Coordinated turns without rudder, and autopilots

"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

"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

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.

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.

"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

wrote in
oups.com:

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?

Nothing in his whole life has anything to do with reality.


Bertie

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?

"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".

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.

"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.