MS Flight Sim

Dennis Johnson wrote:
Greetings,

I think those who are arguing that flying MS Flight Sim isn't really
"flying" are on the losing side of the argument. Flying is flying, I don't
care if it's a Cub without an electrical system or a computer running MS
Flight Sim. As far as general procedures go, MS Flight Sim gives a great
workout, and for instrument procedures, it's terrific.

Flying with flight sim is like sex with a magazine.

"scott moore" wrote in message
. ..
Dennis Johnson wrote:
Greetings,

I think those who are arguing that flying MS Flight Sim isn't really
"flying" are on the losing side of the argument. Flying is flying, I
don't care if it's a Cub without an electrical system or a computer
running MS Flight Sim. As far as general procedures go, MS Flight Sim
gives a great workout, and for instrument procedures, it's terrific.

Flying with flight sim is like sex with a magazine.

No more callers, we have a winner...

LOL

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

scott moore wrote:

Dennis Johnson wrote:

Greetings,

I think those who are arguing that flying MS Flight Sim isn't really
"flying" are on the losing side of the argument. Flying is flying, I
don't care if it's a Cub without an electrical system or a computer
running MS Flight Sim. As far as general procedures go, MS Flight Sim
gives a great workout, and for instrument procedures, it's terrific.


Flying with flight sim is like sex with a magazine.

The problem is that MSFS is not a flight simulator. Since Microsoft is
only making a game, they can call it what they want.

It can be useful as a nav procedures trainer provided realistic winds
are not needed as part of the training exercise. And, also, if the XP
Reality modules are included to make it do what Microsoft was unwilling
or unable to do.

On Mar 1, 9:11 am, Sam Spade wrote:
scott moore wrote:
Dennis Johnson wrote:

Greetings,

I think those who are arguing that flying MS Flight Sim isn't really
"flying" are on the losing side of the argument. Flying is flying, I
don't care if it's a Cub without an electrical system or a computer
running MS Flight Sim. As far as general procedures go, MS Flight Sim
gives a great workout, and for instrument procedures, it's terrific.

Flying with flight sim is like sex with a magazine.

The problem is that MSFS is not a flight simulator. Since Microsoft is
only making a game, they can call it what they want.

It can be useful as a nav procedures trainer provided realistic winds
are not needed as part of the training exercise. And, also, if the XP
Reality modules are included to make it do what Microsoft was unwilling
or unable to do.

Note: the following has little, if anything, to do with MSFS

Although several years old, I found http://www.faa.gov/safety/
programs_initiatives/aircraft_aviation/nsp/research/media/
Paul_Ray.rtf to be an interesting read.

Folks here in the Human Factors division are contributing to some of
the reference docos (e.g. ICAO 9625), but I was only able to get my
hands on hardcopy at this time. Will try to provide online linkage as
any becomes available.

Regards,
Jon

On Mar 1, 1:10 pm, "Jon" wrote:
On Mar 1, 9:11 am, Sam Spade wrote:



scott moore wrote:
Dennis Johnson wrote:

Greetings,

I think those who are arguing that flying MS Flight Sim isn't really
"flying" are on the losing side of the argument. Flying is flying, I
don't care if it's a Cub without an electrical system or a computer
running MS Flight Sim. As far as general procedures go, MS Flight Sim
gives a great workout, and for instrument procedures, it's terrific.

Flying with flight sim is like sex with a magazine.

The problem is that MSFS is not a flight simulator. Since Microsoft is
only making a game, they can call it what they want.

It can be useful as a nav procedures trainer provided realistic winds
are not needed as part of the training exercise. And, also, if the XP
Reality modules are included to make it do what Microsoft was unwilling
or unable to do.

Note: the following has little, if anything, to do with MSFS

Although several years old, I found http://www.faa.gov/safety/
programs_initiatives/aircraft_aviation/nsp/research/media/
Paul_Ray.rtf to be an interesting read.

Folks here in the Human Factors division are contributing to some of
the reference docos (e.g. ICAO 9625), but I was only able to get my
hands on hardcopy at this time. Will try to provide online linkage as
any becomes available.

Regards,
Jon

Note: the following continues to have nothing at all to do with MSFS,
since it's not a serious player

FAA's National Simulator Program (NSP) contains a fair amount of
material, including links to Advisory Circulars, Guidance Bulletins,
Lists of Qualified Simulators, etc.

It may be found at:

http://www.faa.gov/safety/programs_i..._aviation/nsp/


Regards,
Jon

"scott moore" wrote:


Flying with flight sim is like sex with a magazine.

Haw!

LOL of the day.

"scott moore" wrote in message
. ..
Flying with flight sim is like sex with a magazine.

Which is still better than no sex at all.

Steve S wrote:
"scott moore" wrote in message
. ..
Flying with flight sim is like sex with a magazine.

Which is still better than no sex at all.



Replace "still better than" with "equal to", and you have
it right.

scott moore wrote:
Dennis Johnson wrote:
Greetings,

I think those who are arguing that flying MS Flight Sim isn't really
"flying" are on the losing side of the argument. Flying is flying, I
don't care if it's a Cub without an electrical system or a computer
running MS Flight Sim. As far as general procedures go, MS Flight Sim
gives a great workout, and for instrument procedures, it's terrific.

Flying with flight sim is like sex with a magazine.

Top 10 ways flight simulator is like sex with a magazine:

10. If you are "white knuckling it", you're doing it wrong.

9. Very little commitment is involved. You can change magazines
(airplanes) quickly.

8. It requires little in the way of mechanical aids.

7. It's very unlikely to lead to the real thing anytime soon.

6. Talking about the experience with others generally is not a good
idea, unless of course they do it, too. In which case its just a bit
weird.

5. Its best done alone.

4. The view is basically 2d.

3. The cost is low.

2. The excitement of it is all up to your imagination.

(drumroll..........)

1. If you think they are equal or even similar, chances are great
you have not experienced either.