Simulators

a writes:

When my most important customer is having some difficulties, I do NOT
simulate a flight to Rochester NY. I file an IFR flight plan, and go
there. That is, at least to my pragmatic way of thinking, a
significant difference.

If you regard flight as only transportation, then I agree. But if all you want
is transportation, simulation is irrelevant. In fact, you can drive a car and
avoid aviation entirely.

My guess is a significant number of us use are ability to fly to
enhance our quality of life by going to interesting places, others do
that by enjoying the aesthetics of soaring.

I don't think that someone who simply wants to get somewhere would decide to
become a pilot and fly there himself. That's an incredibly awkward, expensive
way to travel. People who become pilots usually have some intrinsic interest
in flying. On rare occasions, a person might become a pilot because he has
some extremely specific need for transportation that only an airplane can
provide (as when he must travel to rural areas of Alaska, for example).

For me, travel is a downside to real-world aviation. I hate travel. I don't
want to go anywhere. In fact, having to actually go somewhere is an excellent
reason to avoid flying for real in my book. A huge advantage of simulation for
me is that I can fly without the need to step outside my room.

Perhaps to some the pleasures are equivalent. To some of us, they are
not. For some of us, there's not an important overlap in learning
opportunity, To be lectured by one who has experienced only one side
as to its relevance is, well, you can fill in whatever word or phrase
you choose.

I note that people who are hostile towards me here always resent being told
anything by anyone else. They are very conscious of a semi-imaginary
hierarchy, like a treehouse club. They lord it over people whom they consider
inferior, and they grovel before people whom they consider superior (if any).
And they worry a lot about what other people think of them in general.

On May 16, 8:47*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
a writes:
When my most important customer is having some difficulties, I do NOT
simulate a flight to Rochester NY. I file an IFR flight plan, and go
there. That is, at least to my pragmatic way of thinking, a
significant difference.

If you regard flight as only transportation, then I agree. But if all you want
is transportation, simulation is irrelevant. In fact, you can drive a car and
avoid aviation entirely.

My guess is a significant number of us use are ability to fly to
enhance our quality of life by going to interesting places, others do
that by enjoying the aesthetics of soaring.

I don't think that someone who simply wants to get somewhere would decide to
become a pilot and fly there himself. That's an incredibly awkward, expensive
way to travel. People who become pilots usually have some intrinsic interest
in flying. On rare occasions, a person might become a pilot because he has
some extremely specific need for transportation that only an airplane can
provide (as when he must travel to rural areas of Alaska, for example).

For me, travel is a downside to real-world aviation. I hate travel. I don't
want to go anywhere. In fact, having to actually go somewhere is an excellent
reason to avoid flying for real in my book. A huge advantage of simulation for
me is that I can fly without the need to step outside my room.

Perhaps to some the pleasures are equivalent. To some of us, they are
not. For some of us, there's not an important overlap in learning
opportunity, *To be lectured by one who has experienced only one side
as to its relevance is, well, you can fill in whatever word or phrase
you choose.

I note that people who are hostile towards me here always resent being told
anything by anyone else. They are very conscious of a semi-imaginary
hierarchy, like a treehouse club. They lord it over people whom they consider
inferior, and they grovel before people whom they consider superior (if any).
And they worry a lot about what other people think of them in general.

MX wrote


I note that people who are hostile towards me here always resent being
told
anything by anyone else. They are very conscious of a semi-imaginary
hierarchy, like a treehouse club. They lord it over people whom they
consider
inferior, and they grovel before people whom they consider superior
(if any).
And they worry a lot about what other people think of them in
general.

Rather defensive, aren't you? I take pleasure in flying, and in
driving. You, having no PIC (actual) have little real world aviation
experience to draw on. "I read" or "I simulated" does not carry much
credibility, and to those ignorant but eager to learn of the realities
of general aviation would be prudent to consider the source of advice
and/or teachings. Your pontifications are sometimes right, other times
wrong. The reactions those statements draw help the inexperienced
reader evaluate them.

I've gotten useful ideas from this newsgroup, but not from you. Some
suggestions I've posted have become part of other aviator's
checklists, and that's a nice form of payback. I suspect it's a reward
you don't often get, but I could be wrong.

In article ,
says...

I don't think that someone who simply wants to get somewhere would decide to
become a pilot and fly there himself. That's an incredibly awkward, expensive
way to travel. People who become pilots usually have some intrinsic interest
in flying. On rare occasions, a person might become a pilot because he has
some extremely specific need for transportation that only an airplane can
provide (as when he must travel to rural areas of Alaska, for example).



It’s not really the topic of this thread, but I fully agree with that. Anyone
who is tempted to get into aviation in a pragmatic desire to solve a specific
transportation need (outside of Alaska or the Outback of Australia or
something) is probably going to come up short on the goods, and the initial
expressed need will not suffice to get him/her through the whole process of
getting and maintaining all the proficiency needed to do this successfully.
And if they do slug it out, still focused on that travel need and never
developing a passion for aviation, they are likely to make poor pilots. Their
initial decision was probably a poor one, and others are likely to follow.
However, someone passionate about aviation, motivated enough to go through the
whole thing, and who flies regularly. Someone to whom filing an IFR flight
plan and flying off somewhere is completely a non-event, is likely to procure
a huge amount of flexibility, a greatly widened operational footprint and the
satisfaction of being spared the grind of long drives and the belittling
aggravation that airline travel has become.

On May 16, 5:47*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

I note that people who are hostile towards me here always resent being told
anything by anyone else. They are very conscious of a semi-imaginary
hierarchy, like a treehouse club.


Actually, they're pilots and you're a fraud with a mental/social
disorder. That's all.

I don't mind being told things by others. They're hostile to you
because you're a fake. You talk about things with which you have no
experience as if you're an expert, and argue with literally ANYBODY
who disagrees with you, regardless of their experience. And yet you
continue to have no relevant experience in an actual airplane.

So it's kind of like walking into a doctor's conference with some
journal you read or a printout of something you found on the internet,
and telling the surgeon and staff that you're right and that if they
disagree, they're simply being hostile toward you.

Like playing a video game and then arguing with combat veterans about
what it's like to fight a war.

It's really that simple. Believe it or not, you actually ARE that
screwed in the head. Go out and log a few hours with an instructor and
people's opinions of you will change radically here. Not only that,
but you'll be able to demonstrate that you've flown a plane without
being a liar.

On May 15, 11:17*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
Yep, while some people are serious about simulation, there is nothing
serious about simulation as you would think it would relate to the
real world of flying.

I don't understand.

FINALLY YOU ADMIT SOMETHING I AGREE WITH.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Flight is flight.

Nope, flight means leaving the ground.

Since my last post, I've flown three times:

Nope, you sat in a chair in front of a PC running MSFS.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

A real airplane doesn't have a mouse to click.

So? A person would have to be quite impaired cognitively in order to be unable
to adapt between a mouse click and the turn of a knob or the flip of a switch.

A real airplane doesn't have a mouse to click or keyboard sequences to look
out the side windows.

So it isn't realistic.

Realism isn't a binary value. There are many degrees of realism. Every
simulation is realistic to some degree. No simulation is completely realistic
or unrealistic. The limits of realism can be a good thing or a bad thing,
depending on which aspects of realism are affected and the objectives of the
simulation.

If I turn my head full left in a real airplane I have a left hand view
directly in front of my face.

TrackIR moves the image on the monitor in front of you. To simulate reality,
TrackIR would have to physically move the monitor to my left to track my
head turning. TrackIR does not do that.

So?

So it is nowhere near a realistic simulation of flying a real airplane.

The above has nothting to do with field of view and field of view is very
important to VFR flying, especially in operations on and around an airport.

Not everyone chooses to fly VFR.

That comment has even less to do with the subject at hand than your previous
comment about field of view.

No, because seeing things to your side and to your side and below is a
big pain in the ass pushing buttons to change the view.

I don't find it so.

Of course not because you are playing a game, not flying a real airplane
with no clue how important side vision is in some phases of flight.

Not in MFSF and not anything else unless you have a 360 degree screen.

The twist axis on my control stick allows me to look directly behind the
aircraft if I feel so inclined. I only use this capability on rare occasions
because it's not very realistic.

Yet another comment that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

A lot of landmarks in real flying will be beside you.

If they are beside me, I look to the side.

After pushing some buttons to look to the side than pushing buttons again
to look ahead again.

I have a real airplane and already know how to fly.

MSFS is nothing like flying my airplane.

If you only use MSFS to buzz the Las Vegas strip, I can understand why you
might feel that way. But some people are serious about simulation.

I feel that way because MSFS controls, even the expensive ones, feel nothing
like a real airplane, MSFS does not taxi like a real airplane, none of the
physical forces feel like a real airplane, none of the panel controls work
like a real airplane, and having a monitor in front of me looks nothing
like the view in a real airplane.

The people that are truely serious about simulation, like the Air Force and
airlines, don't use MSFS.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

A real airplane doesn't have a mouse to click or keyboard sequences to look
out the side windows.

So?

Things change from one aircraft to another. Lots and lots of things. Things
also change between a sim and a real aircraft. The adaptation process is the
same for both cases. Press a button, click a mouse, turn a lever--it's easy to
change.

So it is nowhere near a realistic simulation of flying a real airplane.

How do you quantify "nowhere near"?

That comment has even less to do with the subject at hand than your previous
comment about field of view.

Not really. Some people like to fly IFR. Some people like systems and
procedures, or navigation, or all sorts of other things besides bouncing
around or looking out the window. Aviation has many attractions.

Of course not because you are playing a game, not flying a real airplane
with no clue how important side vision is in some phases of flight.

No, it's just that I adapt easily.

The twist axis on my control stick allows me to look directly behind the
aircraft if I feel so inclined. I only use this capability on rare occasions
because it's not very realistic.

Yet another comment that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

You just said that side vision is important, and now you're dismissing it in
the sim. You can't have it both ways. Is it important or not?

After pushing some buttons to look to the side than pushing buttons again
to look ahead again.

I just twist the control stick, which I already have in my hand if I'm flying
by hand.

I feel that way because MSFS controls, even the expensive ones, feel nothing
like a real airplane ...

The controls of a real airplane feel nothing like the controls of other real
airplanes. Every airplane is different. You're attaching far too much
importance to this.

It seems that flying for you is mostly a visceral experience. It isn't for me.
Motion and wind and control feel are mostly distractions. I operate other
vehicles in the same way.

MSFS does not taxi like a real airplane, none of the
physical forces feel like a real airplane, none of the panel controls work
like a real airplane, and having a monitor in front of me looks nothing
like the view in a real airplane.

Real airplanes do not taxi alike, either.

The people that are truely serious about simulation, like the Air Force and
airlines, don't use MSFS.

Actually, some organizations in the military do use MSFS. Perhaps they are
more open-minded than some pilots here.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

A real airplane doesn't have a mouse to click or keyboard sequences to look
out the side windows.

So?

So it invalidates your contention that a pilot trained to fly a real C-172
could just sit down and fly a MSFS C-172 because the simulation is so
realistic.

The simulation is not realistic for many reasons and the pilot would need
MSFS specific training to make a lot of stuff work.

MSFS does not taxi like a real airplane, none of the
physical forces feel like a real airplane, none of the panel controls work
like a real airplane, and having a monitor in front of me looks nothing
like the view in a real airplane.

Real airplanes do not taxi alike, either.

MSFS does not taxit like any real airplane.

A MSFS C-172 does not taxi like a real C-172, nor do any of the other
MSFS airplanes I've tryed.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

So it invalidates your contention that a pilot trained to fly a real C-172
could just sit down and fly a MSFS C-172 because the simulation is so
realistic.

A lot of pilots manage to do this. What's their secret?

The simulation is not realistic for many reasons and the pilot would need
MSFS specific training to make a lot of stuff work.

Hardly. A lot of pilots can just sit in front of it and fly it.

MSFS does not taxit like any real airplane.

That depends on the aircraft.

A MSFS C-172 does not taxi like a real C-172, nor do any of the other
MSFS airplanes I've tryed.

Exactly which aircraft have you tried?