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

Viperdoc writes:

For example, the Extra 300 model is extremely poor. The acceleration is
slower than the real aircraft, and the roll rate is much, much less than the
full scale plane.

Perhaps so. I presume the Extra 300 is a "fun" plane, not a serious
one, like many of the others.

Note that the accuracy of simulation depends not only on the
simulation engine, but also on the parameters for each aircraft model.
The default aircraft are rather casually defined.

Plus, I'm not pulling or pushing 8 g's or rolling at 400 degrees a second in
the chair. Sims, even full motion ones, can not mimic the visceral cues
found in real flight.

Yes, yes. I'm getting tired of hearing about this. That's not a flaw
in the simulation, anyway.

Additionally, the visual cues looking at a computer monitor are not the
same, since there is no peripheral vision input on the simple models such as
MSFS. There are some advantages to multiple monitor systems with motion.

I can look left and right by twisting the stick, although I'll grant
that it's not like the real thing. However, that's not a defect in
the simulator software, either.

Even without motion, having a full size cockpit with real instruments adds a
lot to the realism (at least this was my experience at Simcomm). Sitting in
front of a computer screen flying with a joystick, pedals, and throttle
really don't come close to the actual experience of flying.

I tried a much more elaborate simulator about a week ago (still
without motion). I wasn't familiar with the aircraft it
simulated--apparently something like a Piper Cub--but I managed to do
several ILS approaches successfully with an instructor alongside.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:

Viperdoc writes:

For example, the Extra 300 model is extremely poor. The acceleration is
slower than the real aircraft, and the roll rate is much, much less than the
full scale plane.



Perhaps so. I presume the Extra 300 is a "fun" plane, not a serious
one, like many of the others.



It does't get much more serious than an Extra 300 when it comes to
general aviation aircraft!

"john smith" wrote in message
...
Mxsmanic wrote:

Viperdoc writes:

For example, the Extra 300 model is extremely poor. The acceleration is
slower than the real aircraft, and the roll rate is much, much less than
the full scale plane.


Perhaps so. I presume the Extra 300 is a "fun" plane, not a serious
one, like many of the others.


It does't get much more serious than an Extra 300 when it comes to general
aviation aircraft!


I would like to see him tell Patty Wagstaff that her airplane is just a
"fun" plane and not a "serious" plane. :-)

Wade Hasbrouck writes:

I would like to see him tell Patty Wagstaff that her airplane is just a
"fun" plane and not a "serious" plane. :-)

I was talking about the MSFS model of the plane, not the plane itself.

I'm sure Patty Wagstaff considers it fun; otherwise, why would she fly
it?

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

Mxsmanic wrote:

Yes, yes. I'm getting tired of hearing about this. That's not a flaw
in the simulation, anyway.


Let me jump into it.

First about background --- I am not GA pilot yet, I plan to start
lessons in a fall. I however a small time hang glider pilot (about 25
hours, 83 flights), currently live in Chicago where the weather is not
great for hang gliding in winter. While hang glider is very different
from GA aircraft, it has some things in common --- being stupid can
kill you.

What you are getting annoyed is the following (and here I am
extrapolating from what I know in different flying community) --- there
is invisible hierarchy and you do not accept it. The hierarchy is for a
reason though --- people are not equal, some know more then others,
some have more experience.

Why is this important? Listening to people with experience and learning
from them can help you in a sticky situation. However to assign weight
to what people are saying it is very important to know if they know
what they are talking about.

You however insist on you right to claim experience without having any,
and write about flying from one airport to another without ever
mentioning it was just a simulation. There is extremely small (once in
a million or less), but nonzero chance that some day you give advice
based on you experience which can kill a student who will take it
seriously. I know your background at this point, so I will not take
your advice seriously, but somebody without knowing your background
might. This is why I believe it is important that you know your place
in invisible hierarchy of pilots (I know mine, it is fairly low at this
point but will get higher after I learn to fly these noisy oil and gaz
burning contraptions), mention your background when discussing you
"flights" and avoid giving advice.

While everyone has right to live the life he chooses, it is important
that we use appropriate words lest we stop understanding each other
and words loose their meaning and we are back to this tower of Babel
situation again. Your "flights" are not flights, although they can be
very enjoyable, the distinction is very important. You are trying to
redefine meaning of words, make them fuzzier in a community where
precision of communications means saving lives and surprised at
hostility you are getting. I wonder why?

While sims can be pretty detailed, they are by definition are different
from the real thing, because people who create them are just humans and
their knowledge is limited. Because knowledge of every particular
person is limited, it is possible that no one knows all details how
different they are from the real thing. You may not find out until it
is too late. The difference is often found in a very spectacular
fashion. I do not think anyone who flied any kind of Space Shuttle
simulator had failure similar to what happened to Columbia. Every year
many pilots find there is a difference between their mental model of
airplane ("I still have 1 hour of fuel") and real thing. You expect
your mental model to be perfect. Well, as I often heard when I still
was scientist "In theory there is no difference between theory and
practice. In practice thee is." One difference that real flying (yes,
hang glider too) teaches you that you have a lot of limitations.
Apparently simming does not, because you are not getting scared
enough. In real flying smug feeling is a sure sign that humility
lesson is coming, as one smart guy said. I wonder how is this aspect of
flying is taken care of in MSFS.

I do not have enough time in GA aircrafts (or simulators for that
matter) to say how similar is simulation to real thing --- latest
"Flight training" magazine seems to suggests it might be somewhat
useful. I am absolutely confident that simulation is absolutely useless
for training to fly hang gliders, just like it would be useless for
learning to ride a bicycle. Never mind feeling forces that give you
important feedback, noise of rushing air or squeaking of the
structure that gives you important clues about speed or how close you
are to stall. How would you talk about glider feeling "mushed" to
someone who never experienced it? He might just say "You are not clear
on this point so you do not know what happens and it is not in MSFS
anyway so I might forget about it". Never mind adrenaline when you
make a stupid mistake and find out that problems always happen in
clusters and pile up much faster then you can think about them with no
option to pause, save, think and restore later. What is more important
--- no simulation can prepare you for the feeling when you circle 5
feet away from a young falcon who found first thermal in his life.

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--