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

TxSrv wrote:

Microsoft Games Development Team are the real gurus;

Actually one of them pretty much told him he was full of sh!t.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

It can't get up there, the C172 has a service ceiling arount 14,000 ft.

Then how do you know how it behaves at FL250?

It doesn't behave there at all, because it can't get there on its own.
If MSFS allows you to fly a C172 to that altitude, it models it wrongly.

I've never placed my hand into the yellow flames of a campfire but I KNOW
with certainty what would happen if I did.


--
Peter

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.

Peter R. writes:

I've never placed my hand into the yellow flames of a campfire but I KNOW
with certainty what would happen if I did.

You extrapolate based on the knowledge that you have, but you do not
know.

The distinction can be important in flying. Pilots who extrapolate
and confuse extrapolation with direct knowledge can get into trouble.

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

Wolfgang Schwanke schrieb:

It doesn't behave there at all, because it can't get there on its own.
If MSFS allows you to fly a C172 to that altitude, it models it wrongly.

Actually, you're wrong in two ways:

You can get up there in a 172. You just can't go up there on your own
(which you stated correctly). Once at altitude, release from whatever
took you there and look how the3 172 behaves.

Second, todays numeric models are astonishingly accurate. Feed the data
in a suitable program and look how the 172 would behave.

Stefan