you a few reasons why real flight is different.

Aside from one being real and the other not... the field of view you
ahve in an airplane as compared to a simulator is different and
superior.

A simulator (with any Force Feedback system available at the local
computer store) is nowhere close to re-creating the forces excerted on
the controls by the atmosphere.

A simulator does not let you feel the back pressure from the braking
system, as a matter of fact in a sim (like MSFS) you can slam the
brakes on or you can leave them off.

A simulator does not actually allow you to manipulate a trim tab and
physically feel the difference in the control.

In a simulator it's extremley difficult to actually fail to start an
engine, as a matter of fact you can't flood an engine in a sim, which
you can in real life.

A simulator does not re create the stresses that you feel being
excerted upon the aircraft, such as the distinct sound of an engine
operating at too high of a manifold pressure for the engine to handle.

A simulator does not re create the changes of trim as the cowl flaps
are retracted.

A simulator does not bring you the concern of a pre-flight check or a
making sure that the tires are fully inflated.

A simulator comes nowhere close to re-creating landing on a wet runway,
on a short field or on a soft field.

A simulator does not properly represent ground effect.

A simulator does not represent weather properly with the exception of
the immediate local area.

A simulator does not require radio communication when you approach any
large city, when you approach any airspace.

It does not necessitate proper flight planning to reinforce the safetey
of the flight.

It does not make you experience G-Forces or the empty feeling in your
stomach when you thermal... for that matter a simulator does not
represent thermals.

It allows you to pause and get a drink.

In a simulator the amounts of turbulence that exist in the real world
do not make it necessary for you to adjust the elevator, ailerons or
rudder when landing a plane. A botched landing does not reward you with
a bounce, but rather with a flight analysis saying you landed at x
amount of feet per second.

There is a monumental difference between sitting in front of a screen
and watching a two dimensional image, than being at the controls of an
airplane and seeing the real world move past the glareshield.

By your logic of simulators being as close to reality as being in an
airplane I can assume that I can safely operate a train with people on
board, I can safely drive an 18 wheel truck, I can safely and with
utter brilliance command a submarine, or surface naval vessel in
combat. The reality is that I cannot, and the reality of the matter is
that you may be able to control an airplane to a reasonable extent in
the real world, I may be able to control an 18 wheeler with a
reasonable degree of success, or a train without exiting the railroad
tracks, but I cannot operate any of those real world items, with the
exception of an airplane. So , you may find a reasonable degree of
succes trying to take off in a real Beech Baron, but you'll get chicken
skin the moment you feel the torque pull you to the side as the turbos
spool up, thats what seperates you from anyone who has flown a plane,
they know what it's like and they can do it... you don't.

For me... every time I come to work and fly the Dash 8s, not only am I
using all my previously gained knowledge to make money for a company,
I'm also dealing with people, and to an extent they are putting their
lives in mine and the First Officers hands, and I would gladly walk up
to any of them, standing next to you and tell them that "Yes, I have
over 8,000 hours of flight time, but mxsmanic here has, say 35,000
hours of simulated flying time in front of his computer at home without
the guidance of an instructor or any license, who would you like to fly
your plane?", 10 times out of 10 they are going to choose me over you.

From: Mxsmanic

I have seen virtually nothing in the way of hard-earned knowledge in
this newsgroup.


EVERYone ! ! !

LOOK at THIS above proclamation !!!

THIS is what the troll wrote, as to what he thinks of your experiences.

Read it again, and again.
**************************************
**************************************

MXSMANIC WROTE:

I HAVE SEEN VIRTUALLY NOTHING IN THE WAY OF HARD-EARNED KNOWLEDGE IN THIS
NEWSGROUP.

**************************************
**************************************

This should do it, for anyone EVER answering him, again, forever.

He respects you, not.

PLEASE
Don't feed this troll, at all, EVER again.

It is time to close the chapter on him. Starting now.

Recently, gatt posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
.. .

Some of us have a lot more sim experience than anyone whose sim
experience began with the use of personal computers. And, we, too
have told you that MSFS isn't all that correct in its
representation of flight.

Okay. I'm IFR rated and on occasion when I can't fly, I take my
approach plates and shoot them in FS2004 in the Mooney or C-172.

It allows me to remember to set and ident freqs, follow the
instruments, time the approach (I use my kneeboard and timer), plan
the course with an E6B and fly it with a sectional. Teaches
reliance on the instruments (you can simulate instrument failures),
reinforces use of checklists such as GUMPS and procedures for radio
navigation as well as remain sharp on concepts such as reverse
sensing and maintaing course headings.

My flying experience began in high school on the first MS Flight
Simulator. It helped me through groundschool and my private because I
was already familiar with navigating using one or two VORs and
quickly interpreting and responding to instruments.

I highly recommend it. It won't make you, say, IFR current, but
it'll sure polish your edge for much less than it costs to shoot
practice approaches each month.

I guess that's why they have flight simlators.

I completely agree with you under the "...useful to those who fly real
airplanes" statement that you snipped. Simulators *are* useful, even those
that don't even remotely simulate the actual flight environment, if the
task that they are put to is well structured. I found the time spent in a
Link trainer some 40 years ago useful, but it didn't ever make me think it
was real flying. I've also seen people sweat while playing "Space
Invaders", and I doubt that they thought that was real, either. So,
perhaps it's the investment in "winning" that causes such reactions rather
than being fooled?

Neil