"Mxsmanic" wrote ...
Snowbird writes:

All, to a lesser or higher degree.

Then it is also inevitably true that all aspects are accurate, to a
greater or
lesser degree.

What a brilliant deduction. I suppose next you will then postulate that the
simulator has a more accurate flight dynamics model than the real airplane.
Yeah, black is actually white, sure.

Of course, neither statement communicates much of real
utility.

Except that you once again clipped out my reference to the example that
illustrated my statement. I'm sorry, but in aviation you can't just pick the
bits that happen to fit your personal agenda. That is in fact an extremely
dangerous attitude.


Show me scientific proof.

How does one provide scientific proof of the self-evident?

So now you resort to declaring the issue self-evident, in order to avoid
producing proof.
(Wikipedia: "a self-evident proposition is one that is known to be true by
understanding its meaning without proof").
Then tell me why it's self-evident that a table-driven flight dynamics model
would always be better than a real-time differential equation-driven.


A perfect measurement of a real-world random contour will always be
perfect.
A mathematical recreation will always be an approximation.

Was that your "proof" of the above issue? What makes you believe the MSFS
flight model is based on "perfect" measurements? Show me proof that the
"perfect real-world measurements" always have less measurement errors than
the errors in the mathemathical approximations.