Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC

Mxsmanic wrote:


I fly a mixture of VFR and IFR on the Baron, and mostly IFR on the
737. I also use VATSIM, the leading virtual flight network, so that I
can interact with other human pilots and controllers by radio, rather
than just interact with the computer-generated stuff provided by MSFS
when it is in offline mode.

All in all, the realism is striking, and much better than some
detractors like to believe.


I don't think you understand the aerodynamics of the real world. MSFS
has great scenery but the aircraft and the atmosphere modeling are
terribly wrong in MSFS.

Mxsmanic wrote:

All in all, the realism is striking, and much better than some
detractors like to believe.

The realism is very striking. That doesn't make it REAL, however. By
definition.

bdl wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:


All in all, the realism is striking, and much better than some
detractors like to believe.


The realism is very striking. That doesn't make it REAL, however. By
definition.

The topography is striking. The realizm is zip.

Sam Spade wrote:
bdl wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:


All in all, the realism is striking, and much better than some
detractors like to believe.


The realism is very striking. That doesn't make it REAL, however. By
definition.

The topography is striking. The realizm is zip.

And the topography wasn't that striking till they fixed the bridges...

Judah writes:

How do you know?

The honest ones admit it to me.

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

Sam Spade writes:

I don't think you understand the aerodynamics of the real world. MSFS
has great scenery but the aircraft and the atmosphere modeling are
terribly wrong in MSFS.

It sounds like you don't fly much in MSFS.

Tell me _exactly_ what's wrong with the aircraft modeling.

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

bdl writes:

The realism is very striking. That doesn't make it REAL, however.

As long as the realism is striking, it doesn't have to be real. The
whole purpose of simulation is realism without reality, after all.

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

Paul Tomblin wrote:

In a previous article, Mxsmanic said:


Paul Tomblin writes:


I fly with a Garmin 296 handheld GPS. In my experience, nearly always
just around the same time it says I need to start my descent if I want to
descend at 500fpm to my destination, ATC clears me down to a lower
altitude without being asked.


I have noticed this as well. I suppose if they know the route well,
they know when the descent usually starts.



Except they know where to start my descent whether I'm flying a 100 knot
Archer or a 140 knot Lance, or on one occasion, a Piper Dakota with a 70
knot tail wind.

I suspect there is software they use to handle this.



It believe it is based on the instrument requirement (?) of 500 fpm rate
of descent.

At a given airspeed and altitude, at 500 fpm an aircraft should commence
its descent at the calculated distance.

This will vary depending on the facility, traffic and procedures.

I calculate the distance in may head for my given cruise altitude and
wait to see if ATC calls me at the appropriate time. They are usually
early on the call to assign lower.

For example, the Extra 300 model is extremely poor. The acceleration is
slower than the real aircraft, and the roll rate is much, much less than the
full scale plane.

Plus, I'm not pulling or pushing 8 g's or rolling at 400 degrees a second in
the chair. Sims, even full motion ones, can not mimic the visceral cues
found in real flight.

Additionally, the visual cues looking at a computer monitor are not the
same, since there is no peripheral vision input on the simple models such as
MSFS. There are some advantages to multiple monitor systems with motion.

Even without motion, having a full size cockpit with real instruments adds a
lot to the realism (at least this was my experience at Simcomm). Sitting in
front of a computer screen flying with a joystick, pedals, and throttle
really don't come close to the actual experience of flying.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Judah writes:

How do you know?

The honest ones admit it to me.

Spurious conclusion. Those who agree with you are honest, those who
don't are not?

Either way, your judgment of realism is based on anything -but- your
own experience, and you are left to sort the opinions of others. Your
opinion that MSFS is realistic, or unrealistic, has no basis in any
-fact- that you have ascertained, since those... lemme count... yep,
zero is the total.
-----

- gpsman