*********A DEFENCE FOR MXMORAN***********

In article ,
wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Close enough to be safe and satisfy the tower, since in real life those
are the relevant criteria.

What was the exact figure? 3.2 miles? 3.0004 miles? 4.5 miles?

Close enough to be safe and satisfy the tower, since in real life those
are the relevant criteria and no one cares about putting error bars on
the number.

No one but an anal retentive buffoon would ask such an asinine question.

Especially since the second figure requires an accuracy of SIX INCHES,
something no instrument comes even close to. Even WAAS-augmented GPS
only gets you about three feet, or five times worse, and the
*guaranteed* accuracy is more like 25 feet.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

In article ,
says...
writes:

Close enough to be safe and satisfy the tower, since in real life those
are the relevant criteria.

What was the exact figure? 3.2 miles? 3.0004 miles? 4.5 miles?

Why do you think an exact figure is important?

If you were a real pilot, you'd know the answer, and wouldn't post such
a silly question.

--
Duncan

Its Quiz time MX!

Lets get serious, your a serious simmer, answer the questions!

What motherboard do you use?, what processor do you have ?, What
graphics card do you use?

Which yoke or joystick do you use? Model number?

What is the diagonal size of your monitor?

Do you have rudder pedals?

Whose flight model and terrain model do you use?

What aircraft do you like to fly?

And the biggie , How much memory on the motherboard?


I'll get you started, Graphics Machines:

IBM8400 @ 2.4 ghz, 6 of them in parallel.
Nvidia 8900 Series, 6 of them.
4 gig of ram minimum.
custom made, custom made , custom made, and custom for all the rest.

5 XGA resolution projectors.
One 17" diagonal LCD for the instrument panel.

Flight processor on a hotter machine I cant discuss because of ND.

Flight model by career aerospace engineer. Also under ND.

Steve

writes:

Close enough to be safe and satisfy the tower, since in real life those
are the relevant criteria and no one cares about putting error bars on
the number.

In other words, you don't actually know if you measured 3 miles correctly or
not, so there's really no basis for claiming that you did so.

Mike Ash writes:

Especially since the second figure requires an accuracy of SIX INCHES,
something no instrument comes even close to. Even WAAS-augmented GPS
only gets you about three feet, or five times worse, and the
*guaranteed* accuracy is more like 25 feet.

So a sim that is five or 25 feet off isn't so bad, eh?

Dave Doe writes:

Why do you think an exact figure is important?

Hmm. So precision is all important when it comes to discrediting simulation,
but suddenly isn't a big deal when it comes to pilots flying the real thing?

A five-foot difference makes a sim inaccurate, but 25 feet is good for a
pilot?

How can both of these things be true simultaneously?

writes:

In a real airplane you don't have screen borders, a nose you can turn off,
or a "guide" you can turn on.

I know (although actually you can put something on the windshield that can
work in a similar way).

The point is the validity of finding the spot that doesn't move, not the
reference that you use to do it. Hopefully you wouldn't be lost in the sim if
you had no aircraft nose to use as a reference.

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Dave Doe writes:

Why do you think an exact figure is important?

Hmm. So precision is all important when it comes to discrediting simulation,
but suddenly isn't a big deal when it comes to pilots flying the real thing?

A five-foot difference makes a sim inaccurate, but 25 feet is good for a
pilot?

How can both of these things be true simultaneously?

Because they're in different situations. One is talking about altitude
above the runway right as you're touching down, where the TOTAL distance
may only be five feet, and the other is talking about distance from the
runway where the TOTAL distance is three miles.

In other words, it's percentage that counts, not absolute accuracy. Five
feet wrong over the runway can mean you're off by 1000%. 25 feet wrong
when you're three miles away means you're off by 0.16%.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Mxsmanic wrote:
Mike Ash writes:

Especially since the second figure requires an accuracy of SIX INCHES,
something no instrument comes even close to. Even WAAS-augmented GPS
only gets you about three feet, or five times worse, and the
*guaranteed* accuracy is more like 25 feet.

So a sim that is five or 25 feet off isn't so bad, eh?

It is just irrelevant.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Close enough to be safe and satisfy the tower, since in real life those
are the relevant criteria and no one cares about putting error bars on
the number.

In other words, you don't actually know if you measured 3 miles correctly or
not, so there's really no basis for claiming that you did so.

Of course I do; the tower is the final arbiter of whether or not I was
in the right place, and the real tower with the real controller was
satisfied.

Real controllers in real towers are not shy about telling pilots they
are in the wrong place.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.