GA is priceless

"Jay Honeck" wrote

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.

I don't understand how (normally) level headed folks can NOT get irked. He
IS that annoying, and I don't understand your defense of him. I'm about
ready to stop reading your posts, to get rid of his posts. I can't believe
that it is coming to this.

He will never be part of the solution to get more people flying. In
contrast, I would say that a lot of people that might be learning to fly,
have stopped reading this group because of him.
--
Jim in NC

"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

worse yet, someone who is learning to fly might actually listen to him!
The kill file makes it somewhat manageable. If people would just quit
responding to his bluster and inanity we'd be fine.

KC

Morgans wrote:

He will never be part of the solution to get more people flying. In
contrast, I would say that a lot of people that might be learning to fly,
have stopped reading this group because of him.

Nice thread Jay! :^) This one might be a record setter!

KC

Jay Honeck wrote:
We just returned from a quick, overnight flight to Wisconsin, to attend
a holiday gathering of family and friends, and I simply couldn't help
but remark on the incredible utility and convenience of GA.

In 90 minutes (as opposed to 5.5 hours) we were parked on the ramp in
Racine, plugging Atlas in for the night. Twenty minutes later, we were
sipping egg nog and enjoying the warmth of the holiday spirit with
Mary's family.

Today, we slept in late, enjoyed a late brunch with friends, and flew
home in 100 minutes. The kids were back home, playing with their new
games, 20 minutes after we landed.

3 hours and 10 minutes of enjoyable, XM-radio-enhanced flight, versus
11 hours of mind-numbing driving through aggravating Chicago-area
traffic. God almighty, I can't understand for the life of me why there
isn't an airplane in every American garage...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Morgans writes:

He will never be part of the solution to get more people flying. In
contrast, I would say that a lot of people that might be learning to fly,
have stopped reading this group because of him.

Most people are completely indifferent to my presence here,
particularly those who are level-headed.

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

Doug Spencer writes:

For one thing, to pass certification at level-D, your model has to be
deterministically "hard" real-time to process inputs and outputs in a
particular set time. This doesn't mean merely having a fast CPU and
memory, this means that an interrupt to the system is handled within a
known and specified time period with no overage.

Without a hard real-time response, the flight model cannot be
accurately portrayed at all times.

Not every application requires a certification of this kind.

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

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.

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 05:31:01 +0100
Mxsmanic wrote:

Doug Spencer writes:

For one thing, to pass certification at level-D, your model has to be
deterministically "hard" real-time to process inputs and outputs in a
particular set time. This doesn't mean merely having a fast CPU and
memory, this means that an interrupt to the system is handled within a
known and specified time period with no overage.

Without a hard real-time response, the flight model cannot be
accurately portrayed at all times.

Not every application requires a certification of this kind.

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

Yes, but you asked for an example/reason why the flight model was
incorrect on your MSFS X simulator. I provided the reason. If your
computer is going to be non-deterministic, it cannot be an accurate
simulation.

Real, actual flying occurs in real-time. Read that previous sentence a
couple of times. If your flight model is not computed with inputs and
outputs being done in a hard real-time fashion, it is not going to be
an accurate model. If your computer will delay the processing of
your simulator's input or output because you've received a new e-mail,
it is busy processing a disk access, network request, or similar items
that occupy the resources of a computer, it is not an accurate
representation of flight.

Jay has already indicated that on his slower machine, there was a lag
in processing at various times. You will have similar lags to various,
unknown degrees on any system that is not a hard real-time system. That
is just one area where a simulation like MSFS will be incorrect. Even
on a realtime operating system, the program has to be written to
properly process tasks in realtime or it will still fail to represent
flight.

I used to play with the PC based flight simulator before taking lessons
and found it to be a very poor representation of the reality of flying.
There are far too many ways to fudge things in the simulator that just
don't work in real life.

Perhaps the group should scrape together a first flight gift
certificate for you and be done with the continued banter about things
you know little about? I expect you will find it a very different
experience than the simulator in ways you don't realize without that
experience.

Doug

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

I don't think it's very hard to tell when
someone is trying to learn vs. trying to disrupt

It seems that those insulting Mx are trying to disrupt, and they often
post incorrect "information" too. The certainly succeed in disruption
more than the OP, who is easy to ignore, and easy to respond to.

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

Jose,

I think it's because when Mx clumsily questions the answers he gets from
pilots, those pilots take it personally as a hit to their ego.


Hits on egos are, to a degree, an objective thing. There can be no doubt
that MX hits on egos of people trying to answer his questions. I am
convinced that he does so intentionally, but admit that is not clear. How
anyone cannot be annoyed and offended by his way of treating people is
beyond me.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)