Simulators

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?

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

MSFS does not taxit like any real airplane.

That depends on the aircraft.

Nope.

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?

Irrelevant; that the C-172 doesn't is sufficient to prove the point.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

Nope.

Yup. Different aircraft taxi in different ways, and this is simulated,
particularly by add-on aircraft.

Irrelevant; that the C-172 doesn't is sufficient to prove the point.

I'm afraid not. You would know this if you had flown a large selection of
aircraft in the sim.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Nope.

Yup. Different aircraft taxi in different ways, and this is simulated,
particularly by add-on aircraft.

That wasn't what the nope was about.

The nope was nope, MSFS doesn't taxi in any airplane like a real airplane.

Irrelevant; that the C-172 doesn't is sufficient to prove the point.

I'm afraid not. You would know this if you had flown a large selection of
aircraft in the sim.

I'm afraid so. You would know this if you had ever actually done anything
at the controls of a real airplane.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

To MX: Son, you're way too defensive. And (in my humble opinion) taking this
MS simulator much too seriously. There's absolutely nothing wrong with
sim-flying as a harmless hobby. But you're trying to interlace it with the
real thing too rigidly, and thin out the dividing line. Real pilots get lost
and lose their planes, and sometimes their ass, in a farmer's cornfield.
Flatlanders too frequently fly into mountain sides in setting up IFR
approaches too low in mountainous country ( we once had three that flew into
the same mountain in a fairly short period). Pilots die as a result of major
lapses in judgement. I'm not saying that's part of the appeal, but it tends
to sharpen attention, and increase the heart rate. I think that difference
is why you attract some criticism. You do, however, stir up conversation
with some of your comments.

As to "avoiding" having to recover from unusual attitudes, etc., that is
what learning to fly is all about. Every pilot that has ever solo'd has
balooned on round-out, or had a puff of wind baloon you at near stall speed
on landing. You're expected to recover instantly and without a drop of sweat
or a seconds thought. How about you inadvertently come in too close behind a
big transport, and wing tip vortex rolls you upside down 30 feet off the
runway? Something I have experienced many times during training sessions -
you're doing a climbing turn, say to the right, air speed in marginal and
coordination is sloppy. Suddenly the top wing looses lift and the plane
whips violently to the left, and you find yourself nearly vertical and
inverted? (I never could intentionally duplicate this, but I didn't try too
hard, anyone want to explain?). Don't tell me these things never happen to a
seasoned pilot. With proper training, these things become incidents, not
disasters. And panic creates disasters.

I have entered two posts, and am delighted at the responses. Just goes to
show - post something of aeronotical interest and you wake up the pilots
here. Let's keep it up!

birdog writes:

To MX: Son, you're way too defensive.

I don't have to be defensive, since I'm not offended.

Pilots die as a result of major lapses in judgement. I'm not saying
that's part of the appeal, but it tends to sharpen attention, and
increase the heart rate.

If a pilot needs fear of death to fly correctly and safely, he has a serious
psychological problem. And if the risk of death is part of the appeal of
flying for him, he also has a serious problem. Both of these are highly
correlated with poor piloting.

Don't tell me these things never happen to a
seasoned pilot. With proper training, these things become incidents, not
disasters. And panic creates disasters.

How do you train for things that are inherently very dangerous?

On May 17, 8:19*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

How do you train for things that are inherently very dangerous?

By flying and training with instructors who actually fly..