Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC

I think its great when he misses the point and the whole gist of the
conversation like this
and just jumps in at the only portion he knows. NOTHING

gpsman - Great line I think this should start the great lines of the quote
of the new year.

What are the odds of a conclusion that seems rational emanating from
that keyboard?
-----

Not4wood



"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
N2310D writes:

MSFS includes a glider (Baron). I have no glider (Baron) experience so I
cannot comment on its realism.

The Baron is a powered aircraft.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:

Buck Murdock writes:


Until you have done more than one of the above, you ARE NOT QUALIFIED to
make comparisons amongst them.


Qualifications on USENET are never certain.

You think I am making up the knowledge I have about air carrier operations?

You could learn from someone like me, instead you would rather be
arrogant and defend your lack of knowledge as being what it is most
certainly not.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Sam Spade writes:


The King Air, on autopilot, will not maintain the set vertical speed if
the IAS drops below 120 knots or so. It will nose-dive and crash. Not
so with a real King Air.


Does the King Air allow you to set a vertical speed? What happens on
the real aircraft?


Cross winds on autopilot are not handled correctly on an RNAV approach.


Which autopilot? What does it do incorrectly?


Strong winds aloft dramatically affect IAS in a holding pattern, which
is wrong beyond belief.


I'll have to look.


That is my short list.


I don't recall ever flying the King Air, but I'll try to remember to
look at the other things the next time the opportunity arises.

Again, you're handicaped because you have no experience in comperable
aircraft.

You are a total waste of time.

Sam Spade writes:

You think I am making up the knowledge I have about air carrier
operations?

I don't know. But I'm certain that many people make up many things on
USENET, and I know better than to believe whatever I'm told.

When someone tells me that most of the autoland-enabled aircraft are
landing only at Class D airports, I start to wonder.

You could learn from someone like me, instead you would rather be
arrogant and defend your lack of knowledge as being what it is most
certainly not.

I see a lot of anomalies, and it makes me wary. See, despite what
people claim, I _do_ consult other sources, and if they conflict with
what people tell me here, it raises a lot of questions in my mind
about who is correct.

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

TxSrv writes:

You are missing the point that MSFS does not model, nor need
it for the vast majority of sensible users, the forced
(slewed) behavior of a 172 in the high flight levels be
real.

Without testing the aircraft at that altitude, there's no way to
verify the MSFS modeling of the aircraft at that altitude.

Since the real aircraft cannot reach that altitude on its own, there's
not much point in worrying about the MSFS model; but one cannot simply
say that it is incorrect, one can only say that it is unverified.

If MSFS allowed a 172 to climb to that altitude even though it could
not do so in real life, that would be an obvious flaw in the model;
but I don't believe it does that (I never fly the 172). Slewing does
not count because that is a deliberate overruling of the laws of
physics for convenience in setting up simulations.

Any real pilot, who knows the feel/behavior of a 172
class airplane near sea level, verses say 12,000 feet, and
who understands the aerodynamics involved and the effect of
limited HP in really rarefied air, need not be a "rocket
surgeon" to be able to accurately extrapolate.

In other words, nobody knows for sure. When you actually test the
aircraft at that altitude, be sure to report back, as the data can be
checked again the model. In the meantime, neither you nor anybody
else can say anything definitive about it.

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

TxSrv writes:

They crash.

But that is supposedly what MSFS also does, so it's correct.

If you can give me precise instructions on what to try and what the
result should be, I'll try it on MSFS. I don't know much about the
King Air.

Please also ignore any alleged pilot here who tells you
anything.

I never ignore; but I don't unconditionally believe, either.

The Microsoft Games Development Team are the real gurus; I
though we stipulated that hundreds of posts ago.

Many of the developers who have worked on MSFS over the years have
been pilots, too.

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

Neil Gould writes:

If the real aircraft can't get to a FL, *any* representation of the
aircraft's behavior at that altitude is incorrect.

Not so. The aircraft could be placed there by another aircraft, in
which case it would have some sort of behavior that presumably could
be simulated. It just can't get there under its own power. Slewing
functions in a simulator are the equivalent of carrying the aircraft
to that altitude in real life.

Thus, while there may not be much practical reason to simulate the
aircraft at that altitude, since it is physically possible for it to
be at that altitude, it is also possible to simulate it at that
altitude. However, if nobody ever tests the aircraft for real at that
altitude, any simulation of its behavior there remains a matter of
speculation and unverifiable.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
Rick Branch writes:

A friend of mine is a pilot for an international cargo carrier, and he
does play with MSFS. He just loves to fly a 747 off of a grass strip
that is about half a mile from his (real) house. The grass strip is in
the MSFS database, so he uses it. (I guess it beats pretending to drive
to the airport.)

I didn't think that 747s could be used with grass strips.

In the world of MSFS it's possible. Give it a try.

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

TxSrv writes:

You are missing the point that MSFS does not model, nor need
it for the vast majority of sensible users, the forced
(slewed) behavior of a 172 in the high flight levels be
real.

Without testing the aircraft at that altitude, there's no way to
verify the MSFS modeling of the aircraft at that altitude.

If the real aircraft can't get to a FL, *any* representation of the
aircraft's behavior at that altitude is incorrect. The only correct
modelling would be to accurately represent the aircraft's behavior at its
service ceiling.

Neil

Rick Branch writes:

In the world of MSFS it's possible. Give it a try.

MSFS tends to be more forgiving of such things, although that depends
on the aircraft model used (some add-ons are much more strict).

I wouldn't risk the aircraft on grass in real life, so I won't risk it
in simulation.

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