![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jim Stewart" wrote in message .. . Nomen Nescio wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: Mxsmanic And the Baron I fly wasn't created by Microsoft. Well, there's your answer, dip****. Ask the person who created your "Baron" why the autopilot does not accurately simulate reality. Get a clue, ****head. Real plane always behave "real". Real autopilots always behave "real". Software always performs the way someone wrote it. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go fly my intergalactic battle cruiser to the 4th star on Orion's belt. Damn. I did my 25 hour inspection and oil change last night. I actually found having my hands in *real* motor oil out of my *real* plane more enjoyable than reading about Mx's simulated Baron and simulated AP. Yes, but I'll bet HIS wife didn't yell at him to go wash up before getting anywhere NEAR the furniture :-))) Dudley Henriques |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in
: "Jim Stewart" wrote in message .. . Nomen Nescio wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: Mxsmanic And the Baron I fly wasn't created by Microsoft. Well, there's your answer, dip****. Ask the person who created your "Baron" why the autopilot does not accurately simulate reality. Get a clue, ****head. Real plane always behave "real". Real autopilots always behave "real". Software always performs the way someone wrote it. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go fly my intergalactic battle cruiser to the 4th star on Orion's belt. Damn. I did my 25 hour inspection and oil change last night. I actually found having my hands in *real* motor oil out of my *real* plane more enjoyable than reading about Mx's simulated Baron and simulated AP. Yes, but I'll bet HIS wife didn't yell at him to go wash up before getting anywhere NEAR the furniture :-))) Dudley Henriques You think he has a wife? Hmm. Bertie |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On May 30, 8:25 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Bob Crawford writes: How do you substantiate your initial claim that "[Real life GA] autopilots make coordinated turns even when they cannot control the rudder"? By watching the ball in the turn indicator. It moves far less in an AP turn without rudder than it moves when I make a turn without rudder. But you're watching the ball in a simulator. What's that got to do with ANY claim about a real life GA plane? Watch the ball in a real life plane, (or pay attention to someone who has actually watched the ball in a real life plane) and you'll see that autopilots that can't control the rudder turn in the same way that a hand-flying pilot turns when he keeps his foot away from the rudder pedals. Generally speaking, both will be slightly uncoordinated. The degree of uncoordination varies from one plane to the next, but at least in cruise, it's normally not enough to matter too much. In those planes where the AP can't control the rudder, the decision was made that the lack of coordination is not severe enough to justify the extra expense and weight penalty of giving the AP control over the rudder. Everyone's telling you the same thing -- real life planes don't behave the way you're describing the simulator to behave. Furthermore, the fact that you've asked the question that started this thread indicates you find some cognative dissonance in the simulator's behavior on this point. It simply doesn't make sense that an autopilot with no rudder control could maintain coordination in a situation where a human would require rudder control to maintain coordination. You have two choices: Either the simulator's right, all the real pilots and real planes are wrong, and there is some unexplainable magic that allows the autopilot to maintain coordination in a situation where rudder input is required but not available, or else there's no magic, real planes behave the way real planes are observed to behave, and the simulator is wrong on this particular point. It's obvious that you've made your choice as to which alternative you want to believe. |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mxsmanic wrote:
writes: But you're watching the ball in a simulator. What's that got to do with ANY claim about a real life GA plane? The former is a simulation of the latter. Just like a real-doll is a simulation of a real girl, but that's right. Again, I digress. Also note: sim·u·la·tion –noun 1. imitation or enactment, as of something anticipated or in testing. 2. the act or process of pretending; feigning. 3. an assumption or imitation of a particular appearance or form; counterfeit; sham. 4. Psychiatry. a conscious attempt to feign some mental or physical disorder to escape punishment or to gain a desired objective. 5. the representation of the behavior or characteristics of one system through the use of another system, esp. a computer program designed for the purpose. re·al –adjective 1. true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent: the real reason for an act. 2. existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious: a story taken from real life. 3. being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary: The events you will see in the film are real and not just made up. 4. being actually such; not merely so-called: a real victory. 5. genuine; not counterfeit, artificial, or imitation; authentic: a real antique; a real diamond; real silk. 6. unfeigned or since real sympathy; a real friend. 7. Informal. absolute; complete; utter: She's a real brain. 8. Philosophy. a. existent or pertaining to the existent as opposed to the nonexistent. b. actual as opposed to possible or potential. c. independent of experience as opposed to phenomenal or apparent. 9. (of money, income, or the like) measured in purchasing power rather than in nominal value: Inflation has driven income down in real terms, though nominal income appears to be higher. 10. Optics. (of an image) formed by the actual convergence of rays, as the image produced in a camera (opposed to virtual). 11. Mathematics. a. of, pertaining to, or having the value of a real number. b. using real numbers: real analysis; real vector space. Yes, I am comparing an adjective with a noun, so stfu on that subject right now. Also notice that if you look up the words "imitation" "pretending" "assumption" and "representation", all of them have limits on how real they are. You cannot side by side compare an adjective with a noun, it just isn't proper, but you can't side by side compare msfs with actual flight. It just isn't proper. |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message . 130... "Dudley Henriques" wrote in : "Jim Stewart" wrote in message .. . Nomen Nescio wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: Mxsmanic And the Baron I fly wasn't created by Microsoft. Well, there's your answer, dip****. Ask the person who created your "Baron" why the autopilot does not accurately simulate reality. Get a clue, ****head. Real plane always behave "real". Real autopilots always behave "real". Software always performs the way someone wrote it. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go fly my intergalactic battle cruiser to the 4th star on Orion's belt. Damn. I did my 25 hour inspection and oil change last night. I actually found having my hands in *real* motor oil out of my *real* plane more enjoyable than reading about Mx's simulated Baron and simulated AP. Yes, but I'll bet HIS wife didn't yell at him to go wash up before getting anywhere NEAR the furniture :-))) Dudley Henriques You think he has a wife? Hmm. Bertie Actually, I've not given him that much thought. Dudley Henriques |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote in news ![]() Nomen Nescio writes: Answer.....or shut the **** up. No. Aww. The fjukktard takes a stand., So kewt. Bertie Why, what did I miss? I don't show the parent of this one. Was it some question about why mx can't fly? I've seen some statements about numerous physical reasons, but nothing specific. Diabetes or many of the other physical deterrents aren't someone's fault and they can't be ashamed of it, ie: "I have diabetes, therefore I cannot get a medical" Astute fear of heights would be one thing, but you can over- come that. A few Prozac in the right seat for a first flight would fix that. Why won't mx fly? I don't think he's not smart enough, I think he could figure it all out. Now, I'm curious. What is wrong? Why won't you fly, mx? |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Mxsmanic" wrote ...
Table-driven models are often more accurate. On May 31, 2:30 pm, Mxsmanic wrote: Snowbird writes: Show me scientific proof. How does one provide scientific proof of the self-evident? A perfect measurement of a real-world random contour will always be perfect. A mathematical recreation will always be an approximation. Table driven models are only "perfect" at the (often very few) points in the table (and even there depends upon the accuracy of the measurements). Elsewhere they too are only approximations, the accuracy of which depends upon how well the real world contour matches the interpolation method chosen. Please remember that "mathematical recreation" is a synonym for "simulation". And what you see in your simulator MSFS is only an approximation of reality. A model/simulation is always a process of give & take between the accuracy in representing various processes & effects in different regimes, and while MSFS allows you some control over some of those choices most of them are hidden and have been made for you. Without real world experience it would be very difficult for you to realize many of these tradeoffs, those with real world experience can spot them quite easily. The advice of those who have actually experienced what you wish to simulate can be very informative - but comes at the cost of learning what you are missing (possibly diminishing your enjoyment of your simulator). The alternative, of course is,"Ignorance is bliss". |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Erik wrote:
Why won't mx fly? I don't think he's not smart enough, I think he could figure it all out. Now, I'm curious. What is wrong? Why won't you fly, mx? He posted it up tread somewhere. It boiled down to two things: Money and Fear. One he has none of the other he has lots of. |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Question: Standard rate turns, constant rate turns, and airspeed | Robert Barker | Piloting | 5 | April 15th 07 04:47 PM |
Coordinated turns and the little ball | Mxsmanic | Piloting | 51 | October 11th 06 10:17 PM |
Is rudder required for coordinated turns? | Mxsmanic | Piloting | 41 | September 24th 06 06:40 PM |
DGs and Autopilots | Andrew Gideon | Products | 11 | April 14th 05 06:04 PM |
Coordinated turning stall and spins | Chris OCallaghan | Soaring | 20 | November 18th 03 08:46 PM |