![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mxsmanic wrote:
Bob Myers writes: But the simulator experience you're talking about is absolutely meaningless without real-world flight experience. I don't share that opinion, nor is it widely held. In fact, it's possible to pursue simulation as an end in itself. It does have certain advantages that real flight does not. For that matter, the "simulator" in your case really isn't one. It's a computer game, something which is VERY far removed from what the airlines call a simulator. Clearly, it's been a long time since you last used a desktop simulator. Wrong again. And to think that you were just complaining that *I* had no idea what *you* knew. Mr, Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. MSFS is a computer game. It is by no stretch of the imagination a "flight simulator" in the sense of something that would actually be useful for flight instruction, except possibly re some very basic procedures training. The U.S. military disagrees with you, and has for the past decade (that is, through several versions of MSFS). So do many pilots, flight schools, and instructors. No, they don't disagree with me at all. I know what they're using that game for - do you? And just how many pilot certificates have been awarded based on MSFS hours, do you think? Bob M. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bob Myers writes:
MSFS is a computer game. It's a simulation, which is why Microsoft killed it. The market for simulators is very small. The market for games is very large. It is by no stretch of the imagination a "flight simulator" in the sense of something that would actually be useful for flight instruction, except possibly re some very basic procedures training. As I've said, it is widely used as a learning and training aid. No, they don't disagree with me at all. I know what they're using that game for do you? Yes. And just how many pilot certificates have been awarded based on MSFS hours, do you think? None. In every jurisdiction I know of, you have to have hours in a real aircraft to get a pilot certificate, at least currently. That may change in the future, but even then the requirement will be for full-motion simulators, not desktop simulators. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 26, 8:39*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Bob Myers writes: MSFS is a computer game. It's a simulation, which is why Microsoft killed it. The market for simulators is very small. The market for games is very large. WRONG. Guess you can't even speak for Microsoft correctly. http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulatorx/ READ THE URL. It says GAMES. What part of that do you not understand?????????? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 26, 12:58*pm, " wrote:
On Jun 26, 8:39*am, Mxsmanic wrote: Bob Myers writes: MSFS is a computer game. It's a simulation, which is why Microsoft killed it. The market for simulators is very small. The market for games is very large. WRONG. *Guess you can't even speak for Microsoft correctly. http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulatorx/ READ THE URL. *It says GAMES. *What part of that do you not understand?????????? Lord, you'll NEVER know how I absolutely HATE to chime in on this thread again. 235 postings back and forth, everybody shouting at everybody else with the same old tired song. Man, I mean you guys might actually be going for a Usenet record here :-)))))))))))))))) Kidding aside, about MSFS; there's a right and a wrong to what's being said about it. As someone who actually worked with Microsoft on the program as a realism and fidelity advisor I can speak to the issues at hand directly. Respectfully submitted of course, and with deference to others opinions that might vary, MSFS is neither as bad as some have said here, nor is it as good as others have stated here. Actually, the program is sort of in the middle of it all. As the program exists out of the box, as far as real world aviation training and usage goes, the sim has excellent use as an introductory and sales tool for the training community. Later on, the program has some limited uses as a cross country, procedures, and instrument procedures tool if used PROPERLY and under the direct supervision of a certificated flight or ground instructor. I've always recommended that if the program is indeed present during the student pre-solo period, that it be NOT used between the period of first dual and solo due to the importance of actual aircraft visual cues and actual control pressure vs response interfacing the student with the exact aircraft being used for training. During this period, the use of the sim can actually be detrimental and flatten the learning curve. As for reality, accuracy, and authenticity of the program to actual aircraft, there are limitations as the program exists due to various reasons, among them the need by Microsoft to keep the performance of the program within certain parameters for a targeted end user sales demographic. The depth of fidelity and depth of accuracy of ANY aircraft flight model and systems simply isn't a requirement of the program as designed and marketed. NOW, all this having been said, I can tell you with certainty as I am working on these programs as we speak, that there are after market developers out here designing flight models for add on aircraft for FSX that will define a paradigm shift in fidelity and accuracy in the program. As we speak, I am working on a P51D for FSX that will be using code outside the base sim engine and based on exact aircraft performance data that will come extremely close to being good enough to use as an additional tool in checking someone out in a P51D. The accuracy and system fidelity is so deep on this add on that systems AND the aircraft act dynamically in a standard atmosphere reflecting all temps and pressures associated with flying in that atmosphere. Even this falls a bit short of actual realism as using pressure altitude defines a performance limit not associated with density altitude in a non standard atmosphere. So my word would be not to over emphasize the value of MSFS as a training tool, but to be careful not to under emphasize the program's uses either. Dudley Henriques |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 26, 1:01*pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
So my word would be not to over emphasize the value of MSFS as a training tool, but to be careful not to under emphasize the program's uses either. I have always agreed with you Dudley for what it's worth. When used as a TOOL, it's an outstanding training aid as I have said time after time for learning instrumentation values, IFR procedures and system failures. But it MUST be used in concurrence with a qualified instructor, not like what Mx proposes it does. It doesn't simulate the actual feed back of an airplane needed to be learned to safely fly a plane. It doesn't replace the full motion simulator or a real plane. There won't be a day that I can see one can take lessons on MSFS, walk out to their favorite flight school and safely fly a real plane. Realism, yes, MSFS looks real, key thing is looks. Feels real, I can't say it will ever do that as long as you work on a flat screen monitor using a function key or mouse to look around the sides for peripheral vision. Mx is sadly mistaken to think that MSFS is just like being in a cockpit of a real C172, citation and so on. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 26, 3:17*pm, " wrote:
On Jun 26, 1:01*pm, Dudley Henriques wrote: So my word would be not to over emphasize the value of MSFS as a training tool, but to be careful not to under emphasize the program's uses either. I have always agreed with you Dudley for what it's worth. *When used as a TOOL, it's an outstanding training aid as I have said time after time for learning instrumentation values, *IFR procedures and system failures. But it MUST be used in concurrence with a qualified instructor, not like what Mx proposes it does. *It doesn't simulate the actual feed back of an airplane needed to be learned to safely fly a plane. *It doesn't replace the full motion simulator or a real plane. *There won't be a day that I can see one can take lessons on MSFS, walk out to their favorite flight school and safely fly a real plane. Realism, yes, MSFS looks real, key thing is looks. Feels real, I can't say it will ever do that as long as you work on a flat screen monitor using a function key or mouse to look around the sides for peripheral vision. *Mx is sadly mistaken to think that MSFS is just like being in a cockpit of a real C172, citation and so on. I hesitate to say it as I REALLY don't want to get in the ring with the Mx thing but I will say that if his comment is that MSFS in ANY capacity can take the place of the actual aircraft for training purposes, I would have to professionally disagree with him on that basis alone. DH |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 27, 9:05*am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
I hesitate to say it as I REALLY don't want to get in the ring with the Mx thing but I will say that if his comment is that MSFS in ANY capacity can take the place of the actual aircraft for training purposes, I would have to professionally disagree with him on that basis alone. DH Sadly with him its an all or nothing world. I came from an age where people learnt to fly on instruments in a Link trainer |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 11:01:22 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Lord, you'll NEVER know how I absolutely HATE to chime in on this thread again. 235 postings back and forth, everybody shouting at everybody else with the same old tired song. Man, I mean you guys might actually be going for a Usenet record here :-)))))))))))))))) If so, we have a loooong way to go. Here's one of the middling-length *ahem* "discussions" I've seen on Usenet: http://groups.google.com/group/comp....browse_thread/ thread/ce27f65ea7256d97 "Messages 1 - 25 of 5277" should be your first hint of how far we still have to go here. :-) If you browse that thread, you'll see it all: flames of all kinds, from horrible sex-related accusations to the usual assortment of epithets ("idiot", "retard", "nutcase", etc.) and swear words; star ratings on Google Groups that show clear signs of heavy voting by multiple participants on each side (e.g. 3-star ratings with 9 or 10 voters -- nobody actually votes three stars and hardly anyone votes anything but one or five); the same points being reiterated hundreds of times. It's a vi/emacs editor war of course, via topic drift about thirty posts in. Abortion and gun control can't hold a candle to which editor is best when measured by how much passionate debate they can generate in a single usenet thread. The twist, if you'll pardon the pun, is that there's a third side in this editor war advocating Windows GUI editors over both traditional Unix editors, for some reason unfathomable to the computer geek mind. Me? I use vi. And I mostly stay out of editor war threads, though sometimes I lurk in them. This one bored me by about the 300th post, but eventually I got mildly interested again when I kept seeing it bumped to the top of my newsreader even after much of a whole year had passed. It actually has MORE than the listed 5277 posts: by mutual agreement the participants stopped cluttering up cljp with this crap and moved the discussion over to alt.offtopic. Google's archive for that group is *dominated* by the results, another several thousand posts spread among a couple of dozen threads mostly titled "Lies, damn lies and statistics". Subsequently, it seems to have petered out gradually, terminating this January. Yes, that makes it a single editor war that lasted almost two and a half full years and consists of around 8000 individual posts, some of them quite long. (For those that are curious, the last words were "I wouldn't know. I've never tried it. Why the wild tangent? Picking up some more bad habits from Bent?" posted by someone calling himself "Handkea fumosa", which Google tells me is some kind of puffball fungus that grows in California. It was a comeback in response to "How does it feel sticking your head into the sand?" posted by a vi advocate that was there from the very start in August 2007. But the insult exchange that ended the debate apparently arose from discussion not of vi but of emacs.) So to beat that, we'd have to debate the relative merits of Microsoft Flight Simulator vs. *real* aeronautical training until Mayan doomsday (literally) and destroy several whole newsgroups. And I've seen *worse*, elsewhere on Usenet. More than once. The most recent actually-worse one was in alt.conspiracy and involved 9/11 "truthers" vs. their debunkers. It exceeded 10,000 posts. Rumors exist of flamewars exceeding 20,000 posts, however. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pilot nearly crashes in IMC, Controller helps | pimenthal | Piloting | 32 | September 27th 05 01:06 PM |
Aviation Conspiracy: Toronto Plane Pilot Was Allowed To Land In "Red Alert" Weather | Bill Mulcahy | General Aviation | 24 | August 19th 05 10:48 PM |
2 pilot/small airplane CRM | Mitty | Instrument Flight Rules | 35 | September 1st 04 11:19 PM |
non-pilot lands airplane | Cub Driver | Piloting | 3 | August 14th 04 12:08 AM |
Home Builders are Sick Sick Puppies | pacplyer | Home Built | 11 | March 26th 04 12:39 AM |