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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
writes:

Yeah, so what?

So I'm better informed than most of the people arguing with me.

I noticed you snipped the part where you were wrong, i.e. where you
stated
there were only a dozen of so switches and buttons.

It depends on which part of the panel you are looking at. Should I count
everything back to the cockpit door?

God you're stupid.

I've worked on approved PCATDs with 85 x 185 degree visuals and
10-12 bit flight controls. Ive got news for you simmers. Without
experiencing the motion that occurs in turbulence or periodic cross
winds, you don't much of a chance of dealing with them correctly when
they happen. Your instinct from years of driving cars is to turn into
the gust immediately, when the best course of action is to let the
aircraft self correct, then put it back on the average course as
needed. Of course if it flips the wing too far over you have to start
to correct. Its a judgement call that has to be learned, and its not
easy.

I have a friend who takes me up on long cross countries, and while
the sim helps on nav and dealing with the overwhelming visuals, it
does not prepare you to deal with the false motion cues your ears and
eyes can generate. You'll be too fixated on single instruments with no
scan patterns And I'm used to sims with 6 projectors and seamless
visual integration and good flight models.

How can I say this with confidence ? I'm trying to transition
from far better sims then you guys have access to to the real thing. I
need to fix my health some more to pass the medical. While my
"instructor" credits me with a wonderful basic set of nav skills, I'm
constantly "busted" for getting fixated and for overcontrolling as
well as excessive dive/climb rates. I'd like to see you guys correctly
adjust a heading knob and center the needle on the CDI on the first
shot Especially knowing 200 or so lives are depending on you doing it
right while keeping one hand on the yoke. Its not easy, especially if
your trying to talk while doing it.

Steve

wrote in message
...
I've worked on approved PCATDs with 85 x 185 degree visuals and
10-12 bit flight controls. Ive got news for you simmers. Without
experiencing the motion that occurs in turbulence or periodic cross
winds, you don't much of a chance of dealing with them correctly when
they happen. Your instinct from years of driving cars is to turn into
the gust immediately, when the best course of action is to let the
aircraft self correct, then put it back on the average course as
needed. Of course if it flips the wing too far over you have to start
to correct. Its a judgement call that has to be learned, and its not
easy.

I have a friend who takes me up on long cross countries, and while
the sim helps on nav and dealing with the overwhelming visuals, it
does not prepare you to deal with the false motion cues your ears and
eyes can generate. You'll be too fixated on single instruments with no
scan patterns And I'm used to sims with 6 projectors and seamless
visual integration and good flight models.

How can I say this with confidence ? I'm trying to transition
from far better sims then you guys have access to to the real thing. I
need to fix my health some more to pass the medical. While my
"instructor" credits me with a wonderful basic set of nav skills, I'm
constantly "busted" for getting fixated and for overcontrolling as
well as excessive dive/climb rates. I'd like to see you guys correctly
adjust a heading knob and center the needle on the CDI on the first
shot Especially knowing 200 or so lives are depending on you doing it
right while keeping one hand on the yoke. Its not easy, especially if
your trying to talk while doing it.

Steve

Exactly right Steve just as these folks, primarily MX, have been told so
many times before. But these guys would never let actual experience
interfere with their desired perception of reality. Absolutely nothing is
too difficult for a person that never has to actually do it.

This group is primarily made up of actual pilots, that are obviously a bit
above the norm on computer literacy. When these "kids", for lack of a better
word, show up assuming that none of us has any experience with PC based
flight simulation, they might as well stamp "STUPID" on their foreheads. But
Mx, and the occasional supporter from the sim groups, are a dedicated group.
In fact, their persistence does little more than strongly suggest they are
very young and inexperienced at a lot of things. Any real pilot can listen
to one talk as see major contradictions in their statements with what pilots
have learned from experience. The gust factors you mentioned, vertigo,
sudden weightlessness from turbulence, changes in engine/wind noise with
your ears pop, are just the beginning of a very long list of things they can
not, and do not, want to understand.

writes:

I've worked on approved PCATDs with 85 x 185 degree visuals and
10-12 bit flight controls. Ive got news for you simmers. Without
experiencing the motion that occurs in turbulence or periodic cross
winds, you don't much of a chance of dealing with them correctly when
they happen. Your instinct from years of driving cars is to turn into
the gust immediately, when the best course of action is to let the
aircraft self correct, then put it back on the average course as
needed. Of course if it flips the wing too far over you have to start
to correct. Its a judgement call that has to be learned, and its not
easy.

I'm sure it's difficult for some people.

You'll be too fixated on single instruments with no
scan patterns And I'm used to sims with 6 projectors and seamless
visual integration and good flight models.

I scan instruments thoroughly. That's easy to learn in a sim.

I'd like to see you guys correctly
adjust a heading knob and center the needle on the CDI on the first
shot Especially knowing 200 or so lives are depending on you doing it
right while keeping one hand on the yoke. Its not easy, especially if
your trying to talk while doing it.

I don't talk when flying. Maybe that's the problem.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
writes:

I've worked on approved PCATDs with 85 x 185 degree visuals and
10-12 bit flight controls. Ive got news for you simmers. Without
experiencing the motion that occurs in turbulence or periodic cross
winds, you don't much of a chance of dealing with them correctly when
they happen. Your instinct from years of driving cars is to turn into
the gust immediately, when the best course of action is to let the
aircraft self correct, then put it back on the average course as
needed. Of course if it flips the wing too far over you have to start
to correct. Its a judgement call that has to be learned, and its not
easy.

I'm sure it's difficult for some people.

You'll be too fixated on single instruments with no
scan patterns And I'm used to sims with 6 projectors and seamless
visual integration and good flight models.

I scan instruments thoroughly. That's easy to learn in a sim.

I'd like to see you guys correctly
adjust a heading knob and center the needle on the CDI on the first
shot Especially knowing 200 or so lives are depending on you doing it
right while keeping one hand on the yoke. Its not easy, especially if
your trying to talk while doing it.

I don't talk when flying. Maybe that's the problem.

How would you know moron, you don't fly. You have no clue.

Mxsmanic wrote:

I don't talk when flying. Maybe that's the problem.

Unless one is flying an ultralight over a corn field in Nebraska, one
HAS to talk while flying a real airplane.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

Unless one is flying an ultralight over a corn field in Nebraska, one
HAS to talk while flying a real airplane.

There are many situations in which no radio contact with anyone is required.
Indeed, a communications radio itself is not an absolute requirement.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Unless one is flying an ultralight over a corn field in Nebraska, one
HAS to talk while flying a real airplane.

There are many situations in which no radio contact with anyone is required.
Indeed, a communications radio itself is not an absolute requirement.

There are very few places in the US where flying a certified airplane
without a radio is both legal and a wise thing to do, which is why
people with things like old Champs with no electrical system usually
have a handheld.

Sure, with proper planning, one could legally cross the entire country
without a radio, but it would be immensely stupid to do it.

Your absolutist nonsense is just that; nonsense in the real world where
there is no reset button.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Mar 5, 9:27

And now, for something entirely different!

What you don't know about, I have to measure for a living. You fly
code that is barely close to a PCATD. Thats a joke approval wise. You
answer about 10 questions in a 5-10 page document, and you promise to
get reapproval if you make hardware or flight model changes to the
unit. A busy guy from the local FSDO comes out and test flys it for
about 30 minutes to sign you off. Its a formality at best. There are
small minutae in the rules for the quality of the visuals, and how the
flight model has to handle, but no specs on how tight the timing loops
in the software must match the real aircraft.

IN MS, you are always about 150-200 mS , ie one tenth to two tenths
of a second or more behind the flight model on the visuals, and your
flight model is updating every 16.76 ms, and that is tied to the
monitor vertical refresh rate, which is one of the few accurate
timing sources on a PC platform under windows. In fact window's
timing varies all over the place. As a result, they have to do a lot
of fudges in the code to smooth things out. From the 1978 Skyhawk
manual, 65 KIAS is the recommended speed for just about everything.
One knot is 1.68 feet per second. So at 65 knots your doing 109
feet per second. A 200 mS error at 109 feet per second is 22 feet
on the runway distance or roughly 5 feet on a 3 degree glide slope.
So your +/- 10 feet visually off or below the runway in software at
any given time right as your wheels hit.

Lets recalculate that for a F18. FAS.org claims 134 knots
approach, your moving 226 feet per second, and on a 3' glide slope
thats 11 feet. Since your always at least 200 mS behind, you have a
potential error of +/- 22 feet at that airspeed and that update rate.
Moral of the story, FS is helping you land with a software fudge,
because the granularity of your visual corrections is very rough as
you get close to the ground. In a real aircraft, there are cables and
servosystems, they react nearly instantly, but there is no software
fudge on a manual landing. Yet in MSFS, even a 10 year old kid can
hit the edge of the stripes on the runway time after time, because
the visual update rates must be slowed close to the ground. The math
says it has to be, or you would miss the deck by some multiple of 22
feet. IN a real aircraft, there is no 22 foot vertical fudge. Plus
that doesn't include the average human's .1 second reaction rate.

How do we measure that 200 mS delay?, there are a couple of ways.
You can command a max roll on the stick and measure the time to the
aircrafts maximum roll rate analysing the video on a tape frame by
frame. Or you can have a switch on the stick, a special pixel
programmed to flip from black to white, and a digital timer with a
photosensor. I know for a fact the delay on FS04 is roughly 150 mS
minimum from max command input to a visual change. That is a measured
value. FS10 will be no faster, its a hardware thing.

So if we put you in a real aircraft, you've been trained to
compensate for a time lag on all your reactions. That is a Bad thing.

Next up, lets talk about your feel for the controls.

You invariably have a 8 bit control resolution on your joystick,
ie your stick position is one possible position in 256 available.
So lets say your joystick swings +/- 20 degrees, that means you need
to move your stick 7 degrees before the software even notices it. You
move a real yoke 7 degrees and your gonna really be rolling or
pitching. So your already trained to overcontrol if we plop you in
that 747 cockpit. Oh and it gets worse. To smooth things out, you'll
find that in slow flight MS and other simulators condition you to
jerk the controls quite a bit to get motion started in the above
mentioned landing mode. Its control law smoothing, and its done to
make you feel comfortable as you approach the ground, otherwise with
that 200 mS lag, you'd come darn close grinding a wing tip into the
ground from the roll error every time. The real aircraft, other then
control system friction and cable stretching, has unlimited
resolution, and the flight response shows it.

MS does a lot of fudging to make your flight smooth and landings easy.
The real thing doesn't. Heck, with those errors how do you think
people can catch the wire in carrier landings on consumer sim
software, time after time? The answer is the flight model code is
doing it for you. Especially when landing.

Still think you'd make it if we stuck you a in a real plane alone?
Odds are you'd lead or lag in time so much on the landing you'd
break the gear or cartwheel. Your conditioned to do it by the code and
the system timing and control resolution.

I'm curious, is your sim set up so one PC runs the flight model and
controls and the other does the visuals? Or do you just have one
machine and one graphics card? . Because we need one dedicated flight
model machine just to get rid of the lag. And we use 10 bit controls,
and I'm being asked for more resolution.

Oh, dont get me started on flight models. Look at a real Bell 206.
It does have horizontal stabilizers, does it not? If you look closely
the airfoil is inverted on them. Well, most flight models put them in
as flat planes. This causes the aircraft to oscillate in pitch as the
airspeed increases. It took a long while to figure out that the guy
who did the flight model was wrong on that.

In one very popular sim, the rotorcraft model is a cessna 172 body
with a rotor added and the wing removed, and the tail rotor and main
rotors are defined as a thrusters. Because their is no rotor disk in
the form of a wing , Ground effect does not show up on approach.

Your basic sim software is very unlike the real thing.

Steve

On Mar 5, 9:33*pm, wrote:
On Mar 5, 9:27

*And now, for something entirely different!
[snip for brevity]

Great post, Steve!

* Your basic sim software is very unlike the real thing.

Indeed. The Human Factors group here has done extensive research which
bears this out.

Regards,
Jon

"This will end your Windows session. Would you like to play another
game?"