*********A DEFENCE FOR MXMORAN***********

"Ibby" wrote in message
...
Perhaps a sock,,,,, for ??????????? you-know-who????????

You couldn't convince me otherwise, without a very solid proof.

It is the same 'ole-same-'ole with a different name, it seems to me.

;-))
--
Jim in NC

Morgan

First time on here but some ppl here no my name like ManhattanMan
(Don) for one and Beech45Whiskey (Peter).
I'm not French (thank God, I'm Irish). As I've just said to Jim I'm
trying to add some constructive defense to FSX. yes it's perhaps not
perfect but it does have its benefits and with the correct quality
payware (additional purchased software) it is highly detailed and has
very well modelled and detailed flightdecks with fully operational
systems etc.

Ibby

------------------------------------

If you think a computer literate group of pilots needs you take on the value
of MSFS, then you are as full of yourself (and ****) as Mx.

I can assure you, we can function quite well without your and Mixie's
chatter. If we want to discuss such, which obviously we don't, we prefer to
do it with experience pilots. We don't need some wanna be offering
speculation disguised as fact, and then arguing like a 10 year old when he
finds he is wrong.

If you think a computer literate group of pilots needs you take on the value
of MSFS, then you are as full of yourself (and ****) as Mx.


So are you saying this
http://www.carenado.com/pages/C172FSX/1024X768/3.jpg
DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THIS
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...o, _2006).jpg

or
http://www.precisionmanuals.com/priv.../744_5_jpg.htm
looks like this
http://www.hoppie.nl/pic/747jh008.jpg

or

http://www.precisionmanuals.com/priv.../744_3_jpg.htm
look like this
http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices.../747400-04.jpg
or
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...light_deck.jpg

My 'contribution' to this group was in defense to how well some
software vendors affiliated with MSFS can model both the
photorealistic look and systems available on flightdecks. But NONE of
that matters on here. I'm not full of ****, I KNOW it takes skill to
pilot an aircraft especially if flown by HAND but I also do know that
coupled with an autopilot certain portions of flying have been made
easier via the advancement of technology on most aircraft and
commercial airlines make full use of this technology, otherwise what
is the point of automation?

Ibby

"Ibby" wrote in message
...

If you think a computer literate group of pilots needs you take on the
value
of MSFS, then you are as full of yourself (and ****) as Mx.


So are you saying this
http://www.carenado.com/pages/C172FSX/1024X768/3.jpg
DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THIS
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...o, _2006).jpg

or
http://www.precisionmanuals.com/priv.../744_5_jpg.htm
looks like this
http://www.hoppie.nl/pic/747jh008.jpg

or

http://www.precisionmanuals.com/priv.../744_3_jpg.htm
look like this
http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices.../747400-04.jpg
or
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...light_deck.jpg

My 'contribution' to this group was in defense to how well some
software vendors affiliated with MSFS can model both the
photorealistic look and systems available on flightdecks. But NONE of
that matters on here. I'm not full of ****, I KNOW it takes skill to
pilot an aircraft especially if flown by HAND but I also do know that
coupled with an autopilot certain portions of flying have been made
easier via the advancement of technology on most aircraft and
commercial airlines make full use of this technology, otherwise what
is the point of automation?

Ibby



No dumb ass, I'm saying:
If you think a computer literate group of pilots needs you take on the
value
of MSFS, then you are as full of yourself (and ****) as Mx.
Can you not read.