On Jun 26, 3:17*pm, " wrote:
On Jun 26, 1:01*pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:

So my word would be not to over emphasize the value of MSFS as a
training tool, but to be careful not to under emphasize the program's
uses either.

I have always agreed with you Dudley for what it's worth. *When used
as a TOOL, it's an outstanding training aid as I have said time after
time for learning instrumentation values, *IFR procedures and system
failures.

But it MUST be used in concurrence with a qualified instructor, not
like what Mx proposes it does. *It doesn't simulate the actual feed
back of an airplane needed to be learned to safely fly a plane. *It
doesn't replace the full motion simulator or a real plane. *There
won't be a day that I can see one can take lessons on MSFS, walk out
to their favorite flight school and safely fly a real plane.

Realism, yes, MSFS looks real, key thing is looks.

Feels real, I can't say it will ever do that as long as you work on a
flat screen monitor using a function key or mouse to look around the
sides for peripheral vision. *Mx is sadly mistaken to think that MSFS
is just like being in a cockpit of a real C172, citation and so on.

I hesitate to say it as I REALLY don't want to get in the ring with
the Mx thing but I will say that if his comment is that MSFS in ANY
capacity can take the place of the actual aircraft for training
purposes, I would have to professionally disagree with him on that
basis alone.
DH