Sims

And honestly, even
though sims are fun the first few times, let's face it, the scenery
comes nowhere near what it actually looks like in real life. I have
tried the scenery addons but they are frankly, quite unimpressive
especially as you get closer to the ground when it just becomes
extremely blurry.

C'mon over to our place in Iowa City, and I'll show you what Flight
Sim X can do on a big screen (104") with a really, really fast
computer.

Ain't nuthin' blurry about it...no matter HOW close you get to the
ground.

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

writes:

The point is that you need to have flown both sims and airplanes to be
able to properly opine on the difference between the two.

The very vast majority of differences are patently obvious to anyone who
studies both, whether or not he has used them.

And honestly, even
though sims are fun the first few times, let's face it, the scenery
comes nowhere near what it actually looks like in real life.

Not everyone flies for the scenery.

I do have some airport sceneries that can easily be mistaken for real life at
first glance.

I have
tried the scenery addons but they are frankly, quite unimpressive
especially as you get closer to the ground when it just becomes
extremely blurry.

I don't use any of the VFR scenery add-ons, as the ground just isn't that
important as long as I can make out a few key landmarks. It would be nice to
have scenery that emphasized visual landmark accuracy as opposed to eye candy,
but I think the market for that type of scenery prefers the eye-candy aspect.

On Dec 20, 1:48 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
The point is that you need to have flown both sims and airplanes to be
able to properly opine on the difference between the two.

The very vast majority of differences are patently obvious to anyone who
studies both, whether or not he has used them.

And honestly, even
though sims are fun the first few times, let's face it, the scenery
comes nowhere near what it actually looks like in real life.

Not everyone flies for the scenery.

I do have some airport sceneries that can easily be mistaken for real life at
first glance.

I have
tried the scenery addons but they are frankly, quite unimpressive
especially as you get closer to the ground when it just becomes
extremely blurry.

I don't use any of the VFR scenery add-ons, as the ground just isn't that
important as long as I can make out a few key landmarks. It would be nice to
have scenery that emphasized visual landmark accuracy as opposed to eye candy,
but I think the market for that type of scenery prefers the eye-candy aspect.


Oh c'mon, someone must have a disposable airplane they can lend
Anthony to test this theory, eh?

It'd have to be one that nobody cares about, of course, since it would
never be seen again.

I can't think of a single airplane I hate that much.



Bertie



Bertie

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

My basis for a judgement is just as valid as anyone else's.

Your basis for judgement comparing aviation with a video game is based on
pure speculation and a complete lack of information. You are the only person
I know of who claims that is a valid basis for judgement.

That's something that everyone needs to learn and understand.

Why, because you think it's a good idea?

Even a pilot with a billion hours of experience is still expressing an
opinion, not an established fact.

There is no possibility for a pilot to have a billion hours of experience.

The distinction is important because decisions made on opinions treated as
facts
are often extremely poor decisions.

Like your decision to continue posting here when NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON has
written that they enjoy reading your crap.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:18ea4915-8654-495f-ae42-

C'mon over to our place in Iowa City, and I'll show you what Flight
Sim X can do on a big screen (104") with a really, really fast
computer.

I have to admin I'm somewhat of a MSFS geek. ... My cockpit has a beer
holder, and I can tell everybody for the record that the bottle-to-throttle
rule is a damned good idea! (I could have asked wife for a pee bottle for
Christmas. I got her a Remove Before Flight tank-top. The flight attendant
aboard GattAir is strikely similar to the one that rides around with me in
the 172.)

Mostly, it's because I'll never be able to do stuff like fly an amphib
Caravan under all the bridges in Portland.

Haven't seen X working at full speed/full resolution, though.

-c

gatt writes:

Haven't seen X working at full speed/full resolution, though.

Nobody has seen that, at least not on this planet.

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote in
news
Dudley Henriques writes:

I'm STILL waiting for him to address his blanket
statement that 0 lift ALWAYS occurs at 0 angle of attack.
I still stand by it,


Of course you do, You're always wrong.

Hey, at least he hasn't yet attempted to edit the Wikipedia article on
the subject which explicitly contradicts him. Watch for that to happen
next...

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
On Dec 20, 1:48 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
The point is that you need to have flown both sims and airplanes to be
able to properly opine on the difference between the two.
The very vast majority of differences are patently obvious to anyone who
studies both, whether or not he has used them.

And honestly, even
though sims are fun the first few times, let's face it, the scenery
comes nowhere near what it actually looks like in real life.
Not everyone flies for the scenery.

I do have some airport sceneries that can easily be mistaken for real life at
first glance.

I have
tried the scenery addons but they are frankly, quite unimpressive
especially as you get closer to the ground when it just becomes
extremely blurry.
I don't use any of the VFR scenery add-ons, as the ground just isn't that
important as long as I can make out a few key landmarks. It would be nice to
have scenery that emphasized visual landmark accuracy as opposed to eye candy,
but I think the market for that type of scenery prefers the eye-candy aspect.


Oh c'mon, someone must have a disposable airplane they can lend
Anthony to test this theory, eh?

It'd have to be one that nobody cares about, of course, since it would
never be seen again.

I can't think of a single airplane I hate that much.

How about the Moller Skycar? Personally, I think they're perfectly matched.

No, I haven't

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
gatt writes:

Haven't seen X working at full speed/full resolution, though.

Nobody has seen that, at least not on this planet.

On Dec 21, 6:47*am, Rich Ahrens wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
On Dec 20, 1:48 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
The point is that you need to have flown both sims and airplanes to be
able to properly opine on the difference between the two.
The very vast majority of differences are patently obvious to anyone who
studies both, whether or not he has used them.

And honestly, even
though sims are fun the first few times, let's face it, the scenery
comes nowhere near what it actually looks like in real life.
Not everyone flies for the scenery.

I do have some airport sceneries that can easily be mistaken for real life at
first glance.

I have
tried the scenery addons but they are frankly, quite unimpressive
especially as you get closer to the ground when it just becomes
extremely blurry.
I don't use any of the VFR scenery add-ons, as the ground just isn't that
important as long as I can make out a few key landmarks. *It would be nice to
have scenery that emphasized visual landmark accuracy as opposed to eye candy,
but I think the market for that type of scenery prefers the eye-candy aspect.

Oh c'mon, someone must have a disposable airplane they can lend
Anthony to test this theory, eh?

It'd have to be one that nobody cares about, of course, since it would
never be seen again.

I can't think of a single airplane I hate that much.

How about the Moller Skycar? Personally, I think they're perfectly matched..-

perfect. The do it on MSFS, right?


Bertie