![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Neil Gould writes:
That is an absurd scenario, and of no use in the simulation of the real aircraft. I agree. But the important point is that nobody knows whether the simulation is correct or not, because nobody has tried hoisting a 172 to that altitude to see how it flies. 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. MSFS does not allow that. The only way to get that high is by slewing. Of course, it is a non-issue for those of us that actually fly. You seem to be pretty upset over it. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mxsmanic wrote:
Of course, it is a non-issue for those of us that actually fly. You seem to be pretty upset over it. You have a talent for causing real pilots to have that emotion. You need a lot of work on tact and interpersonal relationships. I suspect, though, you just don't care that you come off as arrogant, ignorant, and obnoxious. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Sam Spade writes:
You have a talent for causing real pilots to have that emotion. They choose their emotions; I don't. Smart pilots tend to be relatively unaffected, but it's still their choice. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Recently, Mxsmanic posted:
Neil Gould writes: Of course, it is a non-issue for those of us that actually fly. You seem to be pretty upset over it. Why would anyone be upset over a non-issue? I'm certainly not. Neil |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Neil Gould writes:
Why would anyone be upset over a non-issue? I'm certainly not. Of course. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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? |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|