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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

bdl writes:

Why is the service ceiling of a 172 set so low then?

Because it cannot climb in any useful way above a certain altitude,
and it's not a high-performance aircraft.

Is it your contention that if a B-29 dropped a 172 (i.e. "slew") from FL300 it
would continue to fly?

I don't really know. I think it probably would, but it would be
pretty unstable.

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

It doesn't need an engine to fly.

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