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
|
|||
|
|||
MS Flight Sim
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
MS Flight Sim
I agree that flying MSFS in IFR is really flying.
When I fly with MSFS I always fly by hand. I have settings set to full realism. I use real approach plates. I always set visibility to the minimum for the approach. I fly the full approach. When I am finished I am drained. When I fly for real I use the autopilot coupled to the GPS. I am really just a passenger. Flying for real is much easier than MSFS. Even hand flying the real plane is much easier the MSFS. But that is good because when all of the fancy fails for real, I will be glad I spent all of that time on MSFS. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
MS Flight Sim
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
MS Flight Sim
"Dennis Johnson" wrote in message . .. 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. 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. 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? 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 must respectfully disagree. Flying requires action - reaction on three axis'. Manipulating pixels in 2D (IMO) is not flying. I think it's in our best interest to welcome anyone to this newsgroup who is interested in aviation. 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. Personally, I'm impressed with Mxsmanic's commitment to mastering instrument procedures. OMFG!! I guess I missed those posts while shoveling through the rest of his cross-posted tripe. I'll bet he could put many of us to shame. That's a bet I'd be more than happy to take. Give the guy a break. 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 In case you didn't get it there, Sparky... It ain't so much the material as it is the attitude. 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." In short: **** Him... Jay Beckman PP-ASEL Chandler, AZ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
MS Flight Sim
"scott moore" wrote in message . .. 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. No more callers, we have a winner... LOL Jay Beckman PP-ASEL Chandler, AZ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
MS Flight Sim
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. In fact, the number of models is almost uncorrelated with the fidelity of the modeling. It's more a matter of budget than capacity. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. USENET is filled with people who want to be experts but aren't. I listen, but I verify. And I ask people to support their statements. 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. 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. That's a bet I'd be more than happy to take. Be careful what you wish for. 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. So learning about aviation isn't what you want. You want an ego boost. But you won't get that from me. Sorry. 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. 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. In short: **** Him... Your maturity and calm are commendable. QED. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
MS Flight Sim
Dennis Johnson wrote:
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. Into the crapper you go with him. If you think that about him, anything you think about anything else is bound to be ****. He's had more than enough time over the months to change his ways; he's not interested. That's fine. His dribblings don't make it to my computer. Now yours don't either. -- Mortimer Schnerd, RN mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
MS Flight Sim
Right on. Have any of you flown the blue box(Link ANT-18)? It maybe approved
but it flies like no airplane I ever flew. BUT it was a fantastic workout for TRAINING. "ArtP" wrote in message ... I agree that flying MSFS in IFR is really flying. When I fly with MSFS I always fly by hand. I have settings set to full realism. I use real approach plates. I always set visibility to the minimum for the approach. I fly the full approach. When I am finished I am drained. When I fly for real I use the autopilot coupled to the GPS. I am really just a passenger. Flying for real is much easier than MSFS. Even hand flying the real plane is much easier the MSFS. But that is good because when all of the fancy fails for real, I will be glad I spent all of that time on MSFS. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
MS Flight Sim
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. Not even close. MSFS is a marginally useful training tool. I use it sometimes to practice an approach. But to say that it is flying defies credibility. As for your endorsement of the rec.aviation.* favorite troll, I could not care less. I haven't read a post by him months. It makes for a better experience. KC |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
MS Flight Sim
john hawkins wrote:
Right on. Have any of you flown the blue box(Link ANT-18)? It maybe approved but it flies like no airplane I ever flew. BUT it was a fantastic workout for TRAINING. I thought the blue box was a Link C-3. I held a Link Trainer Operator's rating when the Ground Instructor Certificate had 8 possible ratings. As you can see by the rating the CAA/FAA considered it a trainer, not a simulator. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New 18m Class ship - First Flight - The JS1 starts proving flight phase | [email protected] | Soaring | 2 | December 14th 06 02:06 AM |
NEW FLIGHT SCHOOL - Best in Flight Aviation Academy - Morristown,New Jersey | Dave Vioreanu | Owning | 0 | April 22nd 05 02:55 AM |
NEW FLIGHT SCHOOL - Best in Flight Aviation Academy - Morristown,New Jersey | Dave Vioreanu | Piloting | 0 | April 22nd 05 02:55 AM |
FA: Vintage Textbook - FLIGHT MECHANICS - Vol 1 - Theory of Flight Paths | Richard | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | February 14th 05 01:56 PM |
Does anybody know a link to a real picture of the X-43 in flight sans Pegasus or better yet a video clip of the flight? | Scott Ferrin | Military Aviation | 0 | April 3rd 04 08:47 PM |