GA is priceless

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

How would people wanting
to ridicule Mx prevent such an explanation...

It adds noise. I have found that he responds (slowly) to careful,
focused discussion which teases out the roots of his misconception or
miscommunication. However, this is hard to see if a great percentage of
the comments to him and about him are designed to ridicule. I will also
add that the pilots here ridiculing him have made aviation comments that
are also not very accurate or perceptive. (I've seen, and even made,
such errors myself in other unrelated threads, so this is not unique to Mx).

Mx's noise doesn't seem to be intended that way. It is just the natural
result of a headstrong attitude. However, those who ridicule him make
noise that =is= intended to be noise. It hides what signal there is,
and that is also intentional.

This makes it hard to tell whether Mx is here to learn, or not. I think
he is, and is just not very good at the necessary social skills.

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

This makes it hard to tell whether Mx is here to learn, or not. I think
he is, and is just not very good at the necessary social skills.

Well put.

While I admit that I don't understand MX, I also don't understand the
ire he draws out of so many (normally) level-headed folks. He's just
not *that* annoying, and is occasionally enlightening.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Recently, Jose posted:

How would people wanting
to ridicule Mx prevent such an explanation...

It adds noise. I have found that he responds (slowly) to careful,
focused discussion which teases out the roots of his misconception or
miscommunication. However, this is hard to see if a great percentage
of the comments to him and about him are designed to ridicule. I
will also add that the pilots here ridiculing him have made aviation
comments that are also not very accurate or perceptive. (I've seen,
and even made, such errors myself in other unrelated threads, so
this is not unique to Mx).

Mx's noise doesn't seem to be intended that way. It is just the
natural result of a headstrong attitude. However, those who ridicule
him make noise that =is= intended to be noise. It hides what signal
there is, and that is also intentional.

This makes it hard to tell whether Mx is here to learn, or not. I
think he is, and is just not very good at the necessary social skills.

Thanks for the explanation, Jose. While I agree with some of your
observations, I don't agree with your conclusion. I don't think it's very
hard to tell when someone is trying to learn vs. trying to disrupt, and
the repeated attempts to disrupt are met with disdain, also a "natural
result" when confronted with such behavior.

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)