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

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.

Sam Spade writes:

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

I don't know, as I don't have any specs in front of me, but Windows
might well be used for certain functions, as it would lower
implementation costs if the OS is suitable for the purpose (writing a
custom operating system is very expensive). If the actual simulation
software is custom-written, I'd expect something a bit more efficient,
like a bare-bones UNIX system, or a dedicated real-time OS. But one
cannot use just anything, because the more exotic the OS, the more
expensive the development carried out for it.

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

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Sam Spade writes:

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

I don't know...

And that would be the key point. I *do* know. I operate them for a
living, doing airline training in them.

... Windows
might well be used for certain functions, as it would lower
implementation costs if the OS is suitable for the purpose (writing a
custom operating system is very expensive).

Hence the $12 MM pricetag for a typical Level D simulator, and the
nearly $1000/hour you'll pay to fly it.

But one
cannot use just anything, because the more exotic the OS, the more
expensive the development carried out for it.

Yes. Which is why a full-motion simulator is not available for $69 at
CompUSA.

Buck Murdock writes:

And that would be the key point. I *do* know. I operate them for a
living, doing airline training in them.

What operating system is used?

Hence the $12 MM pricetag for a typical Level D simulator, and the
nearly $1000/hour you'll pay to fly it.

I feel certain that generous profit margins are built into these
prices.

Yes. Which is why a full-motion simulator is not available for $69 at
CompUSA.

Not yet, at least. The motion part will be expensive for a long time,
because there is very little trend towards cost reduction in
mechanical systems, but the computers are already there--there just
isn't any readily available software to handle it. A standard PC is
fast enough to handle it.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:

Buck Murdock writes:


And that would be the key point. I *do* know. I operate them for a
living, doing airline training in them.


What operating system is used?


Hence the $12 MM pricetag for a typical Level D simulator, and the
nearly $1000/hour you'll pay to fly it.


I feel certain that generous profit margins are built into these
prices.


Yes. Which is why a full-motion simulator is not available for $69 at
CompUSA.


Not yet, at least. The motion part will be expensive for a long time,
because there is very little trend towards cost reduction in
mechanical systems, but the computers are already there--there just
isn't any readily available software to handle it. A standard PC is
fast enough to handle it.


You are so full of ****.

Several million of the $10-12 million goes to buy all the cockpit
hardware and essential avionics software and systems interfaces.

Again, you are so full of **** and an arrogant pain in the ass. If you
were for real and my aviation student, I would drop you like a hot potato.

Buck Murdock wrote:


Yes. Which is why a full-motion simulator is not available for $69 at
CompUSA.

Damn!

Sam Spade wrote:
Buck Murdock wrote:


Yes. Which is why a full-motion simulator is not available for $69 at
CompUSA.

Damn!

I can just imagine that Geek Squad installation visit. G

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.