MS Flight Sim As a Training Tool

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

A physics engine can take the necessary variables and create a simulated
reality that can be significantly more flexible than a table based
system.

True, which is why something like X-Plane can work for craft that
aren't ordinary airplanes. But for ordinary airplanes, you can take
shortcuts and get identical results.


This might be true if MSFS only tried to simulate one or two aircraft in a
limited amount of flight evelopes but it doesn't. It cuts corners so it can
simulate everything from an ultalight to a 747.

And because it trys to model so many aircraft MSFS would be the best example
of where a well designed physics engine would be useful. The problem is MS
for some reason I can't quite figure out wnats to use all the CPU cycles to
run the graphics and not just the physics of the enviroment but much of the
rendering as well. Instead of designing the software to offload the graphics
to a dedicated graphics card.


Many of those of us that actually fly aircraft have told you many times
that
MSFS doesn't correctly simulate real flight correctly. What's arbitrary
in
that?

Many of those who fly aircraft have little or no experience with
flight simulation. I think it's a macho thing.



Well this doesn't apply to me. I've owned every version of MSFS, except for
X, since the one I bought the day I bought an Apple IIe.

I did download the X demo and I was really unimpressed. Since there were so
few planes on the Demo I tried out the ultralight which I had never done on
any of the other versions for some reason. I set the realizam to full and
the weather as bad as possible and was still able to fly the little guy. It
should have ripped the thing apart or at very least blown me over.

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Many of those of us that actually fly aircraft have told you many
times that MSFS doesn't correctly simulate real flight correctly.
What's arbitrary in that?

Many of those who fly aircraft have little or no experience with
flight simulation. I think it's a macho thing.

Some of us have a lot more sim experience than anyone whose sim experience
began with the use of personal computers. And, we, too have told you that
MSFS isn't all that correct in its representation of flight. Yes, it's can
be fun, interesting and useful to those who also fly real planes, but
that's a different matter altogether.

Neil

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...

I shot a full approach into Cedar Rapids (CID) terminating in an ILS to
Rwy 9 at minimums. By the time I broke out, after flying the published
procedure, I was sweating! This thing was just plain as real as it gets,
and (in my rusty, haven't practiced instrument flight in a long
while) I was working my butt off.

Yep. I often shoot practice approaches on FS2004 before doing the exact
approaches in the actual airplane, or if the weather isn't complaint
(Columbia Gorge winds, usually) and I have to cancel a practice flight.


-c

"Jon Kraus" wrote in message
...
Oh really. Have you flown in any clouds so you can make that statement
honestly?

Yes.

I agree with Jay. I used MFS2004 to practice a VFR flight from TTD to Paine
Field, and then set it to real-time weather (IFR) to fly back.

The next day, I made the actual flight. The flight sim didn't model the C-7
that I got to see popping out of one cloud and disappearing into another or
possible spatial disorientation issues, but on the IFR panel on the sim you
have to ignore physical stimulus (lack thereof) and you're pretty much under
the hood.

-c

wrote in message
ps.com...
Really?

Spin the plane, stall it and put it in a spin... the models are not
full, it won't do a spin.

Neither will the Arrow II that I fly. At least, it's not approved for
spins. So what's the difference?

-c

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
.. .

Some of us have a lot more sim experience than anyone whose sim experience
began with the use of personal computers. And, we, too have told you that
MSFS isn't all that correct in its representation of flight.

Okay. I'm IFR rated and on occasion when I can't fly, I take my approach
plates and shoot them in FS2004 in the Mooney or C-172.

It allows me to remember to set and ident freqs, follow the instruments,
time the approach (I use my kneeboard and timer), plan the course with an
E6B and fly it with a sectional. Teaches reliance on the instruments (you
can simulate instrument failures), reinforces use of checklists such as
GUMPS and procedures for radio navigation as well as remain sharp on
concepts such as reverse sensing and maintaing course headings.

My flying experience began in high school on the first MS Flight Simulator.
It helped me through groundschool and my private because I was already
familiar with navigating using one or two VORs and quickly interpreting and
responding to instruments.

I highly recommend it. It won't make you, say, IFR current, but it'll sure
polish your edge for much less than it costs to shoot practice approaches
each month.

I guess that's why they have flight simlators.

-c

"gatt" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ps.com...
Really?

Spin the plane, stall it and put it in a spin... the models are not
full, it won't do a spin.

Neither will the Arrow II that I fly. At least, it's not approved for
spins. So what's the difference?

-c


It is an example that there is a problem with the flight model. If there is
a problem there where else is there a problem.

That said, the X-Plane reviews for the home PC are pretty darn good.

If it makes you feel any better, we're running X-plane on the Kiwi,
too.

I find it no different to "fly" than MS FS2004 in most ways -- but
much, much harder to use. The user interface is simply inferior, which
(I suppose) is due to the awesome flexibility it offers.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
.. .

Some of us have a lot more sim experience than anyone whose sim
experience began with the use of personal computers. And, we, too have
told you that MSFS isn't all that correct in its representation of
flight.

Okay. I'm IFR rated and on occasion when I can't fly, I take my approach
plates and shoot them in FS2004 in the Mooney or C-172.

It allows me to remember to set and ident freqs, follow the instruments,
time the approach (I use my kneeboard and timer), plan the course with an
E6B and fly it with a sectional. Teaches reliance on the instruments
(you can simulate instrument failures), reinforces use of checklists such
as GUMPS and procedures for radio navigation as well as remain sharp on
concepts such as reverse sensing and maintaing course headings.

My flying experience began in high school on the first MS Flight
Simulator. It helped me through groundschool and my private because I was
already familiar with navigating using one or two VORs and quickly
interpreting and responding to instruments.

I highly recommend it. It won't make you, say, IFR current, but it'll
sure polish your edge for much less than it costs to shoot practice
approaches each month.

I guess that's why they have flight simlators.

-c

Gatt this thread and many others lately are here because of posts written by
an idiot named Anthony aka msxmaniac who not only has never flown and
aircraft and has no desire to, thinks that most of us that do fly don't know
what the hell we are talking about because our real world experience doesn't
jive with his playing of MSFS.

There is no doubt that MSFS is great for use as you describe but it doesn't
make anyone an aviation expert as Anthony thinks it does.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
That said, the X-Plane reviews for the home PC are pretty darn good.

If it makes you feel any better, we're running X-plane on the Kiwi,
too.

I find it no different to "fly" than MS FS2004 in most ways -- but
much, much harder to use. The user interface is simply inferior, which
(I suppose) is due to the awesome flexibility it offers.
--


Jay, where you will really se the difference between the two is when the
"aircraft" is outside the normal envelope. You mentioned the AOPA Cherokee 6
model in an earlier post. This is an example of a plane that has been well
simulated in MSFS.

On the other hand I came across a model of the 601XL like I'm building and
when ever you stall it the engine quits and won't restart. And it doesn't
matter if it is a power on or power off stall. I talked to the guy that
designed it and he can't for the life of him figure out why it does it.