GA is priceless

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)

Anyone out there who wants to eplain again how
this guy is here to learn?

It's hard to tell, because so many are here to ridicule him.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Recently, Jose posted:

Anyone out there who wants to eplain again how
this guy is here to learn?

It's hard to tell, because so many are here to ridicule him.

I read your comment as, "It's hard to tell (...how this guy is here to
learn) because so many are here to ridicule him." How would people wanting
to ridicule Mx prevent such an explanation, should one exist? Or, did you
mean something else?

Happy New Year

Neil

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,

. That's why I take
whatever they say with a grain of salt,


Then what are you doing here? Don't bother...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ...
: Mxsmanic,
:
: . That's why I take
: whatever they say with a grain of salt,
:
:
: Then what are you doing here? Don't bother...
:
: --
: Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
:

The key is to not feed the troll, no matter how much we want to....