![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
More_Flaps writes:
They are not computer simulations, they involve actual people on manouvers. They are not wars, they are simulations of wars. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Uncontrolled Engine Compartment Fire Possible for Cessna 172R, 172S, 182T, T182T, 206H, and T206H Models | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 0 | April 19th 07 04:31 PM |
'99-'00 172R vs 172SP: R is good? or the weak little brother? | XrayYankee | Owning | 9 | May 1st 06 06:07 AM |
C-172R to SP upgrade | Greg Farris | Owning | 5 | May 6th 05 10:17 AM |
172P vs 172R for instrument platform..... | Jonathan | Instrument Flight Rules | 6 | July 22nd 04 01:52 AM |
FS: 1997 Cessna 172R | Alan Adamson | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | June 1st 04 12:57 PM |