How do you find the limits of areas on a chart?

Gary Drescher wrote:
"Kev" wrote in message
oups.com...
That's a good point. While you can pick out some landmarks on a sim
screen, it's very difficult to constantly rotate your view around and
get the spatial relationship that you can in real life.

A joystick with a POV hat-switch makes it pretty easy to look around.



It sure does, but I still don't get the spatial relationships I get in a
real cockpit. To be fair, I have one 21" monitor, not a sim-optimized
setup.

"Kev" wrote in news:1162497676.261765.239690
@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

That's a good point. While you can pick out some landmarks on a sim
screen, it's very difficult to constantly rotate your view around and
get the spatial relationship that you can in real life.

Oh good. I knew SOMETHING good would have to come of these deteriorating
Manic threads...

Kev writes:

That's a good point. While you can pick out some landmarks on a sim
screen, it's very difficult to constantly rotate your view around and
get the spatial relationship that you can in real life.

True. You can look to the side or outwards at a few different angles,
but it's not instantaneous.

However, parts of the aircraft block a lot of the view when you're not
looking straight ahead, and those parts would still be there in real
life, so I still wonder about real-world visibility.

Yes, things can move quickly. That's why it takes training to become a
real life pilot. The latter must learn to be constantly aware of the
airplane's location and heading, and to stay one or more steps ahead of
the plane. It's a skill that can get rusty, for sure.

A few days ago I switched tasks to read a chart (I have to visit a Web
page for that--very awkward) and returned to the sim to discovered
that I had hit a mountain. I was checking to see if I was at a safe
altitude. Fortunately, a new Baron was waiting for my reincarnated
self at my home airport.

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

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
The same sort of judgement of distances is possible when piloting an
airplane. Someone who learns to fly in the real worlds learns to discern
three dimensions and estimate distance. Unfortunately, this cannot be
effectively done on a two-dimensional simulator screen.

I don't think that's true. Except when you're within a few feet of the
ground, depth perception by binary parallax and focal length doesn't come
into play when you're flying; so except for the landing flare, a 2D screen
is sufficient. All the navigation tasks Mx is asking about can be performed
quite nicely using MSFS; in fact, it's great practice.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
The same sort of judgement of distances is possible when piloting an
airplane. Someone who learns to fly in the real worlds learns to discern
three dimensions and estimate distance. Unfortunately, this cannot be
effectively done on a two-dimensional simulator screen.

I don't think that's true. Except when you're within a few feet of the
ground, depth perception by binary parallax and focal length doesn't come
into play when you're flying; so except for the landing flare, a 2D screen
is sufficient. All the navigation tasks Mx is asking about can be
performed quite nicely using MSFS; in fact, it's great practice.


While MSFS has some great scenery especially around the larger urban areas
it isn't accurate enough to navigate by especially in non-urban areas.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
While MSFS has some great scenery especially around the larger urban areas
it isn't accurate enough to navigate by especially in non-urban areas.

Depends on what add-ons you have. Many new ones have the terrain
derived from satellite imagery. For example, with MegaScenery New
York, I can fly around a lot of northern New Jersey and actually follow
the roads to my house. People in England have add-ons that reportedly
let them see their house!

And... coolest of all... someone did an addon instrument that
reportedly lets you drive Google Earth in sync with MSFS. So you get
the satellite imagery there along with arrows to airports if you wish
etc.

Kev

"Kev" wrote in message
ups.com...

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
While MSFS has some great scenery especially around the larger urban
areas
it isn't accurate enough to navigate by especially in non-urban areas.

Depends on what add-ons you have. Many new ones have the terrain
derived from satellite imagery. For example, with MegaScenery New
York, I can fly around a lot of northern New Jersey and actually follow
the roads to my house. People in England have add-ons that reportedly
let them see their house!

And... coolest of all... someone did an addon instrument that
reportedly lets you drive Google Earth in sync with MSFS. So you get
the satellite imagery there along with arrows to airports if you wish
etc.


I'm sure there are all sorts of things you can buy that will make MSFS more
realistic but right now I'm spending ALL my extra cash getting that pile of
aluminum in my hanger ready for flight. And I said MSFS not MSFS and
add-ons.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

right now I'm spending ALL my extra cash getting that pile of
aluminum in my hanger ready for flight.

My co-owner thinks he just found us a faster pile of aluminum.

I'm happy, but we just got the Slowdowner as "perfect" as I care... G

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

While MSFS has some great scenery especially around the larger urban areas
it isn't accurate enough to navigate by especially in non-urban areas.

Actually it is. Conspicuous landmarks are often specifically included
in the database for navigation, and the general lay of the land is
very accurate. From altitude you can't easily distinguish one barn
from another, anyway, so the general view provided by the sim is
little different from the real thing. The accuracy is high, and the
only real drawback is a potential lack of resolution (depending on how
good your vision is in real life).

I've explicitly attempted pure VFR flight, following only roads or
rivers, and it works fine, even though the roads and rivers don't look
exactly as they do in real life. They are still in the same
positions, and that's what counts. I did fly to KSAN once only to
discover that I was arriving at KLAX, but that's only because I picked
the wrong interstate to follow.

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

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Actually it is. Conspicuous landmarks are often specifically included
in the database for navigation, and the general lay of the land is
very accurate. From altitude you can't easily distinguish one barn
from another, anyway, so the general view provided by the sim is
little different from the real thing. The accuracy is high, and the
only real drawback is a potential lack of resolution (depending on how
good your vision is in real life).

If you've never seen the real thing, how can you make this statement?

You were the one that indicated that there aren't very many landmarks, even
though in real life there are, so this statement contradicts your other
posts.