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

Nomen Nescio writes:

Since you've never flown a real aircraft AT ALL, you have no way of
knowing whether the simulation is accurate or not.

The real aircraft cannot climb to that altitude, so _nobody_ knows
whether the simulation is accurate or not.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:

The real aircraft cannot climb to that altitude, so _nobody_ knows
whether the simulation is accurate or not.

You are missing the point that MSFS does not model, nor need
it for the vast majority of sensible users, the forced
(slewed) behavior of a 172 in the high flight levels be
real. Any real pilot, who knows the feel/behavior of a 172
class airplane near sea level, verses say 12,000 feet, and
who understands the aerodynamics involved and the effect of
limited HP in really rarefied air, need not be a "rocket
surgeon" to be able to accurately extrapolate.

F--

TxSrv writes:

You are missing the point that MSFS does not model, nor need
it for the vast majority of sensible users, the forced
(slewed) behavior of a 172 in the high flight levels be
real.

Without testing the aircraft at that altitude, there's no way to
verify the MSFS modeling of the aircraft at that altitude.

Since the real aircraft cannot reach that altitude on its own, there's
not much point in worrying about the MSFS model; but one cannot simply
say that it is incorrect, one can only say that it is unverified.

If MSFS allowed a 172 to climb to that altitude even though it could
not do so in real life, that would be an obvious flaw in the model;
but I don't believe it does that (I never fly the 172). Slewing does
not count because that is a deliberate overruling of the laws of
physics for convenience in setting up simulations.

Any real pilot, who knows the feel/behavior of a 172
class airplane near sea level, verses say 12,000 feet, and
who understands the aerodynamics involved and the effect of
limited HP in really rarefied air, need not be a "rocket
surgeon" to be able to accurately extrapolate.

In other words, nobody knows for sure. When you actually test the
aircraft at that altitude, be sure to report back, as the data can be
checked again the model. In the meantime, neither you nor anybody
else can say anything definitive about it.

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

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

TxSrv writes:

You are missing the point that MSFS does not model, nor need
it for the vast majority of sensible users, the forced
(slewed) behavior of a 172 in the high flight levels be
real.

Without testing the aircraft at that altitude, there's no way to
verify the MSFS modeling of the aircraft at that altitude.

If the real aircraft can't get to a FL, *any* representation of the
aircraft's behavior at that altitude is incorrect. The only correct
modelling would be to accurately represent the aircraft's behavior at its
service ceiling.

Neil

Neil Gould writes:

If the real aircraft can't get to a FL, *any* representation of the
aircraft's behavior at that altitude is incorrect.

Not so. The aircraft could be placed there by another aircraft, in
which case it would have some sort of behavior that presumably could
be simulated. It just can't get there under its own power. Slewing
functions in a simulator are the equivalent of carrying the aircraft
to that altitude in real life.

Thus, while there may not be much practical reason to simulate the
aircraft at that altitude, since it is physically possible for it to
be at that altitude, it is also possible to simulate it at that
altitude. However, if nobody ever tests the aircraft for real at that
altitude, any simulation of its behavior there remains a matter of
speculation and unverifiable.

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

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Neil Gould writes:

If the real aircraft can't get to a FL, *any* representation of the
aircraft's behavior at that altitude is incorrect.

Not so. The aircraft could be placed there by another aircraft, in
which case it would have some sort of behavior that presumably could
be simulated. It just can't get there under its own power. Slewing
functions in a simulator are the equivalent of carrying the aircraft
to that altitude in real life.

That is an absurd scenario, and of no use in the simulation of the real
aircraft.

Bottom line: if the game allows the aircraft to reach a FL that is twice
the service ceiling of the real aircraft, then the engine is modelled
incorrectly. If the engine is modelled incorrectly, everything else about
the aircraft's behavior in the game is suspect. Of course, it is a
non-issue for those of us that actually fly.

Neil

Mxsmanic wrote:

Thus, while there may not be much practical reason to simulate the
aircraft at that altitude, since it is physically possible for it to
be at that altitude, it is also possible to simulate it at that
altitude. However, if nobody ever tests the aircraft for real at that
altitude, any simulation of its behavior there remains a matter of
speculation and unverifiable.

Why is the service ceiling of a 172 set so low then? Is it your
contention that if a B-29 dropped a 172 (i.e. "slew") from FL300 it
would continue to fly?

That its engine would somehow magically find enough oxygen to feed the
normally aspirated engine?

You'll construct anything in your mind to maintain your fantasy won't
you?