MS Flight Sim

Allen writes:

Uh, actually being airborne.

So a balloon would count?

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

On Mar 1, 1:10 pm, "Jon" wrote:
On Mar 1, 9:11 am, Sam Spade wrote:



scott moore wrote:
Dennis Johnson wrote:

Greetings,

I think those who are arguing that flying MS Flight Sim isn't really
"flying" are on the losing side of the argument. Flying is flying, I
don't care if it's a Cub without an electrical system or a computer
running MS Flight Sim. As far as general procedures go, MS Flight Sim
gives a great workout, and for instrument procedures, it's terrific.

Flying with flight sim is like sex with a magazine.

The problem is that MSFS is not a flight simulator. Since Microsoft is
only making a game, they can call it what they want.

It can be useful as a nav procedures trainer provided realistic winds
are not needed as part of the training exercise. And, also, if the XP
Reality modules are included to make it do what Microsoft was unwilling
or unable to do.

Note: the following has little, if anything, to do with MSFS

Although several years old, I found http://www.faa.gov/safety/
programs_initiatives/aircraft_aviation/nsp/research/media/
Paul_Ray.rtf to be an interesting read.

Folks here in the Human Factors division are contributing to some of
the reference docos (e.g. ICAO 9625), but I was only able to get my
hands on hardcopy at this time. Will try to provide online linkage as
any becomes available.

Regards,
Jon

Note: the following continues to have nothing at all to do with MSFS,
since it's not a serious player

FAA's National Simulator Program (NSP) contains a fair amount of
material, including links to Advisory Circulars, Guidance Bulletins,
Lists of Qualified Simulators, etc.

It may be found at:

http://www.faa.gov/safety/programs_i..._aviation/nsp/


Regards,
Jon

"scott moore" wrote in message
. ..
Flying with flight sim is like sex with a magazine.

Which is still better than no sex at all.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Allen writes:


Uh, actually being airborne.


So a balloon would count?

Duh. Can you not parse "airborne". You should try balloon simulation,
Anthony. Given your inexhaustable supply of hot air, you should be a
natural.

Dennis Johnson wrote:
"Kevin Clarke" wrote in message news:T3BFh.7673
MSFS is a marginally useful training tool. I use it sometimes to practice
an approach. But to say that it is flying defies credibility.


I offered the following definition of "flying" in my previous post:

"If a person is sitting in front of an instrument panel manipulating
controls
whose performance is based on aerodynamic principles, that's flying. It
might be flying a simulator, but it's still flying."

What's your definition?
You have to be in the air at the very least. Not sitting in front of a
TV with a bag of cheetohs.

KC


Dennis

In article ,
"Dennis Johnson" wrote:

If a person is sitting in front of an instrument panel manipulating controls
whose performance is based on aerodynamic principles, that's flying. It
might be flying a simulator, but it's still flying.

If your butt isn't in the airplane, you aren't flying.

Operating a sim isn't flying

Operating an RC plane isn't flying (the RC is flying but you aren't)

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Bob Noel wrote:

In article ,
"Dennis Johnson" wrote:


If a person is sitting in front of an instrument panel manipulating controls
whose performance is based on aerodynamic principles, that's flying. It
might be flying a simulator, but it's still flying.


If your butt isn't in the airplane, you aren't flying.

Interesting article in this week Av Week about the operator of an UAV
not having his/her butt in the tin.

Didn't we really learn the reasonable fear of flying during our presolo
training and especially on our first solo flight?

(something MXmaniac wouldn't have a clue about)

Dennis Johnson wrote:
Greetings,

I think those who are arguing that flying MS Flight Sim isn't really
"flying" are on the losing side of the argument. Flying is flying, I don't
care if it's a Cub without an electrical system or a computer running MS
Flight Sim. As far as general procedures go, MS Flight Sim gives a great
workout, and for instrument procedures, it's terrific.

If a person is sitting in front of an instrument panel manipulating controls
whose performance is based on aerodynamic principles, that's flying. It
might be flying a simulator, but it's still flying.

I think it's in our best interest to welcome anyone to this newsgroup who is
interested in aviation. Personally, I'm impressed with Mxsmanic's
commitment to mastering instrument procedures. I'll bet he could put many
of us to shame.

Give the guy a break.

Dennis



You're kidding I hope. Commitment to mastering instrument procedures?
This is a flying newsgroup, not a sim newsgroup, yet he blatantly shows
nothing but disdain for real flying.

MS flight sim is a game. It is not flying.

On Mar 1, 12:16 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Jay Beckman writes:
It's a "Survey Sim" and is mediocre at best. Because of the broad expanse
of aircraft offered, it can't possibly fully model all aspects of each
aircraft in full fidelity.

Then you might want to rethink the praise that people heap upon X-Plane, which
does exactly that.

Wouldn't know a thing about X-Plane...have never tried it. But since
it too is a survey sim, I'm fairly confident the same things apply.
I've read that it crunches numbers differently/better than FS (which
is "table based") but it still isn't flying.

In fact, the number of models is almost uncorrelated with the fidelity of the
modeling. It's more a matter of budget than capacity.

Don't care if it's due to budget or capacity. It still lacks
fidelity. It does not model every aspect of every plane offered.

I may be wrong, but I've always understood that
that's why software like Elite or On Top devote 95% of the screen to the
panel? So that maximum processor cycles can be devoted to getting the most
fluid and precise response from the instruments?

More likely they are intended to provide practice for instrument flight, which
is what such simulators do best. So scenery isn't very important.

It's exactly what it's meant for...scenery doesn't matter at all.

I must respectfully disagree. Flying requires action - reaction on three
axis'. Manipulating pixels in 2D (IMO) is not flying.

You have six or more axes to manipulate in a PC simulator. And flying by the
seat of the pants is not the sum total of flight.

It is in visual flight. No feel, no action, no reaction. And by the
same token, no feel, no action, nothing to fool your senses in IMC
either. Feel (whether required or something to be discounted) is
still a key component of RL flying. It can be your friend or it can
kill you but it cannot be ignored nor discarded.

I wholeheartedly agreee. And if "The Albatross" were sincerely interested
in aviation, he'd be welcomed with open arms. As it stands, he has made it
crystal clear that he considers the experiences and collective wisdom of the
aviation community to be suspect, flying is nothing more than a hobby to be
enjoyed by the idle rich and GA aircraft are death traps.

Your statements reveal more than you realize. They reveal, in particular,
that you don't care about someone who is sincerely interested in aviation.

Actually, those who know me know that I am a devout worshiper at the
high alter of flight. I've been an aviation buff all my life (well
before I earned my wings) and I extoll it's virtues to any and all who
will listen. I make every effort to offer my non-flying friends the
opportunity to ride along in the hope that they will catch the bug and
want to get their own certificate.

You care about someone who agrees with you and your friends unconditionally, because your ego is more important than passing whatever knowledge you have on to others.

Couldn't be more wrong. See above. As for ego, when it comes to
being a pilot, I have 147 hours of total flight time. There are
pilots on these boards with over 10,000 hours + ... the difference
between you and me is that I know when to shut my mouth, open my ears
and listen. Doesn't mean I have to agree or believe everything they
post but it doesn mean that they deserve their due by shear weight of
numbers. It's called respect. A concept with which you are so
obviously unfamiliar with.

The experiences and collective wisdom of the aviation community at large are not very suspect, but you do not even begin to remotely represent this community, and the experiences and collective "wisdom" of your club, such
as it is, pale in comparison and are often highly suspect.

So that's what this is all about, eh? You feel left out of the club?
There's an easy way to join. Oh, but I forgot, you hate to fly. Oh
well...

USENET is filled with people who want to be experts but aren't. I listen, but I verify.

No you don't. You argue, defy and generally **** on anyone and
everyone. You **** *on* people and they tell you to **** *off.*
Seems fair to me.

And I ask people to support their statements.

And when they do, you **** on them some more.

If they cannot do so, it's pretty likely that they are wrong, no matter how much they fume and cuss and stamp their feet.

Yet you persist in asking questions which generally be unanswerable in
a forum populated largely by GA pilots? Do you really thing you'll
get operational details for a 747-400 from a group that is
predominently concerned with Cessnas, Pipers and the like? Your
yelling "Fire" in an empty theatre and that makes it oh so easy for
you to cast out your little pearls of disdain, "I guess no one here
knows anything..." Who's stamping their little feet in this case, eh?

OMFG!! I guess I missed those posts while shoveling through the rest of his cross-posted tripe.

I suspect that your attention was diverted by your emotional reaction.

Wow, thanks for bringing me back to center. I really need to control
those irrational outbursts directed at completely anonymous people. I
really hate when I do that. *Sigh*, we all have our crosses to bear.

That's a bet I'd be more than happy to take.

Be careful what you wish for.

I want a pony. Howzat?

Just as soon as he:
- Learns to say Thank You
- Actually listens to and attempts to learn from what others post
- Learns to say Thank You
- Stops refuting absolutely every last piece of information he's offered
- Learns to say Thank You
- Stops pronouncing that he knows better than those that "have the T-Shirt"
- Learns to say Thank You
- Stops belittling GA on GA-centric newsgroups
- Learns to say Thank You
- Stops pronouncing MSFS as the be all and end all of flight simulators
- Learns to say Thank You
- Starts using Google, FAA, AOPA, EAA, etc. websites of his own volition
- Learns to say Thank You
- Goes and takes an Intro Flight
- Learns to say Thank You

It's interesting to note that all but one of these statements relate to maintaining the egos of you and your friends, and some of them are incorrect as well. Only one (taking an intro flight) is actually related to learning about aviation.

Really? You mean you couldn't learn anything from aviation web
sites? From the FAA, AOPA and/or EAA? From the information provided
by other, more experienced pilots? From Google's own archive? So
none of these are sources of information where you could learn? Hmmm,
maybe the internet really is over rated...I'm crushed.
And there you go with the ego thing again... How, praytell, is it
possible to maintain this mythical "club" you carry on about when
usenet is the most egalitarian communcicative device ever conceived?
No one has said you can't post here. You are free to do as you
please...but so is everyone else. If you are perceived as being a
pariah, or if you feel particularly persecuted, then perhaps you
should look inward before lashing out. People are free to say and do
as they please, but they are not exempt from the consequences of their
words or deeds.

So learning about aviation isn't what you want. You want an ego boost. But you won't get that from me. Sorry.

Again with the ego boost? I think your issue is becoming more and
more clear. You realize don't you that you could be the second coming
of Wilbur Wright, but unless you've walked the walk, all the talk in
the world is never going to earn you one iota of respect here so long
as you continue to boast, brag and otherwise browbeat people here
without ever having moved even an inch off Terra Firma as a pilot?
Seriously, if you want to be Cock of the Rock, you need to take your
act where someone gives a damn.

In case you didn't get it there, Sparky... It ain't so much the material as
it is the attitude.

Exactly. You care about the attitude; I care about the material. I have no time to pander to fragile egos.

I coun't four specific references to ego. Anyone else see one I
missed? Seems to me that in an attempt to hold up some kind of a
mirror to the aviation newsgroups, you're holding it backwards.
That's the one and only thing I find utterly fascinating about this
entire episode and it occurs with absolute unfailing repetition. The
closer that people come to the root cause of your motivation, the
louder you squawk.

Posting to aviation-specific newsgroups and decrying flying in general (and
GA in specific), then asking the pilot community to spoon feed him answers
(readily avialable from thousands of sources on the web) just so he can
dismiss the answers and dump on those making the effort to answer is, IMO,
the very definition of "Trolling."

I haven't done that.

Yes. Yes you have. You, my friend are the 21st century, electronic
equivalent of the little brother that no ones wants to let tag along.
"Look At Me...Look At Me...Look At Me...Aw c'mon guys, won't anyone
pay attention at all??!!!???"


In short: **** Him...

Your maturity and calm are commendable. QED.

Why thank you. They happen to be two of my best traits!

Jay B writes:

Don't care if it's due to budget or capacity. It still lacks
fidelity. It does not model every aspect of every plane offered.

Why do you require that every aspect of every plane be modeled?

It's exactly what it's meant for...scenery doesn't matter at all.

There you have it, then. No sense spending many processor cycles and screen
space on scenery if you don't need it.

It is in visual flight.

No, it's not. That's why it's called "visual" flight, and not "tactile"
flight. If you cannot see in visual flight, you crash, no matter what
sensations you feel. Conversely, if you can see in visual flight, you don't
need sensations.

It can be your friend or it can
kill you but it cannot be ignored nor discarded.

I don't see how it can be your friend, since it's useless and misleading
unless you also have visual input or instruments to actually give you the
information you need. And you can most definitely ignore it, otherwise
instrument flight wouldn't be possible.

Actually, those who know me know that I am a devout worshiper at the
high alter of flight. I've been an aviation buff all my life (well
before I earned my wings) and I extoll it's virtues to any and all who
will listen. I make every effort to offer my non-flying friends the
opportunity to ride along in the hope that they will catch the bug and
want to get their own certificate.

That's not what I said. I said that you don't care about someone who is
interested in aviation, not that you aren't interested in it yourself.

As for ego, when it comes to being a pilot, I have 147 hours of total
flight time. There are pilots on these boards with over 10,000 hours +
... the difference between you and me is that I know when to shut
my mouth, open my ears and listen.

The difference between you and me is 147 hours. The difference between you
and the other pilots of whom you speak is 9,853 hours. In other words, you're
essentially a non-pilot on this scale, just like me. But I suppose you'll
claim that the first hour makes all the difference, and the other 9,999 hours
are unimportant.

Doesn't mean I have to agree or believe everything they
post but it doesn mean that they deserve their due by shear weight of
numbers. It's called respect. A concept with which you are so
obviously unfamiliar with.

I respect people who have demonstrated their worthiness of respect. I don't
respect anyone by default, and numbers and credentials don't count, as I long
ago discovered that they are only very loosely correlated with things worthy
of respect. You can have 9000 hours of experience, or you can have 100 hours
ninety times over.

So that's what this is all about, eh? You feel left out of the club?

No, I'm not interested in clubs. I'm interested in aviation. If anything,
having to join a club just to fly would put me off.

No you don't. You argue, defy and generally **** on anyone and
everyone.

I argue because I have often verified, and found discrepancies for which I
need explanations. I question answers and expect the answers to be
substantiated. If someone simply says "because I say so," I know that he
doesn't know what he is talking about.

And when they do, you **** on them some more.

No. They don't support the statements, in the majority of cases. Instead,
they become emotional and angry, and insist that I must believe them just
because they said so. The more I uncover their actual ignorance of the topic,
the more irritated and aggressive they become. But I am not distracted by
this, as I've seen it thousands of times before.

Yet you persist in asking questions which generally be unanswerable in
a forum populated largely by GA pilots?

I was hoping there would be more pilots of other types. There still may be.
The handful of vocal posters aren't necessarily representative, they're just
loud.

Do you really thing you'll get operational details for a 747-400 from
a group that is predominently concerned with Cessnas, Pipers and the like?

I haven't found a more likely group on USENET. Do you know of one?

Wow, thanks for bringing me back to center. I really need to control
those irrational outbursts directed at completely anonymous people.

It's often just a question of practice, although personality plays a role.

Really?

Yes.

You mean you couldn't learn anything from aviation web
sites? From the FAA, AOPA and/or EAA?

Ah, I suppose that applies. I only glanced at the list once your intent
became apparent. So that's two out of all statements. Why is every other
statement "Learns to say Thank You"? What does that have to do with aviation?

From the information provided by other, more experienced pilots?

Like pilots with a staggering 147 hours, you mean? Three weeks of experience?

And there you go with the ego thing again... How, praytell, is it
possible to maintain this mythical "club" you carry on about when
usenet is the most egalitarian communcicative device ever conceived?

It isn't. That's part of what irritates the people who want to do so. They
come to believe that a newsgroup is their turf, and then when they are
reminded that anyone can use USENET and all are equal, they become irritated.

No one has said you can't post here. You are free to do as you
please...but so is everyone else.

Thank goodness.

If you are perceived as being a
pariah, or if you feel particularly persecuted, then perhaps you
should look inward before lashing out.

I don't care how I'm perceived. I just like to discuss aviation.

Again with the ego boost?

Yes. Most of the conflicts boil down to that to some extent.

You realize don't you that you could be the second coming
of Wilbur Wright, but unless you've walked the walk, all the talk in
the world is never going to earn you one iota of respect here ...

I don't care about getting respect here. I don't have an ego to maintain. I
just come here to discuss aviation.

... so long as you continue to boast, brag and otherwise browbeat
people here without ever having moved even an inch off Terra Firma
as a pilot?

Whereas, say, 147 hours would change everything (the next 10,000 wouldn't
matter, though).

Seriously, if you want to be Cock of the Rock, you need to take your
act where someone gives a damn.

See above. The way I'm perceived is unimportant. What is important is
discussions of aviation.

I coun't four specific references to ego.

Yes; ego is a problem for many here. It's the source of many conflicts.
People lash out when their egos are bruised, and if their egos are bigger than
their accomplishments, they become very emotional indeed.

Why thank you. They happen to be two of my best traits!

We all have good points. I'm told that they are among mine as well.

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