GA is priceless

In article ,
Nomen Nescio wrote:

But I still think that in a real F-16, my real experience in real planes would
serve me better than all the time I've spent shooting down other gamers
in Falcon 4.0.

1) How do you link falcon 4 over the internet?
I would like to do that.

2) Something the home computers will not simulate is the actual control
feel and mass/inertia effect of the actual aircrafat or full motion
military sims. So, while you may be able to "fly" your home computer
simulator with your choice of input devices, you would be "toast" in the
real thing. It is easy to sit in front of you home computer and "fly"
1-g maneuvers throughout the envelope, and quite another to pull
high-g's repetitively while jinking in the real thing while looking back
over your shoulder for the guy(s) trying to get you.

2) Something the home computers will not simulate is the actual control
feel and mass/inertia effect of the actual aircrafat or full motion
military sims. So, while you may be able to "fly" your home computer
simulator with your choice of input devices, you would be "toast" in the
real thing. It is easy to sit in front of you home computer and "fly"
1-g maneuvers throughout the envelope, and quite another to pull
high-g's repetitively while jinking in the real thing while looking back
over your shoulder for the guy(s) trying to get you.

True enough.

After just 25 minutes of relatively low-G aerobatics, I was extremely
tired. I can't imagine what a dogfight with 6 - 8 G pulls must be
like. No sim can recreate that.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

john smith writes:

2) Something the home computers will not simulate is the actual control
feel and mass/inertia effect of the actual aircrafat or full motion
military sims.

True, but for many types of aviation, this is irrelevant. Instrument
flying doesn't require it; indeed, you're supposed to be _independent_
of motion when flying on instruments (so to some extent a lack of
motion can be useful). Movement is useful for enhancing realism (in
the best simulators, it's very easy to forget that it's all
make-believe). It _can_ help a bit with spatial disorientation,
although the movements of a full-motion sim aren't identical to those
of real life in some respects that can be significant for
disorientation. But mostly full motion is frosting on the cake.

So, while you may be able to "fly" your home computer
simulator with your choice of input devices, you would be "toast" in the
real thing.

That is completely untrue.

Multiple people have already pointed out that some people are
naturally good at flying, even with zero experience. Others need
training. A few are so bad at it that no amount of training helps.

My theory is that real pilots who cannot land a PC simulator probably
depend a great deal on sensations and visibility in real life. Pilots
who can land a sim perfectly probably have a lot more experience with
instruments alone. Pilots who are very accustomed to specific
aircraft types that provide control feedback, and depend on that
feedback, may also have trouble.

It is easy to sit in front of you home computer and "fly"
1-g maneuvers throughout the envelope, and quite another to pull
high-g's repetitively while jinking in the real thing while looking back
over your shoulder for the guy(s) trying to get you.

Granted, but in the vast majority of aircraft, pulling Gs is so bad
for the airframe that you'll never do it, anyway, unless you are
already in serious trouble.

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

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

john smith writes:

2) Something the home computers will not simulate is the actual
control feel and mass/inertia effect of the actual aircrafat or full
motion military sims.

True, but for many types of aviation, this is irrelevant.

It's only irrelevant to simming. These effects are quite important to
real-world flying, as the pilot must counteract them to stay aloft and/or
on course.

Instrument
flying doesn't require it; indeed, you're supposed to be _independent_
of motion when flying on instruments (so to some extent a lack of
motion can be useful).

See above. The simple fact is that *no* real-world flying is independent
of motion.

My theory is that real pilots who cannot land a PC simulator probably
depend a great deal on sensations and visibility in real life. Pilots
who can land a sim perfectly probably have a lot more experience with
instruments alone.

My theory is that the ability to land a simple PC sim (MSFS) is dependent
on the ability to translate the sim's representations of control vs.
motion into something that works on the sim. That does NOT mean that the
same physical movement translations would work in the real thing, and has
nothing to do with "experience with instruements alone".

Neil

Neil Gould writes:

It's only irrelevant to simming. These effects are quite important to
real-world flying, as the pilot must counteract them to stay aloft and/or
on course.

The actual control feel is not a big factor in many aircraft and many
situations. The mass and inertia and so on are simulated correctly.

See above. The simple fact is that *no* real-world flying is independent
of motion.

Instrument flight is independent of motion.

My theory is that the ability to land a simple PC sim (MSFS) is dependent
on the ability to translate the sim's representations of control vs.
motion into something that works on the sim.

I partially disagree, as the absence of movement is probably a problem
for many pilots, especially GA pilots.

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

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Neil Gould writes:

It's only irrelevant to simming. These effects are quite important to
real-world flying, as the pilot must counteract them to stay aloft
and/or on course.

The actual control feel is not a big factor in many aircraft and many
situations. The mass and inertia and so on are simulated correctly.

You are posting to a group that is largely GA. I don't know of any GA
planes where the effects of mass and inertia are not important to flying.
And, no, the mass and inertia are not simulated correctly in MSFS.

See above. The simple fact is that *no* real-world flying is
independent of motion.

Instrument flight is independent of motion.

Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant, as you have done no flying,
instrument or otherwise. The fact of the matter is that it is not the
motion you feel that is relevant to instrument flying, but the effects
weather on the inertia and motion on the course and attitude of the
airplane. These are not accurately simulated in MSFS.

My theory is that the ability to land a simple PC sim (MSFS) is
dependent on the ability to translate the sim's representations of
control vs. motion into something that works on the sim.

I partially disagree, as the absence of movement is probably a problem
for many pilots, especially GA pilots.

So, you disagree based on a total lack of experience and a notion of
probability that you can't verify. Real intelligence at work, there.

Neil

Neil,

Real intelligence at work, there.


This discussion about instrument flight and motion was the very first
we went through with the village troll. He has gone through it
completely unchanged. Anyone out there who wants to eplain again how
this guy is here to learn?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Neil Gould writes:

You are posting to a group that is largely GA.

Yes. Unfortunately they think that anything they know about GA
applies to all the rest of aviation as well.

I don't know of any GA planes where the effects of mass and
inertia are not important to flying. And, no, the mass and
inertia are not simulated correctly in MSFS.

What parts of mass and inertia are not simulated correctly,
specifically?

Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant, as you have done no flying,
instrument or otherwise.

But that is _your_ opinion, isn't it? I have found that GA pilots are
the least informed and competent of all pilots. That's why I take
whatever they say with a grain of salt, unless I know them personally
to be more competent than average.

The fact of the matter is that it is not the
motion you feel that is relevant to instrument flying, but the effects
weather on the inertia and motion on the course and attitude of the
airplane. These are not accurately simulated in MSFS.

What parts of the MSFS simulation are incorrect?

So, you disagree based on a total lack of experience and a notion of
probability that you can't verify.

No, I simply disagree. The rest is conjecture on your part.

Why do you persist in personal attacks? They just waste your time and
mine.

Real intelligence at work, there.

Yes. It irritates some people, unfortunately.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
True, but for many types of aviation, this is irrelevant. Instrument
flying doesn't require it; indeed, you're supposed to be _independent_
of motion when flying on instruments (so to some extent a lack of
motion can be useful).

Useful to keeping the dirty side down, but that just hilights one of
the ways simulation is different than real flying, right? The MSFS
simulation doesn't provide the (misleading) physical cues that ARE
there in instrument flight. The fluid in your ears isn't tumbling, you
instinctively "know" which side is right side up, etc.

I flew simulators from the very first sim on the Apple and pretty much
every version to MSFS 9 today. I new some of the developers from that
company (name escapes me) in hampaign that used to make the product
before MS bought them (An aside, one of my fraternity brothers had a
job in QA. His entire job was to slew to various airports and verify
that the radio frequencies worked at that location....) I'ts amazing
how much of the real world we've been able to compress into off the
shelf consumer class hardware.

I used to love it. I did the vatsim thing etc. I twondered how pilots
such as Kennedy could "lose it" on a night flight. I intellectually
knew about spatial disorientation, and that the cure was to just "be"
on the gagues. But it wasn't until I actually DID it, in a real
airplane, with real mass/inertia, real turbulence, etc, that I found
out it was nothing like my imagination or my experience in the sims.

I remember reading an article within the last couple of years on IMC
flying about a instructor and a student pilot with respect to control
forces. I believe it was called something like "the unseen hand of
god". it was a good article that mentioned the control forces we as
pilots will exert on control wheels simply by gripping the yoke too
hard. And we won't even REALIZE that we're putting those forces into
the system. The plane will feel like someone ELSE is flying it. I.e.,
the unseen hand of god.

The solution of course is to simply relax. But our eyes giving us
different cues than our bodies make that hard to do. We have instincts
built into us. Feeling like your falling (less than 1 g) causes you to
try to "hold on".

I've never been able to recreate that feeling in a sim. I have a hard
time recreating it in the airplane with a hood on. It's not the same
as being able to see the clouds whizzing past your windscreen.

The best I've been able to explain entering IMC is like when you first
dive into a pool. The world you were in changes. The rules of gravity
seem to change, your senses change, etc. It's funny, I find myself
holding my breath when I do it in my real airplane in real clouds.

As a computer engineer, I've often sketched out in my mind an add on to
MSFS or otherwise that would change the flight models to recreate that
"unseen hand of god". Something akin to random control inputs forcing
the pilot to concentrate and disregard his physical cues of sitting
straight and level.

I, like Jay, do not belittle your questions on the group. I don't
consider you to be a troll. Just someone that wants more information
about the real world of aviation. I do think its strange when you ask
questions, and when the answer doesn't seem orrespond to your simulated
worldview you seem to take issue with reality instead of the
simulation.

And while the whole "simming vs. reality" superiority argument is
subjective anyway, it is also simply silly. If you want to represent
yourself as an experienced pilot because you have thousands of hours on
simulated barons or boeing business jets, then great, have at it.

I'm going to be one of the rare ones on here and say DON'T go get a
real flight. I'm not sure how you'd react to an actual comparison.

Brian

bdl writes:

Useful to keeping the dirty side down, but that just hilights one of
the ways simulation is different than real flying, right?

It is one way in which some simulations are different. But this
difference can be good rather than bad, if you are trying to learn
instrument flight.

I used to love it. I did the vatsim thing etc. I twondered how pilots
such as Kennedy could "lose it" on a night flight. I intellectually
knew about spatial disorientation, and that the cure was to just "be"
on the gagues. But it wasn't until I actually DID it, in a real
airplane, with real mass/inertia, real turbulence, etc, that I found
out it was nothing like my imagination or my experience in the sims.

We all have our personalities to deal with. But we don't all react in
the same ways.

As a computer engineer, I've often sketched out in my mind an add on to
MSFS or otherwise that would change the flight models to recreate that
"unseen hand of god". Something akin to random control inputs forcing
the pilot to concentrate and disregard his physical cues of sitting
straight and level.

But that would not be like real life. If a pilot is unconsciously
moving the controls, he'll do that on the sim, too.

I do think its strange when you ask
questions, and when the answer doesn't seem orrespond to your simulated
worldview you seem to take issue with reality instead of the
simulation.

I've been burned innumerable times throughout my life by posturing
airheads who claimed to be experts but weren't. I don't make that
mistake any more. Trust, but verify, as a politician once said. Or
better still, don't trust at all.

And one way to find out if someone is blowing smoke or actually knows
what he is talking about is to ask more questions.

And while the whole "simming vs. reality" superiority argument is
subjective anyway, it is also simply silly. If you want to represent
yourself as an experienced pilot because you have thousands of hours on
simulated barons or boeing business jets, then great, have at it.

I don't think it's in the thousands, but I'm not sure.

I'm going to be one of the rare ones on here and say DON'T go get a
real flight. I'm not sure how you'd react to an actual comparison.

There's a good chance that I wouldn't like the real thing.

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