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

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Mxsmanic,


Which airline do you fly for, again?



Are you determined to make a complete idiot of yourself now? But I'm
glad to see it is possible to penetrate that armor you've conveniently
constructed around your sorry self.

Well stated, Tom.

I fell for this jerk in the beginning.

Buck Murdock wrote:

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:


Ross writes:


Nope, this was the real multi million $ American Airline simulator in
Ft. Worth Texas at their training center. I do not suspect they you
MSFS.

Sometimes it can be surprising what runs on the back end.


As someone who's been flying them every six months for a decade, and
*instructing* in them for several years, it wouldn't be surprising at
all. And as Mr. Space correctly points out, there's not so much as a
snippet of Microsoft code running those $12 MM simulators.

They run custom-designed simulator software, running on banks of
computers. They can communicate with the actual, physical avionics that
are the same as those installed in the aircraft. (Very, very different
from painting graphics on what amounts to a matte painting that looks
somewhat like a cockpit.) They also mimic the physical sensations,
which are *critical* in coming anywhere close to completely simulating
flight.

I've played MSFS, I've spent hundreds of hours in full-motion
simulators, and I've flown thousands of hours in transport aircraft.
Until you have done more than one of the above, you ARE NOT QUALIFIED to
make comparisons amongst them.

AMEN

And, it is Mr. Spade. ;-)

Newps wrote:



Sam Spade wrote:

Newps wrote:



Mxsmanic wrote:


Uh, gee, Einstein, a real rudder DOES control flight path.





Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.




There is never a case where it doesn't change flight path.



Not so. When an engine fails on a multi, a lot of rudder is required.
Skillfully done, the application of a lot of rudder is mandatory to
maintain the desired flight path.





Yep, thus changing the flight path from the centered position.

That is pure b.s. It keeps the flight path intended going, rather than
letting if follow the flight path at the centered position, which is
also known as a torgue roll into intverted flight, followed by a briefly
painful death for all aboard.

Newps wrote:



Sam Spade wrote:

Newps wrote:



Mxsmanic wrote:


Uh, gee, Einstein, a real rudder DOES control flight path.





Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.




There is never a case where it doesn't change flight path.



Not so. When an engine fails on a multi, a lot of rudder is required.
Skillfully done, the application of a lot of rudder is mandatory to
maintain the desired flight path.





Yep, thus changing the flight path from the centered position.

Have a nice torque roll day.

"gpsman" wrote in message
oups.com...
Gig 601XL Builder wrote: groups adjusted
Mxsmanic wrote:

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


POST OF THE MONTH.

Lol!

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

I am delighted to see his post which can most logically be read as:

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

or, better still,

MSFS includes an airplane. I have no airplane experience so I cannot
comment on its realism.

He said it in so many words, I only pose the corollary.

Nomen Nescio wrote in
:

But that gets boring after a while since it's so damned easy to cook this
ant.
So I'm done.

Thank you!!!!!!!!!!

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.

"gpsman" wrote in message
ups.com...
Nomen Nescio wrote: brevity snip/groups adjusted
Falcon 4.0 is like that for me. Does it actually behave like a F-16?
I dunno. It behaves like a PLANE and that's important to me, although
there are a few things I've noticed that I would bet are quite
different in a real F-16. But I don't care because I am trying to learn
the GAME and be good at the GAME. Since I'll probably never get
a chance to fly, or even fly in, an F-16, the differences just don't
matter
to me (although I did get to sit in one and embarrass my wife by making
jet noises and shouting "Fox one").
I enjoy it for what it is and have no delusions that I really know
how to fly an F-16. And if a REAL F-16 pilot told me about what it was
like to
fly a REAL F-16, I wouldn't be arguing about the differences in the
Falcon 4.0 flight models..........I'd STFU and take notes.

Now that's funny!

Falcon 3.0 was advertised as the declassified version of the software
used to train NG pilots. I have no idea how realistic it remained, but
it was real enough to make me sweat and hold my breath as I struggled
to not have my ass shot out of the sky.

I don't remember exactly what year I purchased it, but the machine I
first ran it on was a 486/25 (in DOS).

THAT... was one kickass game!
http://www.f4hq.com/default.php?page=default
-----

- gpsman


FWIW..

I've always been a fan of the entire Falcon series. It's come a very long
way from when it ran in wire frame, then CGA (Cyan, Pink and black) and on
through F3/4 and it's current itteration of Allied Force.

Back in the late '80s I got a chance to visit the AZ ANG section of the
Tucson International Airport. For those who may not know, they do a brisk
F16 training business at TUS and they run a lot of foreign pilots through
there as well.

Besides the book learning, they had several different "devices" to help
pilots learn the switchology. This ranged from simple wall posters, to a
wooden mockup (nice polished maple...) where the panel sections, switches
and dials were twice normal size to aid in finding them by feel, to a couple
of full-fidelity (but non moving) sims built from real F16 cockpit tubs.
They also had a radar/weapons trainer which I found facinating more because
of who made it than for what it was used. The stick and throttle were off
the shelf Thrustmaster and all you saw sitting at it was a wire-frame HUD
display. "Out there somewhere" were wire-frame adversaries to lock up,
close with and shoot at. The manufacturer was...(drumroll)...**Spectrum
Holobyte.**

This was the genesis of the Falcon series for the home PC.

Jay B

Capt.Doug writes:

They are both important, however altitude leeway is +/-300' whereas airways
have .5 to 4 miles of leeway.

Three hundred feet seems generous for altitudes. I thought I read
somewhere that I was supposed to be within 100 feet, or was it 60
feet? Now I can't seem to find a specific tolerance in the FARs. Of
course this isn't normally a problem if I'm on autopilot, but when
flying by hand I still have trouble holding an altitude.

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

Sam Spade writes:

In those $10 million simulators it sure as Hell ain't windows.

I don't know, as I don't have any specs in front of me, but Windows
might well be used for certain functions, as it would lower
implementation costs if the OS is suitable for the purpose (writing a
custom operating system is very expensive). If the actual simulation
software is custom-written, I'd expect something a bit more efficient,
like a bare-bones UNIX system, or a dedicated real-time OS. But one
cannot use just anything, because the more exotic the OS, the more
expensive the development carried out for it.

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