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

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Neil Gould writes:

If the real aircraft can't get to a FL, *any* representation of the
aircraft's behavior at that altitude is incorrect.

Not so. The aircraft could be placed there by another aircraft, in
which case it would have some sort of behavior that presumably could
be simulated. It just can't get there under its own power. Slewing
functions in a simulator are the equivalent of carrying the aircraft
to that altitude in real life.

That is an absurd scenario, and of no use in the simulation of the real
aircraft.

Bottom line: if the game allows the aircraft to reach a FL that is twice
the service ceiling of the real aircraft, then the engine is modelled
incorrectly. If the engine is modelled incorrectly, everything else about
the aircraft's behavior in the game is suspect. Of course, it is a
non-issue for those of us that actually fly.

Neil

Mxsmanic wrote:

Sam Spade writes:


You think I am making up the knowledge I have about air carrier
operations?


I don't know. But I'm certain that many people make up many things on
USENET, and I know better than to believe whatever I'm told.

When someone tells me that most of the autoland-enabled aircraft are
landing only at Class D airports, I start to wonder.


You could learn from someone like me, instead you would rather be
arrogant and defend your lack of knowledge as being what it is most
certainly not.


I see a lot of anomalies, and it makes me wary. See, despite what
people claim, I _do_ consult other sources, and if they conflict with
what people tell me here, it raises a lot of questions in my mind
about who is correct.


Good, go play with your other sources.

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Nomen,


Why do so many real pilots have trouble landing in the sim, then?

One of the reasons is the useless rudder modeling.



I think the main reason is lack of visual clues.


In a Level D simulator in 121 opertions a rating candidate must
demonstrate landing in the maximum crosswind limit for that aircraft.
This is done with the visual set at severe clear. When the aircraft is
decrab in the flare the rudder has to be used "just right." (another
example of employment of rudder to maintain the present and essential
flight path track. ;-)

Some folks have to practice it more than others before they are ready
for the rating ride.

Nomen,

When you were a kid, did you ever hold a magnifying glass over an
ant and watch it fry? Responding to Mx is quite similar


I like that comparison ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

It doesn't behave there at all, because it can't get there on its own.
If MSFS allows you to fly a C172 to that altitude, it models it wrongly.

It doesn't allow you to fly there, but you can slew up to that
altitude.

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

Neil Gould writes:

That is an absurd scenario, and of no use in the simulation of the real
aircraft.

I agree. But the important point is that nobody knows whether the
simulation is correct or not, because nobody has tried hoisting a 172
to that altitude to see how it flies.

Bottom line: if the game allows the aircraft to reach a FL that is twice
the service ceiling of the real aircraft, then the engine is modelled
incorrectly.

MSFS does not allow that. The only way to get that high is by
slewing.

Of course, it is a non-issue for those of us that actually fly.

You seem to be pretty upset over it.

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

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 15:50:58 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote in :

I wouldn't risk the [747] aircraft on grass in real life, so I won't risk it
in simulation.

Your statement reveals your self-delusion at best, and deep seated
neurosis or worse.

What's the worst that could happen if you took that SIMULATED risk?
Would it destroy your confidence the SIMULATED realism of your FANTSY
world? Do you fear exposing the lack of realism of MSFS's simulation
modeling?

Go ahead, give it a try. I won't tell, and you can PRETEND the
SIMULATED 747 sank in the soft earth. :-)

Mxsmanic wrote: groups adjusted
Neil Gould writes:

If the real aircraft can't get to a FL, *any* representation of the
aircraft's behavior at that altitude is incorrect.

Not so. The aircraft could be placed there by another aircraft, in
which case it would have some sort of behavior that presumably could
be simulated. It just can't get there under its own power. Slewing
functions in a simulator are the equivalent of carrying the aircraft
to that altitude in real life.

Thus, while there may not be much practical reason to simulate the
aircraft at that altitude, since it is physically possible for it to
be at that altitude

Well, which is it?! Could the aircraft be placed there by another
aircraft, or is it physically impossible for it to be at that altitude?

However, if nobody ever tests the aircraft for real at that
altitude, any simulation of its behavior there remains a matter of
speculation and unverifiable.

spit take Ever hear of physics?
-----

- gpsman

Mxsmanic wrote:



Of course, it is a non-issue for those of us that actually fly.


You seem to be pretty upset over it.

You have a talent for causing real pilots to have that emotion. You
need a lot of work on tact and interpersonal relationships. I suspect,
though, you just don't care that you come off as arrogant, ignorant, and
obnoxious.

Sam Spade writes:

You have a talent for causing real pilots to have that emotion.

They choose their emotions; I don't. Smart pilots tend to be
relatively unaffected, but it's still their choice.

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