GA is priceless

"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....

In article ,
"Blueskies" wrote:

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

Of course it would help if a clue-bird landed and people could
figure out that it's a troll.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Blueskies" wrote

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

Therein lies the problem. Many people, for reasons unknown, do not think he
IS a troll.

Go figure.
--
Jim in NC

Thomas Borchert writes:

Then what are you doing here?

Some people here occasionally provide good, thorough answers. It's
worth the noise, which I'm very good at ignoring.

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

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

What parts of the MSFS simulation are incorrect?

Why would you care?

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.

It is not conjecture that you lack flight experience, as you have stated
that fact many times. It is not conjecture that you can not confirm your
notion of probability, because, among many other factors, you don't like
to meet people in real life (again, your own statement). There is no way
that you can get a relevant sample size to permit you to conclude
*anything* about pilots with that kind of policy.

Why do you persist in personal attacks?

Just because your attacks lack a specific target does not mean that they
are impersonal when posted to a group of GA pilots. For example, you
stated: "I have found that GA pilots are the least informed and competent
of all pilots." It is not insignificant that, regardless of your opinion
of GA pilots, the worst of them are more and better informed than you are
about flying real airplanes. You feel the need to make such comments, and
in response, I point them out to readers of this NG.

Neil

Neil Gould writes:

Why would you care?

I was just calling your bluff, knowing that you would not be able to
answer the question.

With someone like me, it's best not to say anything like "X exists"
unless you are prepared to describe it.

There are no incorrect parts of the simulation. Prove me wrong.

It is not conjecture that you lack flight experience, as you have stated
that fact many times.

True.

It is not conjecture that you can not confirm your notion of probability,
because, among many other factors, you don't like to meet people in real
life (again, your own statement).

Sorry, but not only is this conjecture, but it is also irrelevant. I
don't see how meeting people has anything to do with the accuracy of
MSFS simulation.

Just because your attacks lack a specific target ...

What attacks?

You have not answered my question: Why do you persist in personal
attacks?

For example, you stated: "I have found that GA pilots are the least
informed and competent of all pilots."

It is an accurate generalization, as far as I know. And it is to be
expected, given the requirements for various types of piloting.

It is not insignificant that, regardless of your opinion
of GA pilots, the worst of them are more and better informed than you are
about flying real airplanes.

Here again, this is conjecture. I find it worrisome that so many
self-described GA pilots cannot answer my questions, or give
demonstrably incorrect answers, or cannot even agree on an answer
among themselves. Clearly, if they were truly all well informed,
these things would be improbable.

You feel the need to make such comments, and
in response, I point them out to readers of this NG.

You feel the need to concentrate your discussion and attacks on me. I
feel the need to discuss aviation. When you are ready to discuss
aviation also, let me know. I am not interested in discussing you.

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

On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 22:09:58 +0100
Mxsmanic wrote:

There are no incorrect parts of the simulation. Prove me wrong.

Places like FlightSafety International spend a lot of money getting
certification on their full motion, level-D flight simulators. That
testing includes verifying the flight model, controls, sounds, motion
response, and visual representation is as close to the original as a
simulation can be. Even things like screen vibration from the sound
harmonics in the Osprey simulator have held up certification.

I seriously doubt Microsoft puts anywhere near the effort required to
represent true flight characteristics in their consumer products. If
the flight characteristics were correct in MSFS, then why doesn't
FlightSafety just run MSFS on the back-end and certify that way? I'm
certain it would cost less for them to leverage the consumer product
pricing than to write new software in-house.

Doug

--
For UNIX, Linux and security articles
visit http://SecurityBulletins.com/

Doug Spencer writes:

Places like FlightSafety International spend a lot of money getting
certification on their full motion, level-D flight simulators. That
testing includes verifying the flight model, controls, sounds, motion
response, and visual representation is as close to the original as a
simulation can be. Even things like screen vibration from the sound
harmonics in the Osprey simulator have held up certification.

I'm glad to hear that. What are the specific flaws in MSFS?

Certification doesn't mean the closest possible approach to real life
overall. It means an acceptably close approach to real life in
certain domains for which certification has been sought.

I seriously doubt Microsoft puts anywhere near the effort required to
represent true flight characteristics in their consumer products.

Microsoft didn't invent Flight Simulator, and it has a long tradition
of gradually improving simulation.

What are the specific flaws in the MSFS simulation?

If the flight characteristics were correct in MSFS, then why doesn't
FlightSafety just run MSFS on the back-end and certify that way?

If MSFS has flaws, why can't you name them?

I'm certain it would cost less for them to leverage the consumer product
pricing than to write new software in-house.

I don't see why they have to write their own software. For all I
know, they may be running MSFS. It would be kind of sad to reject it
just out of religious belief.

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

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Neil Gould writes:

Why would you care?

I was just calling your bluff, knowing that you would not be able to
answer the question.

You know nothing other than I'm unwilling to answer your question. Every
pilot who has used MSFS, including a pilot who is a MSFS MVP has told you
that there are significant differences between its behavior and real
flying. This is just one more example, and to us, it isn't a problem worth
discussing. So, why would anyone here be motivated to provide you with
such details?

It is not conjecture that you can not confirm your notion of
probability, because, among many other factors, you don't like to
meet people in real life (again, your own statement).

Sorry, but not only is this conjecture, but it is also irrelevant.

No conjecture required. You have to meet people -- a significant number of
GA pilots in this case -- in order to assess their probable behaviors or
attitudes. You have done neither, therefore you can't possibly verify the
probability you tried to infer.

Just because your attacks lack a specific target ...

What attacks?

See this:

For example, you stated: "I have found that GA pilots are the least
informed and competent of all pilots."

It is an accurate generalization, as far as I know. And it is to be
expected, given the requirements for various types of piloting.

Your "knowledge" is based on no training and/or real experience, so as far
as you know isn't very far at all. Such comments are simply attacks on GA
pilots in a group populated by GA pilots.

It is not insignificant that, regardless of your opinion
of GA pilots, the worst of them are more and better informed than
you are about flying real airplanes.

Here again, this is conjecture.

No conjecture required. I simply stated the obvious; we fly, you do not,
ergo we are better informed about what it takes to fly than you are.

Neil

Neil Gould writes:

You know nothing other than I'm unwilling to answer your question.

When you have an answer, let me know.

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