john smith writes:

2) Something the home computers will not simulate is the actual control
feel and mass/inertia effect of the actual aircrafat or full motion
military sims.

True, but for many types of aviation, this is irrelevant. Instrument
flying doesn't require it; indeed, you're supposed to be _independent_
of motion when flying on instruments (so to some extent a lack of
motion can be useful). Movement is useful for enhancing realism (in
the best simulators, it's very easy to forget that it's all
make-believe). It _can_ help a bit with spatial disorientation,
although the movements of a full-motion sim aren't identical to those
of real life in some respects that can be significant for
disorientation. But mostly full motion is frosting on the cake.

So, while you may be able to "fly" your home computer
simulator with your choice of input devices, you would be "toast" in the
real thing.

That is completely untrue.

Multiple people have already pointed out that some people are
naturally good at flying, even with zero experience. Others need
training. A few are so bad at it that no amount of training helps.

My theory is that real pilots who cannot land a PC simulator probably
depend a great deal on sensations and visibility in real life. Pilots
who can land a sim perfectly probably have a lot more experience with
instruments alone. Pilots who are very accustomed to specific
aircraft types that provide control feedback, and depend on that
feedback, may also have trouble.

It is easy to sit in front of you home computer and "fly"
1-g maneuvers throughout the envelope, and quite another to pull
high-g's repetitively while jinking in the real thing while looking back
over your shoulder for the guy(s) trying to get you.

Granted, but in the vast majority of aircraft, pulling Gs is so bad
for the airframe that you'll never do it, anyway, unless you are
already in serious trouble.

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