Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Neil Gould writes:

It's only irrelevant to simming. These effects are quite important to
real-world flying, as the pilot must counteract them to stay aloft
and/or on course.

The actual control feel is not a big factor in many aircraft and many
situations. The mass and inertia and so on are simulated correctly.

You are posting to a group that is largely GA. I don't know of any GA
planes where the effects of mass and inertia are not important to flying.
And, no, the mass and inertia are not simulated correctly in MSFS.

See above. The simple fact is that *no* real-world flying is
independent of motion.

Instrument flight is independent of motion.

Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant, as you have done no flying,
instrument or otherwise. The fact of the matter is that it is not the
motion you feel that is relevant to instrument flying, but the effects
weather on the inertia and motion on the course and attitude of the
airplane. These are not accurately simulated in MSFS.

My theory is that the ability to land a simple PC sim (MSFS) is
dependent on the ability to translate the sim's representations of
control vs. motion into something that works on the sim.

I partially disagree, as the absence of movement is probably a problem
for many pilots, especially GA pilots.

So, you disagree based on a total lack of experience and a notion of
probability that you can't verify. Real intelligence at work, there.

Neil