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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Viperdoc wrote:
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.

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.

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.

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.



It's not a Extra 300 but I had the opportunity years ago to "fly" the
American Airlines Fokker F100 at their DFW training center at full
motion. I thought that was pretty realistic for this general aviation pilot.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

Ross wrote:



It's not a Extra 300 but I had the opportunity years ago to "fly" the
American Airlines Fokker F100 at their DFW training center at full
motion. I thought that was pretty realistic for this general aviation
pilot.

Was that full motion simulator running MSFS? That was the software in
question.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

Ross wrote:


It's not a Extra 300 but I had the opportunity years ago to "fly" the
American Airlines Fokker F100 at their DFW training center at full
motion. I thought that was pretty realistic for this general aviation
pilot.


Was that full motion simulator running MSFS? That was the software in
question.


Nope, this was the real multi million $ American Airline simulator in
Ft. Worth Texas at their training center. I do not suspect they you
MSFS. I even had a AA instructor at the computer behind me.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

Ross writes:

Nope, this was the real multi million $ American Airline simulator in
Ft. Worth Texas at their training center. I do not suspect they you
MSFS.

Sometimes it can be surprising what runs on the back end.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:

Ross writes:


Nope, this was the real multi million $ American Airline simulator in
Ft. Worth Texas at their training center. I do not suspect they you
MSFS.


Sometimes it can be surprising what runs on the back end.

In those $10 million simulators it sure as Hell ain't windows.

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Ross writes:

Nope, this was the real multi million $ American Airline simulator in
Ft. Worth Texas at their training center. I do not suspect they you
MSFS.

Sometimes it can be surprising what runs on the back end.

As someone who's been flying them every six months for a decade, and
*instructing* in them for several years, it wouldn't be surprising at
all. And as Mr. Space correctly points out, there's not so much as a
snippet of Microsoft code running those $12 MM simulators.

They run custom-designed simulator software, running on banks of
computers. They can communicate with the actual, physical avionics that
are the same as those installed in the aircraft. (Very, very different
from painting graphics on what amounts to a matte painting that looks
somewhat like a cockpit.) They also mimic the physical sensations,
which are *critical* in coming anywhere close to completely simulating
flight.

I've played MSFS, I've spent hundreds of hours in full-motion
simulators, and I've flown thousands of hours in transport aircraft.
Until you have done more than one of the above, you ARE NOT QUALIFIED to
make comparisons amongst them.

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!