BDS writes:

Perhaps, but you are missing a huge part of the flying experience, and I
don't mean the physical sensation part that you always focus on.

It's still cost-effective. I get most of the experience at only a fraction of
the cost, and without the overhead of the parts that aren't fun.

You need to understand that the experience of actual flight can be
stimulating mentally as well as physically, and that the mental stimulation
can also be the major factor.

Sure, although some of the most mentally stimulating parts also happen to be
parts that can be effectively simulated (such as instrument flight).

You also need to understand that the mental
stimulation you get from a sim is not the same as the mental stimulation you
get from actual flight - I do both, and I also know countless pilots who do
as well, and they all would totally agree with that statement.

You need to understand that the stimulation of real flight may well be
_different_ from that of a simulator, but it is not necessarily _better_.

For example, I don't enjoy being jostled by turbulence until I throw up.
That's one possible experience of real aviation that I can do without. It's
never an issue in simulation.

For most people, seeing a picture of the Grand Canyon is a far cry from
actually being there looking at it, and yet they are physically the same
experience.

I've done both, and the main difference I saw was that the canyon is in three
dimensions when you look at it in person. Otherwise it looks like a picture.
Others in my party felt the same way. It wasn't worth hours of driving and
staying in a fleabag hotel at highway-robbery rates, and all the other
overhead associated with visiting, and so I never went back.

I would like a better simulation of the canyon in MSFS, though. But I suppose
that would just slow down the frame rates.

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