"Ibby" wrote in message
...

If you think a computer literate group of pilots needs you take on the
value
of MSFS, then you are as full of yourself (and ****) as Mx.


So are you saying this
http://www.carenado.com/pages/C172FSX/1024X768/3.jpg
DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THIS
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...o, _2006).jpg

or
http://www.precisionmanuals.com/priv.../744_5_jpg.htm
looks like this
http://www.hoppie.nl/pic/747jh008.jpg

or

http://www.precisionmanuals.com/priv.../744_3_jpg.htm
look like this
http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices.../747400-04.jpg
or
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...light_deck.jpg

My 'contribution' to this group was in defense to how well some
software vendors affiliated with MSFS can model both the
photorealistic look and systems available on flightdecks. But NONE of
that matters on here. I'm not full of ****, I KNOW it takes skill to
pilot an aircraft especially if flown by HAND but I also do know that
coupled with an autopilot certain portions of flying have been made
easier via the advancement of technology on most aircraft and
commercial airlines make full use of this technology, otherwise what
is the point of automation?

Ibby



No dumb ass, I'm saying:
If you think a computer literate group of pilots needs you take on the
value
of MSFS, then you are as full of yourself (and ****) as Mx.
Can you not read.