limit of trim = limit of travel?

Jay Honeck writes:

Anyway, the former is correct. Other than engine sound there is no "feel"
in the sim, so everything in slow flight mus be done on instruments.

Well, I find that slightly reassuring, as it implies that the flight model is
okay. Obviously, without motion and a large field of view, flying by feel is
going to be difficult with the sim. I'm sure a full-motion simulator could be
driven by MSFS, but I don't know if anyone has tried to do it (I've seen some
homebuilt sims with limited motion driven by MSFS). Some simmers use multiple
screens.

I fly mostly on instruments, so motion and vision deficits are not huge
problems. I do find visual flight in the C182 challenging, since there isn't
much in the way of instruments or autopilot. Just maintaining a constant
altitude is a pain.

Interestingly, we were trying to spin one of the Mustangs (that comes with
the Acceleration package), and were unable to do so. It just would not
break, even fully cross-controlled at the stall. Perhaps Dudley can comment
on this, as I was under the impression that Mustangs would spin pretty
easily.

With spins being substantially out of the envelope for aircraft not certified
for them, it would not surprise me if there were anomalies in the simulations
with respect to spins. Even the largest simulators often have that problem,
if they are simulating aircraft that one normally doesn't spin (such as large
transport aircraft).

Nope, I was referring to default aircraft.

With all the time and money you've invested in the sim, you should install a
few add-on aircraft. The difference is dramatic, often very much like using a
whole new simulator. The default aircraft don't fully exploit the
possibilities of the sim. I never fly default aircraft these days.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

I fly mostly on instruments, so motion and vision deficits are not
huge problems. I do find visual flight in the C182 challenging, since
there isn't much in the way of instruments or autopilot. Just
maintaining a constant altitude is a pain.

LIAR! LIAR! PANTS ON FIRE!

You don't fly, yet here you go again claiming you do. Liar!

YOU DO NOT FLY.

Only a non-flying asshole with an overinflated sense of self importance
would make the claim, as you do, that visual flight in a C182 is
challenging. You can do it with FAR LESS instruments than are found in a
typical C182. If you can't maintain constant altitude in a C182 in visual
conditions without it being a pain, you're too ****ing incompetent to fly
on instruments.

ANTHONY, YOU DON't KNOW **** FROM SHINOLA ABOUT AVIATION. POSER. MORON.

Benjamin Dover writes:

You can do it with FAR LESS instruments than are found in a
typical C182. If you can't maintain constant altitude in a C182 in visual
conditions without it being a pain, you're too ****ing incompetent to fly
on instruments.

Motion cues are absent and visual cues are limited in the sim, which may be a
factor. However, I'm sure I'll get better with practice. I may try to
install Reality XP instruments, which are smoother in motion and better for
detecting small changes.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Benjamin Dover writes:

You can do it with FAR LESS instruments than are found in a
typical C182. If you can't maintain constant altitude in a C182 in
visual
conditions without it being a pain, you're too ****ing incompetent to fly
on instruments.

Motion cues are absent and visual cues are limited in the sim, which may
be a
factor. However, I'm sure I'll get better with practice. I may try to
install Reality XP instruments, which are smoother in motion and better
for
detecting small changes.

Try one of the sim groups. Maybe they give a ****.

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:


"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Benjamin Dover writes:

You can do it with FAR LESS instruments than are found in a
typical C182. If you can't maintain constant altitude in a C182 in
visual
conditions without it being a pain, you're too ****ing incompetent
to fly on instruments.

Motion cues are absent and visual cues are limited in the sim, which
may be a
factor. However, I'm sure I'll get better with practice. I may try
to install Reality XP instruments, which are smoother in motion and
better for
detecting small changes.

Try one of the sim groups. Maybe they give a ****.


What do they give you?

Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Benjamin Dover writes:

You can do it with FAR LESS instruments than are found in a
typical C182. If you can't maintain constant altitude in a C182 in
visual conditions without it being a pain, you're too ****ing
incompetent to fly on instruments.

Motion cues are absent and visual cues are limited in the sim, which
may be a factor. However, I'm sure I'll get better with practice.


Who cares? Go buy a Maro brothers game. You can see your score rise on
those!

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Benjamin Dover writes:

You can do it with FAR LESS instruments than are found in a
typical C182. If you can't maintain constant altitude in a C182 in
visual conditions without it being a pain, you're too ****ing
incompetent to fly on instruments.

Motion cues are absent and visual cues are limited in the sim, which
may be a factor. However, I'm sure I'll get better with practice. I
may try to install Reality XP instruments, which are smoother in
motion and better for detecting small changes.

Nope. You WILL NOT get better. You're just playing a game, you moron.
You are NOT learning anything about the basics of flying. Lying about it
won't fix it. You're not only lying to this group when you tell us about
how you "fly", but you're lying to yourself. You don't know **** from
shinola about flying and you haven't learned anything in all the time
you've been following this newsgroup. You made up your mind about how to
fly based on a game and think you know all the answers. You don't know
**** from shinola.

Just in case anyone is reading this who is just planning to learn to fly,
and is not part of the ongoing flame war or this topic:

I do not presently fly, but plan to do so in the future. Therefore, please
do not start out with a PC simulator--especially with a single monitor--as a
starting point for learning to fly in visual conditions. Doing so will
teach you to fixate on exactly the wrong things, you will rarely look at the
right things, and the thought of subsequently having to share the sky with
anyone who is doing that really SCARES THE LIVING CRAP OUT OF ME!!!!!

Thanks,
Peter

Peter Dohm writes:

I do not presently fly, but plan to do so in the future. Therefore, please
do not start out with a PC simulator--especially with a single monitor--as a
starting point for learning to fly in visual conditions. Doing so will
teach you to fixate on exactly the wrong things, you will rarely look at the
right things, and the thought of subsequently having to share the sky with
anyone who is doing that really SCARES THE LIVING CRAP OUT OF ME!!!!!

The jury is still out on whether prior sim experience is good or bad, and it
may depend to some extent on the individual, the instructor's preferred
methods, etc. I believe a prospective pilot can learn a lot more from a book
and a sim than from a book alone.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Peter Dohm writes:

I do not presently fly, but plan to do so in the future. Therefore,
please
do not start out with a PC simulator--especially with a single
monitor--as a
starting point for learning to fly in visual conditions. Doing so will
teach you to fixate on exactly the wrong things, you will rarely look at
the
right things, and the thought of subsequently having to share the sky
with
anyone who is doing that really SCARES THE LIVING CRAP OUT OF ME!!!!!

The jury is still out on whether prior sim experience is good or bad, and
it
may depend to some extent on the individual, the instructor's preferred
methods, etc. I believe a prospective pilot can learn a lot more from a
book
and a sim than from a book alone.

Yeah, but you believe a lot of stupid ****.

Absent any actually experience, your opinion means nothing.