Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC

Alexey,

nice post. Good luck with your flying lessons!

You however insist on you right to claim experience without having any,

Yep. The word "imposter" comes to mind.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

MxsClueless wrote:

Tell me _exactly_ what's wrong with the aircraft modeling.

For starters, the program doesn't really understand air
density. The program tries, but only in MSFS can one
maintain a semblance of controllability in a 172 at FL 250.
Plus, the mixture control does not react as it should at
even 7000. Ditto the ASI whilst upstairs.

I indeed do have every version since 1.0, and yes the
graphics on ver. 10 are outstanding and a decent frame rate
on my newish machine. But it's a totally phony experience
at face value. Flying IFR in mere marginal weather like
just 2-3 viz, thus not "hard IMC," can be a pleasure, and
only partly because VFR flight in poor viz can be a
distasteful chore. Set up that condition in MSFS and it's a
complete bore. Ditto as to punching through a thin (but VFR
ceiling) overcast under IFR, but do that in MSFS it's
objectively a bore with phony, all-white below.

I also like playing Walter Mitty now and then by flying big
air carrier jets too, but why anybody would simulate that by
engaging autopilot and letting FMS do the tricky stuff
(well, not really, if exp) for a thousand+ miles, hours on
end, I don't understand. And taking ATC instructions from
VATSIM people who likely know little of the real-life
nuances of ATC at least. What % of air carrier pilots
actually fly MSFS as an avocation? The tiny % who may do I
suggest have issues, and I'd rather not be a pax in seat 17A
whilst he/she is up front, thank you.

I also think MSFS is an excellent implementation, given the
programming challenge, and I tell my flying friends, even
"old duffs" like me but who are into computing and have the
machine for it, to try it for just some occasional fun and
see some nifty stuff it now does. And no more, without
actually saying so, since I know they won't get hooked.

Conversely, if flight exp via computer is all you want (and
moot, as all you can afford), fine. Chacun a son gout. But
an analogy is where I served in the U.S. Army, but own only
one handgun I fired just once, so I'm not a gun enthusiast
but respect such avocations of others. Chacun a son gout. I
even think there's too many weapons/capita here, but whether
the attendant consequences are tolerable is a legitimate
debate. I think on balance it is tolerable, but could I ever
start a silly, flaming debate by arguing the contrary,
especially never having really engaged in the sporting
activity! I also think I know know many technical things
about weapons, but hardly an expert, despite what I might
read further on the internet. If I have a technical
question, I can post to a gun enthusiast net group and hope
it's only a 4-post thread not flaming me should I be branded
naive or just an annoyance.

What I would not do is take pot shots at those who engage in
legitimate activities such as gun collecting, shooting
sports, or actual flying in a group of those who do, nor
would I claim shoot-em-up computer games is realistic and
sufficient for practical purposes. Nor would spend much of
my waking hours arrogantly posting on matters I really don't
know much about, especially where my actual identity is
known to the entire English-speaking internet world.

Why, from everything I've read about sociology and
psychiatry on the net, I think you have issues. Forgive me,
that stepped over the line! :-)

F--

TxSrv writes:

For starters, the program doesn't really understand air
density. The program tries, but only in MSFS can one
maintain a semblance of controllability in a 172 at FL 250.

That would probably be a flaw in the specific model.

How does the 172 fly when you pilot it at FL250 yourself?

Plus, the mixture control does not react as it should at
even 7000.

What does it do wrong?

But it's a totally phony experience
at face value. Flying IFR in mere marginal weather like
just 2-3 viz, thus not "hard IMC," can be a pleasure, and
only partly because VFR flight in poor viz can be a
distasteful chore. Set up that condition in MSFS and it's a
complete bore.

Speak for yourself.

Ditto as to punching through a thin (but VFR
ceiling) overcast under IFR, but do that in MSFS it's
objectively a bore with phony, all-white below.

See above.

I guess a lot of pilots like all those strong physical sensations.
There doesn't seem to be much of an intellectual component to their
enjoyment, and they seem to regard the brain work parts as necessary
evils rather than as enjoyable in themselves. This may be relatively
specific to GA pilots, though. Large aircraft involve fewer
sensations and a lot more brain work, and might appeal to the sedate
and cerebral types a bit more.

I also like playing Walter Mitty now and then by flying big
air carrier jets too, but why anybody would simulate that by
engaging autopilot and letting FMS do the tricky stuff
(well, not really, if exp) for a thousand+ miles, hours on
end, I don't understand.

Because that's how it is done in real life. In real life, you don't
buzz control towers and fly through narrow canyons in a 737. You fly
it on sedate, planned, IFR routes from one major city to another.
Some people like that, some don't. It's like the differences among
speedboats, sailboats, aircraft carriers, and tankers.

And taking ATC instructions from VATSIM people who likely know
little of the real-life nuances of ATC at least.

Actually, they know a great deal about it. They have to train for it,
and many of them are pilots or controllers in real life.

What % of air carrier pilots actually fly MSFS as an avocation?

A surprising number of pilots enjoy MSFS. You can't always jump in a
real plane and go. This is especially true if you fly large aircraft
for a living; few people have jet airliners of their own to fly for
pleasure.

The tiny % who may do I suggest have issues, and I'd rather
not be a pax in seat 17A whilst he/she is up front, thank you.

Then it's best not to ask anyone up front if he ever uses MSFS, as you
might get a very unpleasant surprise.

Conversely, if flight exp via computer is all you want (and
moot, as all you can afford), fine.

It's all that is practical, and I'm not entirely sure that real flight
would be an improvement. There are a lot of unpleasant things about
flying for real.

Why, from everything I've read about sociology and
psychiatry on the net, I think you have issues. Forgive me,
that stepped over the line!

No problem. You've just put me into the same category that you had
previously set aside for many airline pilots, and that's not bad
company.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

I guess a lot of pilots like all those strong physical sensations.
There doesn't seem to be much of an intellectual component to their
enjoyment, and they seem to regard the brain work parts as necessary
evils rather than as enjoyable in themselves. This may be relatively
specific to GA pilots, though.

It's insulting diatribe like this that convinces me that contrary to what
Jose and Jay seem to think, Mx is not here to learn but rather to provoke.

He is always the first to resort to insults when he has nowhere else to go
in the argument. Why else would he make comments like the above along with
such things as "GA pilots are incompetent", "people in the USA have no
courage, only ego", etc., etc.

Not once have I seen him admit that he might be mistaken, and that in itself
is very telling.

Mxsmanic wrote:

...and many of them [VATSIM] are pilots or controllers in real life.

How do you actually know they are real controllers? Within
any endeavor, there's room for a few who do odd things. But
I have trouble believing the typical ATC would regularly
spend off-hours directing nonpilots in a make-believe IFR
environment.

If there were many real controllers doing this, you wouldn't
have so many misconceptions about IFR, the few rigid rules
which are not to be violated, and the essential task of the
controller.

F--

TxSrv wrote:
But I have trouble
believing the typical ATC would regularly spend off-hours directing
nonpilots in a make-believe IFR environment.

So do I.

I also have trouble believing very many real pilots would bother to
participate in that whole shebang.

TxSrv writes:

How do you actually know they are real controllers?

I know where they work.

But I have trouble believing the typical ATC would regularly
spend off-hours directing nonpilots in a make-believe IFR
environment.

Is it also hard for you to believe that an airline pilot would spend
his off-hours flying a small private plane?

If there were many real controllers doing this, you wouldn't
have so many misconceptions about IFR, the few rigid rules
which are not to be violated, and the essential task of the
controller.

Why don't you try it, and report back here?

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
TxSrv writes:

For starters, the program doesn't really understand air
density. The program tries, but only in MSFS can one
maintain a semblance of controllability in a 172 at FL 250.

That would probably be a flaw in the specific model.

All planes, and various propulsion systems, react in the
same way to air density. The program itself could handle
this, needing only some specifics from the model file and
which it does supply for certain things. Whatever. Of the
zillion FS planes out there for download, point me toward a
normally-aspirated, piston aircraft, with certificated HP in
the model file, and which isn't a real hoot when slewed up
into the flight levels.

Plus, the mixture control does not react as it should at
even 7000.

What does it do wrong?

The red knobby thingy? Besides doing little but being an
on/off switch? I dunno. Regarding rarefied air, I read
somewhere on the net it's just the way carburetors work.

F--

TxSrv writes:

All planes, and various propulsion systems, react in the
same way to air density. The program itself could handle
this, needing only some specifics from the model file and
which it does supply for certain things. Whatever. Of the
zillion FS planes out there for download, point me toward a
normally-aspirated, piston aircraft, with certificated HP in
the model file, and which isn't a real hoot when slewed up
into the flight levels.

Since you cannot test the real aircraft that high, you have no way of
knowing whether the simulation is accurate or not.

The red knobby thingy? Besides doing little but being an
on/off switch?

It's considerably more than an on/off switch when I use it.

I dunno.

I agree.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:

Sam Spade writes:


I don't think you understand the aerodynamics of the real world. MSFS
has great scenery but the aircraft and the atmosphere modeling are
terribly wrong in MSFS.


It sounds like you don't fly much in MSFS.

Tell me _exactly_ what's wrong with the aircraft modeling.


Off the top of my head:

The King Air, on autopilot, will not maintain the set vertical speed if
the IAS drops below 120 knots or so. It will nose-dive and crash. Not
so with a real King Air.

Cross winds on autopilot are not handled correctly on an RNAV approach.

Strong winds aloft dramatically affect IAS in a holding pattern, which
is wrong beyond belief.

That is my short list.