Simulators

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.

I know since I have real world experience AND MSFS experience. You
don't since you don't fly a real plane.

From what you've said in the past, it doesn't sound like you have any serious
simulation experience, although I suppose you've toyed with MSFS from time to
time.

There's quite a broad spectrum of MSFS users, from kiddie gamers to people who
spend more on their simulators than they would have to spend to get their
ATPLs.

So, why not post into the sim groups and say you fly a baron then
rec.aviatoin.piloting. You don't fly a baron, you simulate flying a
baron.

Flight is flight. Most of the differences between simulation and the real
world tend to be insignificant in the wide world of aviation.

Since my last post, I've flown three times: a round trip of only nine miles
each way (which taught me that nine miles isn't far enough for a Bonanza), and
a 48-minute trip from Phoenix to Palm Springs, which went well until SoCal
Approach dragged its feet getting me below 11000 and forced me to go around.
At least I got some hand-flying practice in the Citation from that latter
flight.

I am dubitative of the pertinence of one’s expertise in simulation having
never experienced the genuine activity being simulated. However, we’ve
explored the possibility that mitigating factors, be they medical, pecuniary
or other could make this the only real option. This is fine, however to
profess any sort of expertise in the matter this shortfall would have to be
compensated by an even greater study of the subject. This does not appear to
be the case with MX.



Flight is flight. Most of the differences between simulation and the real
world tend to be insignificant in the wide world of aviation.



This statement is an open gate to a vast sea of ignorance. The topic of
transfer of experience from simulation to real flight, the role of _realism_
and its subset of components (visual, motion, audio, cockpit resource
management, I could go on and on) are the subject of a large number of
published scholarly works and an even greater number of doctoral theses. All
of this ongoing study is tacitly predicated on the assumption that the above
statement is impertinent at best, and probably patently false.


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.

Another statement that reveals a very shallow depth of inquiry and a
superficial understanding of simulation, aside the fact that it is simply
untrue.

I do not contest the right of any enthusiast to delve into simulation to
extract whatever pleasure and learning they may. It is a low-cost, zero-risk
way of learning a lot about aviation and getting a lot of enjoyment out of it.
This is perfectly legitimate, and I have no criticism of MX or any contributor
her to put in and get out whatever they wish from these desktop simulators.
There is a serious side to simulation though, and is clear that MX is not well
versed in the subject. So while he is free to post his observations, based on
his many hours of experience, we cannot consider his view to be that of one
knowledgeable about simulation.

VOR-DME writes:

I am dubitative of the pertinence of one’s expertise in simulation having
never experienced the genuine activity being simulated. However, we’ve
explored the possibility that mitigating factors, be they medical, pecuniary
or other could make this the only real option. This is fine, however to
profess any sort of expertise in the matter this shortfall would have to be
compensated by an even greater study of the subject. This does not appear to
be the case with MX.

My posts are too few on USENET to make any assessment possible. I've been
interested in aviation and have studied it since childhood, and I recall
reading my first ground-school textbook at the age of around six (it belonged
to my father).

This statement is an open gate to a vast sea of ignorance. The topic of
transfer of experience from simulation to real flight, the role of _realism_
and its subset of components (visual, motion, audio, cockpit resource
management, I could go on and on) are the subject of a large number of
published scholarly works and an even greater number of doctoral theses. All
of this ongoing study is tacitly predicated on the assumption that the above
statement is impertinent at best, and probably patently false.

The role of simulation in training and research continues to increase. If it
were not realistic, this would not be the case.

Some pilots have a great deal of their self-esteem invested in their pilot
licenses. These pilots tend to reject simulation summarily because it dilutes
the prestige they imagine to be associated with their licensing and thus dents
their egos. Not all pilots have this type of mental block against simulation,
however, and those who do not may enjoy simulation greatly (albeit not as much
as flying in a real airplane). Most pilots cannot afford to fly a real
airplane during all of their waking hours, so those who reject simulation are
denying themselves considerable aviation-related enjoyment.

Another statement that reveals a very shallow depth of inquiry and a
superficial understanding of simulation, aside the fact that it is simply
untrue.

Some people adapt better than others.

I note that those who refuse to take simulation seriously never enjoy it,
whereas those who do take it seriously find it great fun and sometimes useful
in practical ways that apply to their flights in real aircraft.

There is a serious side to simulation though, and is clear that MX is not well
versed in the subject.

How so?

Mxsmanic wrote:

The role of simulation in training and research continues to increase. If it
were not realistic, this would not be the case.

Bull****.

While realism in training using simulation is desirable, simulation is used
because it is either cheaper than the real thing or too dangerous to do the
real thing.

You are delusional.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On May 16, 5:41*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

Some pilots have a great deal of their self-esteem invested in their pilot
licenses. These pilots tend to reject simulation summarily because it dilutes
the prestige

Actually, like I said, I teach in both simulators AND in airplanes,
and you're full of ****.

Not all pilots have this type of mental block against simulation, however, and those who do not may enjoy simulation greatly

Exactly, but that doesn't make you any less full of ****.

Most pilots cannot afford to fly a real airplane during all of their waking hours,

I get paid to fly airplanes but you're still full of ****.

I note that those who refuse to take simulation seriously never enjoy it,
whereas those who do take it seriously find it great fun

Actually people who take simulation seriously sweat profusely.
Occasionally they become "airsick" which is why there's a barf bag
within arm's reach. One time, a guy took it so seriously he freaked
out and yanked the throttle control right out of the simulator
cockpit.

There is a serious side to simulation though, and is clear that MX is not well versed in the subject. *

How so?

Go hop in a Cessna or a Piper and learn for yourself. Until then, you
remain full of ****.

-c
CFI/CP-ASEL-IA

Alpha Propellerhead writes:

Actually people who take simulation seriously sweat profusely.
Occasionally they become "airsick" which is why there's a barf bag
within arm's reach. One time, a guy took it so seriously he freaked
out and yanked the throttle control right out of the simulator
cockpit.

These would be unusual reactions to normal flight regimes.

On May 18, 1:20*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Alpha Propellerhead writes:
Actually people who take simulation seriously sweat profusely.
Occasionally they become "airsick" which is why there's a barf bag
within arm's reach. One time, a guy took it so seriously he freaked
out and yanked the throttle control right out of the simulator
cockpit.

These would be unusual reactions to normal flight regimes.

They're not normal flight regimes, tard. We teach stalls and spin
recovery, zero-visibility, turbulence and every simulated system
failure we can think of so that REAL pilots know how to keep cool if
REAL problems happen in REAL AIRPLANES when they're REALLY flying.

That all flew right over your head, but, don't worry. I understand
perfectly. You play video games and think it equates to the real
thing even when people who play the same games AND do the real thing
tell you otherwise. You played Battlefield 1942 and you think you're
George freakin' Patton. *shrug*

VOR-DME wrote:
I am dubitative of the pertinence of one’s expertise
in simulation ... /snip/

In Snooker playing circles, I believe this is called
"putting on the English..." :-)

Brian W

On May 16, 12:17*am, 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.

I know since I have real world experience AND MSFS experience. You
don't since you don't fly a real plane.

From what you've said in the past, it doesn't sound like you have any serious
simulation experience, although I suppose you've toyed with MSFS from time to
time.

There's quite a broad spectrum of MSFS users, from kiddie gamers to people who
spend more on their simulators than they would have to spend to get their
ATPLs.

So, why not post into the sim groups and say you fly a baron then
rec.aviatoin.piloting. *You don't fly a baron, you simulate flying a
baron.

Flight is flight. Most of the differences between simulation and the real
world tend to be insignificant in the wide world of aviation.

Since my last post, I've flown three times: a round trip of only nine miles
each way (which taught me that nine miles isn't far enough for a Bonanza), and
a 48-minute trip from Phoenix to Palm Springs, which went well until SoCal
Approach dragged its feet getting me below 11000 and forced me to go around.
At least I got some hand-flying practice in the Citation from that latter
flight.

MX wrote

Flight is flight. Most of the differences between simulation and the
real
world tend to be insignificant in the wide world of aviation.

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.

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.

And some play computer games.

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.

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.