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 |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC
Mxsmanic wrote in
: No. The honest ones admit it; the dishonest or disingenuous ones argue about it endlessly. How do you know who is honest and who is lying? |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC
MxsClueless wrote:
Tell me _exactly_ what's wrong with the aircraft modeling. For starters, the program doesn't really understand air density. The program tries, but only in MSFS can one maintain a semblance of controllability in a 172 at FL 250. Plus, the mixture control does not react as it should at even 7000. Ditto the ASI whilst upstairs. I indeed do have every version since 1.0, and yes the graphics on ver. 10 are outstanding and a decent frame rate on my newish machine. But it's a totally phony experience at face value. Flying IFR in mere marginal weather like just 2-3 viz, thus not "hard IMC," can be a pleasure, and only partly because VFR flight in poor viz can be a distasteful chore. Set up that condition in MSFS and it's a complete bore. Ditto as to punching through a thin (but VFR ceiling) overcast under IFR, but do that in MSFS it's objectively a bore with phony, all-white below. I also like playing Walter Mitty now and then by flying big air carrier jets too, but why anybody would simulate that by engaging autopilot and letting FMS do the tricky stuff (well, not really, if exp) for a thousand+ miles, hours on end, I don't understand. And taking ATC instructions from VATSIM people who likely know little of the real-life nuances of ATC at least. What % of air carrier pilots actually fly MSFS as an avocation? The tiny % who may do I suggest have issues, and I'd rather not be a pax in seat 17A whilst he/she is up front, thank you. I also think MSFS is an excellent implementation, given the programming challenge, and I tell my flying friends, even "old duffs" like me but who are into computing and have the machine for it, to try it for just some occasional fun and see some nifty stuff it now does. And no more, without actually saying so, since I know they won't get hooked. Conversely, if flight exp via computer is all you want (and moot, as all you can afford), fine. Chacun a son gout. But an analogy is where I served in the U.S. Army, but own only one handgun I fired just once, so I'm not a gun enthusiast but respect such avocations of others. Chacun a son gout. I even think there's too many weapons/capita here, but whether the attendant consequences are tolerable is a legitimate debate. I think on balance it is tolerable, but could I ever start a silly, flaming debate by arguing the contrary, especially never having really engaged in the sporting activity! I also think I know know many technical things about weapons, but hardly an expert, despite what I might read further on the internet. If I have a technical question, I can post to a gun enthusiast net group and hope it's only a 4-post thread not flaming me should I be branded naive or just an annoyance. What I would not do is take pot shots at those who engage in legitimate activities such as gun collecting, shooting sports, or actual flying in a group of those who do, nor would I claim shoot-em-up computer games is realistic and sufficient for practical purposes. Nor would spend much of my waking hours arrogantly posting on matters I really don't know much about, especially where my actual identity is known to the entire English-speaking internet world. Why, from everything I've read about sociology and psychiatry on the net, I think you have issues. Forgive me, that stepped over the line! :-) F-- |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC
You wonder why people ridicule you.
Mxsmanic wrote: 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? It changes flight path, like he said, you dumb****. Ground effect is either poorly modeled, or not modeled at all. You don't sound very certain. Spoken like someone who couldn't even identify a plane, much less fly one. Actual aerodynamic effects of wind such as wind shear are either pooly modeled, or not modeled at all. See above. See above. "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. It's a computer. Other than maing the screen wobble what else can it do? It's **** poor. It would be better to quantify and isolate the ones you've already mentioned, in order to make it possible to verify them. Then why ask the question? |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC
Mxsmanic wrote: Yes, yes. I'm getting tired of hearing about this. That's not a flaw in the simulation, anyway. Let me jump into it. First about background --- I am not GA pilot yet, I plan to start lessons in a fall. I however a small time hang glider pilot (about 25 hours, 83 flights), currently live in Chicago where the weather is not great for hang gliding in winter. While hang glider is very different from GA aircraft, it has some things in common --- being stupid can kill you. What you are getting annoyed is the following (and here I am extrapolating from what I know in different flying community) --- there is invisible hierarchy and you do not accept it. The hierarchy is for a reason though --- people are not equal, some know more then others, some have more experience. Why is this important? Listening to people with experience and learning from them can help you in a sticky situation. However to assign weight to what people are saying it is very important to know if they know what they are talking about. You however insist on you right to claim experience without having any, and write about flying from one airport to another without ever mentioning it was just a simulation. There is extremely small (once in a million or less), but nonzero chance that some day you give advice based on you experience which can kill a student who will take it seriously. I know your background at this point, so I will not take your advice seriously, but somebody without knowing your background might. This is why I believe it is important that you know your place in invisible hierarchy of pilots (I know mine, it is fairly low at this point but will get higher after I learn to fly these noisy oil and gaz burning contraptions), mention your background when discussing you "flights" and avoid giving advice. While everyone has right to live the life he chooses, it is important that we use appropriate words lest we stop understanding each other and words loose their meaning and we are back to this tower of Babel situation again. Your "flights" are not flights, although they can be very enjoyable, the distinction is very important. You are trying to redefine meaning of words, make them fuzzier in a community where precision of communications means saving lives and surprised at hostility you are getting. I wonder why? While sims can be pretty detailed, they are by definition are different from the real thing, because people who create them are just humans and their knowledge is limited. Because knowledge of every particular person is limited, it is possible that no one knows all details how different they are from the real thing. You may not find out until it is too late. The difference is often found in a very spectacular fashion. I do not think anyone who flied any kind of Space Shuttle simulator had failure similar to what happened to Columbia. Every year many pilots find there is a difference between their mental model of airplane ("I still have 1 hour of fuel") and real thing. You expect your mental model to be perfect. Well, as I often heard when I still was scientist "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice thee is." One difference that real flying (yes, hang glider too) teaches you that you have a lot of limitations. Apparently simming does not, because you are not getting scared enough. In real flying smug feeling is a sure sign that humility lesson is coming, as one smart guy said. I wonder how is this aspect of flying is taken care of in MSFS. I do not have enough time in GA aircrafts (or simulators for that matter) to say how similar is simulation to real thing --- latest "Flight training" magazine seems to suggests it might be somewhat useful. I am absolutely confident that simulation is absolutely useless for training to fly hang gliders, just like it would be useless for learning to ride a bicycle. Never mind feeling forces that give you important feedback, noise of rushing air or squeaking of the structure that gives you important clues about speed or how close you are to stall. How would you talk about glider feeling "mushed" to someone who never experienced it? He might just say "You are not clear on this point so you do not know what happens and it is not in MSFS anyway so I might forget about it". Never mind adrenaline when you make a stupid mistake and find out that problems always happen in clusters and pile up much faster then you can think about them with no option to pause, save, think and restore later. What is more important --- no simulation can prepare you for the feeling when you circle 5 feet away from a young falcon who found first thermal in his life. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC
Newps wrote in
: Then why ask the question? Because he is a troll............. When will we learn not to answer his question is the 64K question of the year. Allen |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC
"john smith" wrote in message
... 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! I would like to see him tell Patty Wagstaff that her airplane is just a "fun" plane and not a "serious" plane. :-) |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC
bdl writes:
FYI, i listen to other pilots as well as the controllre instructions to them. Agreed, but I often have to strain just to understand the controller. 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. I've not had that experience. Like most sim pilots, I look forward to areas and periods of high traffic so that I can get more experience in dealing with congested airspaces. But simulation has the opposite problem of the real world: the real world has too much traffic, and simulation has too little. It's getting better, though (even as the real world gets worse!). -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC
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. I'm kind of surprised that ATC so often goes with visual approaches for IFR flights. Wouldn't it be more straightforward to funnel everyone into ILS approaches, given that they are already IFR? -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC
A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
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. All you have to do is pull a switch and take over. If you want the realism, you should and fly the approach and land, and use your instruments when you need them. Yes, in principle. But if I'm practicing the systems and automation, I use those. If I'm offline, I can just stop the simulation when I've covered the part I want to practice, and then go back and do it again. If I'm online, I'm required to land, as it is bad form to simply disappear from the controller's scope with no explanation. So I may autoland, both for the practice with automation and to conform to the requirement to land, given that online simulation is supposed to be like real life. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC
Mxsmanic,
OK. What's different about the ground equipment for the different categories of ILS approach? That information is rather easy to find on the internet. Look it up. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|