Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC

Mxsmanic wrote:
Judah writes:

How do you know?

The honest ones admit it to me.

Spurious conclusion. Those who agree with you are honest, those who
don't are not?

Either way, your judgment of realism is based on anything -but- your
own experience, and you are left to sort the opinions of others. Your
opinion that MSFS is realistic, or unrealistic, has no basis in any
-fact- that you have ascertained, since those... lemme count... yep,
zero is the total.
-----

- gpsman

Mxsmanic wrote:


I fly a mixture of VFR and IFR on the Baron, and mostly IFR on the
737. I also use VATSIM, the leading virtual flight network, so that I
can interact with other human pilots and controllers by radio, rather
than just interact with the computer-generated stuff provided by MSFS
when it is in offline mode.

All in all, the realism is striking, and much better than some
detractors like to believe.


I don't think you understand the aerodynamics of the real world. MSFS
has great scenery but the aircraft and the atmosphere modeling are
terribly wrong in MSFS.

On 01/04/07 05:10, Sam Spade wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:


I fly a mixture of VFR and IFR on the Baron, and mostly IFR on the
737. I also use VATSIM, the leading virtual flight network, so that I
can interact with other human pilots and controllers by radio, rather
than just interact with the computer-generated stuff provided by MSFS
when it is in offline mode.

All in all, the realism is striking, and much better than some
detractors like to believe.


I don't think you understand the aerodynamics of the real world. MSFS
has great scenery but the aircraft and the atmosphere modeling are
terribly wrong in MSFS.

But of course, the marketing literature for the simulator product and
it's add-ons claim that it is realistic, so the simulator must be
correct. If there are perceived differences, it must be that the real
pilots aren't interpreting reality correctly.

;-\

Mark Hansen wrote:



But of course, the marketing literature for the simulator product and
it's add-ons claim that it is realistic, so the simulator must be
correct. If there are perceived differences, it must be that the real
pilots aren't interpreting reality correctly.

;-\

Got it! It was like being beaten up by company destructors in the
simulator every six months. Then, flying the first line trip
afterwards, with a glazed look on one's face, saying, "Darn, this stupid
airplane isn't flying like the simulator."

Sam Spade writes:

I don't think you understand the aerodynamics of the real world. MSFS
has great scenery but the aircraft and the atmosphere modeling are
terribly wrong in MSFS.

It sounds like you don't fly much in MSFS.

Tell me _exactly_ what's wrong with the aircraft modeling.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

For example, the Extra 300 model is extremely poor. The acceleration is
slower than the real aircraft, and the roll rate is much, much less than the
full scale plane.

Plus, I'm not pulling or pushing 8 g's or rolling at 400 degrees a second in
the chair. Sims, even full motion ones, can not mimic the visceral cues
found in real flight.

Additionally, the visual cues looking at a computer monitor are not the
same, since there is no peripheral vision input on the simple models such as
MSFS. There are some advantages to multiple monitor systems with motion.

Even without motion, having a full size cockpit with real instruments adds a
lot to the realism (at least this was my experience at Simcomm). Sitting in
front of a computer screen flying with a joystick, pedals, and throttle
really don't come close to the actual experience of flying.

MxsClueless wrote:

Tell me _exactly_ what's wrong with the aircraft modeling.

For starters, the program doesn't really understand air
density. The program tries, but only in MSFS can one
maintain a semblance of controllability in a 172 at FL 250.
Plus, the mixture control does not react as it should at
even 7000. Ditto the ASI whilst upstairs.

I indeed do have every version since 1.0, and yes the
graphics on ver. 10 are outstanding and a decent frame rate
on my newish machine. But it's a totally phony experience
at face value. Flying IFR in mere marginal weather like
just 2-3 viz, thus not "hard IMC," can be a pleasure, and
only partly because VFR flight in poor viz can be a
distasteful chore. Set up that condition in MSFS and it's a
complete bore. Ditto as to punching through a thin (but VFR
ceiling) overcast under IFR, but do that in MSFS it's
objectively a bore with phony, all-white below.

I also like playing Walter Mitty now and then by flying big
air carrier jets too, but why anybody would simulate that by
engaging autopilot and letting FMS do the tricky stuff
(well, not really, if exp) for a thousand+ miles, hours on
end, I don't understand. And taking ATC instructions from
VATSIM people who likely know little of the real-life
nuances of ATC at least. What % of air carrier pilots
actually fly MSFS as an avocation? The tiny % who may do I
suggest have issues, and I'd rather not be a pax in seat 17A
whilst he/she is up front, thank you.

I also think MSFS is an excellent implementation, given the
programming challenge, and I tell my flying friends, even
"old duffs" like me but who are into computing and have the
machine for it, to try it for just some occasional fun and
see some nifty stuff it now does. And no more, without
actually saying so, since I know they won't get hooked.

Conversely, if flight exp via computer is all you want (and
moot, as all you can afford), fine. Chacun a son gout. But
an analogy is where I served in the U.S. Army, but own only
one handgun I fired just once, so I'm not a gun enthusiast
but respect such avocations of others. Chacun a son gout. I
even think there's too many weapons/capita here, but whether
the attendant consequences are tolerable is a legitimate
debate. I think on balance it is tolerable, but could I ever
start a silly, flaming debate by arguing the contrary,
especially never having really engaged in the sporting
activity! I also think I know know many technical things
about weapons, but hardly an expert, despite what I might
read further on the internet. If I have a technical
question, I can post to a gun enthusiast net group and hope
it's only a 4-post thread not flaming me should I be branded
naive or just an annoyance.

What I would not do is take pot shots at those who engage in
legitimate activities such as gun collecting, shooting
sports, or actual flying in a group of those who do, nor
would I claim shoot-em-up computer games is realistic and
sufficient for practical purposes. Nor would spend much of
my waking hours arrogantly posting on matters I really don't
know much about, especially where my actual identity is
known to the entire English-speaking internet world.

Why, from everything I've read about sociology and
psychiatry on the net, I think you have issues. Forgive me,
that stepped over the line! :-)

F--

Mxsmanic wrote:

Sam Spade writes:


I don't think you understand the aerodynamics of the real world. MSFS
has great scenery but the aircraft and the atmosphere modeling are
terribly wrong in MSFS.


It sounds like you don't fly much in MSFS.

Tell me _exactly_ what's wrong with the aircraft modeling.


Off the top of my head:

The King Air, on autopilot, will not maintain the set vertical speed if
the IAS drops below 120 knots or so. It will nose-dive and crash. Not
so with a real King Air.

Cross winds on autopilot are not handled correctly on an RNAV approach.

Strong winds aloft dramatically affect IAS in a holding pattern, which
is wrong beyond belief.

That is my short list.

Mxsmanic wrote:

All in all, the realism is striking, and much better than some
detractors like to believe.

The realism is very striking. That doesn't make it REAL, however. By
definition.

bdl wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:


All in all, the realism is striking, and much better than some
detractors like to believe.


The realism is very striking. That doesn't make it REAL, however. By
definition.

The topography is striking. The realizm is zip.