MS Flight Sim As a Training Tool

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

It's my understanding is that MSFS has no Physics engine it is table
based
where as X-Plane does have a Physics engine. The better add-on planes for
MSFS just have more data in the tables but still there is no way a table
based simulator can have every possible combinations.

There are multiple ways to achieve the same goal.

Nether X-Plane nor MSFS tracks every molecule of air flowing around
the aircraft. Therefore neither of them accurately models aircraft
behavior.

Even X-Plane's physics engine isn't as good as that in some of the more
complex games such as "Half Life." It really surprises me that someone
hasn't come along and used a modified Half-Life engine in a flight sim.

You don't install code just to meet someone's arbitrary expectations
of what type of code is required, you install it to accomplish your
purpose. It doesn't matter what kind of engine you have, as long as
the results are correct.

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

A physics engine can take the necessary variables and create a simulated
reality that can be significantly more flexible than a table based system.
And just because the game you choose to play hasn't adopted a technology
that is very popular in the gaming world for the very reason of enhanced
reality once again shows the "Anthony knows best" thought process we have
all come to know and love.

Many of those of us that actually fly aircraft have told you many times that
MSFS doesn't correctly simulate real flight correctly. What's arbitrary in
that?

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

A physics engine can take the necessary variables and create a simulated
reality that can be significantly more flexible than a table based system.

True, which is why something like X-Plane can work for craft that
aren't ordinary airplanes. But for ordinary airplanes, you can take
shortcuts and get identical results.

Apply your reasoning to the average pilot's understanding of stalls.
Pilots worry a lot about "stall speeds," when there is no such
thing--only angle of attack determines stalls. But the illusory
notion of a stall speed works just as well within the constraints of
normal flight that concern pilots, and it's easier to measure than
angle of attack, so it is used.

Many of those of us that actually fly aircraft have told you many times that
MSFS doesn't correctly simulate real flight correctly. What's arbitrary in
that?

Many of those who fly aircraft have little or no experience with
flight simulation. I think it's a macho thing.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

A physics engine can take the necessary variables and create a simulated
reality that can be significantly more flexible than a table based
system.

True, which is why something like X-Plane can work for craft that
aren't ordinary airplanes. But for ordinary airplanes, you can take
shortcuts and get identical results.


This might be true if MSFS only tried to simulate one or two aircraft in a
limited amount of flight evelopes but it doesn't. It cuts corners so it can
simulate everything from an ultalight to a 747.

And because it trys to model so many aircraft MSFS would be the best example
of where a well designed physics engine would be useful. The problem is MS
for some reason I can't quite figure out wnats to use all the CPU cycles to
run the graphics and not just the physics of the enviroment but much of the
rendering as well. Instead of designing the software to offload the graphics
to a dedicated graphics card.


Many of those of us that actually fly aircraft have told you many times
that
MSFS doesn't correctly simulate real flight correctly. What's arbitrary
in
that?

Many of those who fly aircraft have little or no experience with
flight simulation. I think it's a macho thing.



Well this doesn't apply to me. I've owned every version of MSFS, except for
X, since the one I bought the day I bought an Apple IIe.

I did download the X demo and I was really unimpressed. Since there were so
few planes on the Demo I tried out the ultralight which I had never done on
any of the other versions for some reason. I set the realizam to full and
the weather as bad as possible and was still able to fly the little guy. It
should have ripped the thing apart or at very least blown me over.

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

This might be true if MSFS only tried to simulate one or two aircraft in a
limited amount of flight evelopes but it doesn't.

It's true for whole categories of aircraft.

It cuts corners so it can simulate everything from an ultalight to a 747.

It cuts corners on the aircraft models, not on the simulation. If you
use add-on aircraft (as all serious simmers do), you get vastly more
accurate models ... practically a different simulator.

The problem is MS
for some reason I can't quite figure out wnats to use all the CPU cycles to
run the graphics and not just the physics of the enviroment but much of the
rendering as well.

Graphics is the major workload for any flight simulator. Computers
got fast enough to handle the dynamics decades ago.

Instead of designing the software to offload the graphics
to a dedicated graphics card.

Most of the graphics cannot be offloaded.

Well this doesn't apply to me. I've owned every version of MSFS, except for
X, since the one I bought the day I bought an Apple IIe.

Wow.

I did download the X demo and I was really unimpressed. Since there were so
few planes on the Demo I tried out the ultralight which I had never done on
any of the other versions for some reason. I set the realizam to full and
the weather as bad as possible and was still able to fly the little guy. It
should have ripped the thing apart or at very least blown me over.

How do you know? Were you killed in an ultralight accident in bad
weather previously?

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

This might be true if MSFS only tried to simulate one or two aircraft in
a
limited amount of flight evelopes but it doesn't.

It's true for whole categories of aircraft.

It cuts corners so it can simulate everything from an ultalight to a 747.

It cuts corners on the aircraft models, not on the simulation. If you
use add-on aircraft (as all serious simmers do), you get vastly more
accurate models ... practically a different simulator.


The models are the simulation. Without them MSFS is simply a scenery
generator.


The problem is MS
for some reason I can't quite figure out wnats to use all the CPU cycles
to
run the graphics and not just the physics of the enviroment but much of
the
rendering as well.

Graphics is the major workload for any flight simulator. Computers
got fast enough to handle the dynamics decades ago.


So why can't MSFS X run on a computer that was decades ago?


Instead of designing the software to offload the graphics
to a dedicated graphics card.

Most of the graphics cannot be offloaded.


But a lot more of it can be than is currently being.

Well this doesn't apply to me. I've owned every version of MSFS, except
for
X, since the one I bought the day I bought an Apple IIe.

Wow.

I did download the X demo and I was really unimpressed. Since there were
so
few planes on the Demo I tried out the ultralight which I had never done
on
any of the other versions for some reason. I set the realizam to full and
the weather as bad as possible and was still able to fly the little guy.
It
should have ripped the thing apart or at very least blown me over.

How do you know? Were you killed in an ultralight accident in bad
weather previously?


No but I've seen a few piles of aluminum and covering that was left after a
storm came through.

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

The models are the simulation.

No. The models are datasets that provide input to the simulation
engine. The accuracy of these datasets has a tremendous influence on
realism and accuracy.

So why can't MSFS X run on a computer that was decades ago?

Because it requires a tremendous amount of horsepower to generate the
visuals.

But a lot more of it can be than is currently being.

Such as?

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

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Many of those of us that actually fly aircraft have told you many
times that MSFS doesn't correctly simulate real flight correctly.
What's arbitrary in that?

Many of those who fly aircraft have little or no experience with
flight simulation. I think it's a macho thing.

Some of us have a lot more sim experience than anyone whose sim experience
began with the use of personal computers. And, we, too have told you that
MSFS isn't all that correct in its representation of flight. Yes, it's can
be fun, interesting and useful to those who also fly real planes, but
that's a different matter altogether.

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
.. .

Some of us have a lot more sim experience than anyone whose sim experience
began with the use of personal computers. And, we, too have told you that
MSFS isn't all that correct in its representation of flight.

Okay. I'm IFR rated and on occasion when I can't fly, I take my approach
plates and shoot them in FS2004 in the Mooney or C-172.

It allows me to remember to set and ident freqs, follow the instruments,
time the approach (I use my kneeboard and timer), plan the course with an
E6B and fly it with a sectional. Teaches reliance on the instruments (you
can simulate instrument failures), reinforces use of checklists such as
GUMPS and procedures for radio navigation as well as remain sharp on
concepts such as reverse sensing and maintaing course headings.

My flying experience began in high school on the first MS Flight Simulator.
It helped me through groundschool and my private because I was already
familiar with navigating using one or two VORs and quickly interpreting and
responding to instruments.

I highly recommend it. It won't make you, say, IFR current, but it'll sure
polish your edge for much less than it costs to shoot practice approaches
each month.

I guess that's why they have flight simlators.

-c

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
.. .

Some of us have a lot more sim experience than anyone whose sim
experience began with the use of personal computers. And, we, too have
told you that MSFS isn't all that correct in its representation of
flight.

Okay. I'm IFR rated and on occasion when I can't fly, I take my approach
plates and shoot them in FS2004 in the Mooney or C-172.

It allows me to remember to set and ident freqs, follow the instruments,
time the approach (I use my kneeboard and timer), plan the course with an
E6B and fly it with a sectional. Teaches reliance on the instruments
(you can simulate instrument failures), reinforces use of checklists such
as GUMPS and procedures for radio navigation as well as remain sharp on
concepts such as reverse sensing and maintaing course headings.

My flying experience began in high school on the first MS Flight
Simulator. It helped me through groundschool and my private because I was
already familiar with navigating using one or two VORs and quickly
interpreting and responding to instruments.

I highly recommend it. It won't make you, say, IFR current, but it'll
sure polish your edge for much less than it costs to shoot practice
approaches each month.

I guess that's why they have flight simlators.

-c

Gatt this thread and many others lately are here because of posts written by
an idiot named Anthony aka msxmaniac who not only has never flown and
aircraft and has no desire to, thinks that most of us that do fly don't know
what the hell we are talking about because our real world experience doesn't
jive with his playing of MSFS.

There is no doubt that MSFS is great for use as you describe but it doesn't
make anyone an aviation expert as Anthony thinks it does.

Gatt this thread and many others lately are here because of posts written by
an idiot named Anthony aka msxmaniac who not only has never flown and
aircraft and has no desire to, thinks that most of us that do fly don't know
what the hell we are talking about because our real world experience doesn't
jive with his playing of MSFS.

Ahem -- not THIS thread. I haven't been reading MX's stuff much,
lately, so if this thread seem to be echoing his thoughts, it's purely
coincidence.

As a pilot with over 1600 hours in the logbook, over the last 12 years,
I think I'm qualified to state that the Kiwi reproduces flight in every
way possible, short of full motion. Until you take a few turns around
the patch in the Kiwi, I don't think you can quite appreciate the level
of realism this thing can produce. With the real world projected in
full scale, and the panel reproduced in actual scale size, real flight
controls, and a lightning-fast computer, it's quite amazing.

I'll be glad to let you fly it for an hour or three, absolutely free,
if you ever get in my neighborhood. (Just don't show up on Tuesday
night -- Movie Night -- or you might have to stand in line... :-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"