Cessna 172R from Telluride to Aspen

Stefan Hueneburg writes:

First, the MSFS is not a real simulation, its a game ...

Rest assured, it's a real simulation. I know that people with an ax to grind
will insist otherwise for a lifetime, but that doesn't change the reality.
Simulators have come a long way, and the mere fact that a simulator runs on a
PC doesn't make it "unreal."

A Crash within MSFS is just a failure with no consequences.

A crash in every simulator is like that. That's one of the advantages of
simulation.

If you play MSFS regularly, you should know it's limitations.

I do. I've listed them on several occasions.

I just tried you "experiment" and were scared by the low climb rate of
the Cessna in that altitude.

I can't say that I was scared by it, but I found it pretty lame. I was
heading west so there wasn't a lot of terrain to avoid.

Even the real big flight simulators are limited to the input data they
have. And to my knowledge, not much data from unusual flight envelopes
(stalls, spins whatever) is inserted in these things.

That's why they are not used to practice spins. Any pilot who gets himself
into a spin in an airliner made way too many mistakes long before that.

Mxsmanic writes:

Simulators have come a long way, and the mere fact that a simulator runs on a
PC doesn't make it "unreal."

It's still a game and not real.

If you play MSFS regularly, you should know it's limitations.

I do. I've listed them on several occasions.

But you don't get the biggest limitation, i guess.

I just tried you "experiment" and were scared by the low climb rate of
the Cessna in that altitude.

I can't say that I was scared by it, but I found it pretty lame. I was
heading west so there wasn't a lot of terrain to avoid.

Well I saw some pretty big hills to my left and right. Luckily, I found
a upwind to get some height to save the simday.

Even the real big flight simulators are limited to the input data they
have. And to my knowledge, not much data from unusual flight envelopes
(stalls, spins whatever) is inserted in these things.

That's why they are not used to practice spins. Any pilot who gets himself
into a spin in an airliner made way too many mistakes long before that.

But you cannot draw any conclusion for the real world from a game with a
simulated environment. Therefore judging actions in the real world from
simulated experience is inappropriate.

cu

Stefan Hueneburg writes:

It's still a game and not real.

Simulations aren't real, either. So what?

War games aren't real. Are you suggesting that military organizations
practice by starting real wars instead?

But you cannot draw any conclusion for the real world from a game with a
simulated environment.

Actually, I can draw quite a few conclusions, and they will be accurate.

There's an old school that still dismisses simulation, but it's steadily
shrinking.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Stefan Hueneburg writes:

It's still a game and not real.

Simulations aren't real, either. So what?

War games aren't real. Are you suggesting that military organizations
practice by starting real wars instead?

But you cannot draw any conclusion for the real world from a game
with a simulated environment.

Actually, I can draw quite a few conclusions, and they will be
accurate.

There's an old school that still dismisses simulation, but it's
steadily shrinking.

The only "old school" that dismisses simulation is the simulated old school
in your simulated brain.

Real people in the real world understand the pluses and minuses of
simulation and use it where it is a plus.

Real people, unlike you Anthony, are very cognizant of the differences
between the real world and the simulated world and use simulation for a
positive result.

On May 14, 7:39*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Stefan Hueneburg writes:
It's still a game and not real.

Simulations aren't real, either. *So what?

War games aren't real. *Are you suggesting that military organizations
practice by starting real wars instead?

They are not computer simulations, they involve actual people on
manouvers.

Cheers

More_Flaps writes:

They are not computer simulations, they involve actual people on
manouvers.

They are not wars, they are simulations of wars.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Stefan Hueneburg writes:

First, the MSFS is not a real simulation, its a game ...

Rest assured, it's a real simulation. I know that people with an ax
to grind will insist otherwise for a lifetime, but that doesn't change
the reality. Simulators have come a long way, and the mere fact that a
simulator runs on a PC doesn't make it "unreal."



Yes, it does, fjukkwit.


It's the very definition of unreal.


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Stefan Hueneburg writes:

First, the MSFS is not a real simulation, its a game ...

Rest assured, it's a real simulation. I know that people with an ax
to grind will insist otherwise for a lifetime, but that doesn't change
the reality. Simulators have come a long way, and the mere fact that a
simulator runs on a PC doesn't make it "unreal."


MSFS is a real simulation only in a simulated brain.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Rest assured, it's a real simulation. I know that people with an ax to grind
will insist otherwise for a lifetime, but that doesn't change the reality.
Simulators have come a long way, and the mere fact that a simulator runs on a
PC doesn't make it "unreal."


Go to the MS homepage for FS and look at the top left corner of your screen.
Unlike yourself, Microsoft Game Studios is under no illusion that their
product is anything but a computer game.

Since you do not fly, your judgement on the relative reality simulated by
the game would seem to be suspect. I could claim that a nuclear reactor
simulator game I recently played is an accurate simulation of an actual
nuclear reactor. Of course, since I have never actually operated a nuclear
reactor, I realize that such a statement would be just as full of crap as you
are.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com