MS Flight Sim As a Training Tool

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

If slow flight and stalling isn't modeled right you can't learn to fly in
it.

What parts of slow flight and stalling are being modeled incorrectly
in MSFS?

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

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Not a dime. The same amount you have spent on actual flying. So I should
have as much authority to talk about it as you do flying real aircraft.

Price has nothing to do with authority. It has a lot to do with the
accuracy of the flight model, however.

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

Bob Moore wrote:
wrote
You know I really hate the fact that all you do is claim that
simulators are just as good as real flight or better, their
not even close. And I'll give you a few reasons why real
flight is different.

AviatorHI...dispite all of your claimed flight experience, you
don't seem to understand just what constitutes a flight
"simulator" by FAA definition.

MSFS is NOT a flight simulator....it is a PC program. I spent
6-7 years of my 24 year airline career teaching and checking in
"real" simulators, and I can tell you that most of what you
posted is just not true.

From the FAA

6. DEFINITIONS.

a. An Airplane Simulator is a full size replica of a specific
type or make, model, and series airplane cockpit, including the
assemblage of equipment and computer software programs
necessary to represent the airplane in ground and flight
operations, a visual system providing an out-of-the-cockpit
view, a force (motion)cueing system which provides cues at
least equivalent to that of a three degree of freedom motion
system; and is in compliance with the minimum standards for a
Level A simulator specified in AC 120-40, as amended.

Perhaps you were referring to PCATDs instead of Simulators?

BTW....although "their" is spelled correctly.. you picked the
wrong "they're".

Bob Moore
CFII
ATP B-707 B-727 L-188
PanAm (retired)

It's a simulator for this sake of this conversation... according to the
FAA it's a game. I wouldn't even call it a PCATD. It is useful to an
extent, but a very limited one (thats worth more than 5 bucks).

It's a simulator for this sake of this conversation... according to the
FAA it's a game. I wouldn't even call it a PCATD. It is useful to an
extent, but a very limited one (thats worth more than 5 bucks).

Actually for pure clarity... I know the FAA doesn't clasify games, but
as I said for this conversation I'm calling it a simulator.

the weather being bad incorrect outside of the local area.... that
is to say that things like mountain waves aren't represented, and the
weather is a constant for the area you are in... if the "downloaded
weather information" says that it is a certain weather it will be that
certain weather within an x mile radius of the airport, then suddently
turn into a wonderful sunny day.

skids, bounces etc... I've tried very hard in those programs to
wheelbarrel, skid, bounce, and either I crash the plane or just land
very hard.

their vs. they're... I apologize to the utmost extent, I'm sure
noone here has ever made that or any other spelling error, and being
the only one I bow my head in shame.

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

That helps visibility not the sensation of the aircrafts movement.

Sensations are only one small part of flying.


Sensations are a HUGE part of flying.

But since you have brought up senses let's look at the five senses and see
how they are used in real flight and how they are simulated in the game
MSFS.

Vision-
The average person has between 170 and 175 degrees of vision and uses it all
in real flight.
In SIM flight depending on screen used you might have 90 degrees. Yes this
can be improved but the cost is significant and I'd guess the vast majority
of MSFS users don't have multiple monitors.

Touch-
In real flight you feel the stick or yoke and the forces acting against it.
You also feel the aircraft moving and changing direction. This movement when
backed up with visual clues, either from outside the plane or instruments
help you finely control the aircraft.

In sim flight there are no forces acting on the stick/yoke with the
exception of springs or in the best case force feedback which doesn't
simulate reality well at all.

Hearing-
With a proper set up I'll give the sims a real A+ on this issue and will say
that it is damn good a simulating reality.

Smell and Taste really don't come into play with the exception of smelling
smoke in the cockpit and in that case sims don't even try to simulate it.

So out of five senses three are really used in flight and with the exception
of hearing MSFS can't simulate the input for any of them very well without
an expense that is much higher than most people are going to spend.

writes:

A simulator (with any Force Feedback system available at the local
computer store) is nowhere close to re-creating the forces excerted on
the controls by the atmosphere.

The feedback forces of the controls vary from one type of aircraft to
another, from one model of aircraft to another, and even from one tail
number to another. In fact, they even vary from time to time on a
single airframe after maintenance is performed, or with wear and tear.
So worrying excessively about a precise simulation of these forces in
a sim is unjustified.

A simulator does not let you feel the back pressure from the braking
system, as a matter of fact in a sim (like MSFS) you can slam the
brakes on or you can leave them off.

A simulator does not actually allow you to manipulate a trim tab and
physically feel the difference in the control.

See above.

I'll give you perfect example. In my sim, I've found that it's hard
to be sure when the control surfaces are positioned exactly at their
neutral positions. However, some here may recall that I asked about
how one determines the neutral positions of control surfaces in real
aircraft. I was told that there isn't really an exact neutral
position per se in most real aircraft. Given this, I stopped fretting
about the exact neutral position in the sim. Maybe I have the rudder
perfectly centered, maybe not. But in real life I wouldn't have it
any more precisely positioned than I do in the sim, so why seek a
precision in the sim that is overwhelmed by random variations in the
real world?

Another example: If the pressure exerted by the yoke against your arms
varies between 9 and 11 lbs in a certain configuration on a certain
aircraft in a certain situation, there is no reason to insist that a
sim reproduce this pressure with a precision of 0.01 lbs. The
real-world variation is much greater than the sim's precision, so the
sim is "as real as it need get."

In a simulator it's extremley difficult to actually fail to start an
engine, as a matter of fact you can't flood an engine in a sim, which
you can in real life.

If you can't start an engine, you aren't going to be flying anywhere,
in the sim or in real life. You're not flying when you start the
engine.

A simulator does not re create the stresses that you feel being
excerted upon the aircraft, such as the distinct sound of an engine
operating at too high of a manifold pressure for the engine to handle.

So?

Here again, this is something that varies by aircraft type, aircraft
model, flight configuration, weather, engine condition, tail number,
and so on. There is no need for a perfectly faithful reproduction of
a real aircraft, unless the sim is designed to reproduce only that
single tail number in only that single instant of time, and nothing
else.

A simulator does not re create the changes of trim as the cowl flaps
are retracted.

On the aircraft I fly in the sim, the cowl flaps have no effect on
trim. Someone complained about that, and it turns out that they have
no effect on trim in real life, either.

A simulator does not bring you the concern of a pre-flight check or a
making sure that the tires are fully inflated.

You don't really need a sim for that. You can just pretend.

A simulator comes nowhere close to re-creating landing on a wet runway,
on a short field or on a soft field.

That depends on the simulator.

A simulator does not properly represent ground effect.

A simulator does not represent weather properly with the exception of
the immediate local area.

A simulator does not require radio communication when you approach any
large city, when you approach any airspace.

It does not necessitate proper flight planning to reinforce the safetey
of the flight.

See above.

It does not make you experience G-Forces or the empty feeling in your
stomach when you thermal... for that matter a simulator does not
represent thermals.

Some simulators do--MS FSX does. I don't know if MSFS 2004 does.

The G forces are no big deal unless you are doing aerobatics.

It allows you to pause and get a drink.

You can get a drink in flight, too. It's even a good idea.

In a simulator the amounts of turbulence that exist in the real world
do not make it necessary for you to adjust the elevator, ailerons or
rudder when landing a plane.

Yes, they do, at least in MSFS. Landing in significant turbulence is
quite a challenge. I've gone through two sets of gear in the past few
days thanks to turbulence.

A botched landing does not reward you with
a bounce, but rather with a flight analysis saying you landed at x
amount of feet per second.

No, you bounce if you aren't careful. And if you bounce enough, you
lose the gear. And if you bounce more than that, you crash.

Someone said you could set the gear retract on a Baron and it would
pull up the gear on the ground if you bounced around too much. I
tried it in the sim, and it happens in the sim, too.

There is a monumental difference between sitting in front of a screen
and watching a two dimensional image, than being at the controls of an
airplane and seeing the real world move past the glareshield.

Is there? I suppose that's a matter of opinion.

By your logic of simulators being as close to reality as being in an
airplane I can assume that I can safely operate a train with people on
board, I can safely drive an 18 wheel truck, I can safely and with
utter brilliance command a submarine, or surface naval vessel in
combat.

Quite so. Sims have been used for trains for over 30 years. Sims
have come into use for tractor-trailer rigs over the past few years as
well. Often nearly all the training can be done in a sim; moving
about in real life is limited to the minimum necessary to prove that
one can pass a test.

So , you may find a reasonable degree of
succes trying to take off in a real Beech Baron, but you'll get chicken
skin the moment you feel the torque pull you to the side as the turbos
spool up ...

Why?

For me... every time I come to work and fly the Dash 8s, not only am I
using all my previously gained knowledge to make money for a company,
I'm also dealing with people, and to an extent they are putting their
lives in mine and the First Officers hands, and I would gladly walk up
to any of them, standing next to you and tell them that "Yes, I have
over 8,000 hours of flight time, but mxsmanic here has, say 35,000
hours of simulated flying time in front of his computer at home without
the guidance of an instructor or any license, who would you like to fly
your plane?", 10 times out of 10 they are going to choose me over you.

It gets more complicated if the pilot has also had most of his
training in a sim. If passengers were told that their pilot had never
before flown the aircraft that they were in, they might get pretty
nervous, and yet that happens all the time these days.

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

Jay Honeck writes:

Although I don't have it, there are some add-ons that apparently make
ATC very real.

I think in your situation, you could profit greatly from VATSIM. That
would allow you to talk to other real people, instead of just the
machine. The only restriction is that the VATSIM network requires
that a given user name be used only by the user to whom it was issued
(you could not register just one name and then share it among all your
guests). However, registration is free.

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

Blanche writes:

Thank you Bob. That's 2 of us explaining the difference between
a game and a real flight simulator.

No, that's the FAA's definition of a flight simulator, which is not
definitive.

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

Nomen Nescio writes:

He has supported it. "Been there, done that" is about as good as it
gets for providing support.

No, it's actually no support at all. It amounts to "because I say
so," which is worthless.

Now, tell us where MICROSOFT has claimed that their game has
accurately simulated ALL aspects of the flight characteristics of
ANY aircraft.

I've not paid much attention to anything that Microsoft claims. Why
are their claims important?

BTW, I did a nonstop flight around the world in the fs9 Boeing 747,
a couple of years ago, following the equator. With the default passenger
loading. Do you think that can be done in the REAL plane?

Not to my knowledge. So what?

Neither does experience, math, physics, or empirical data.

Try it.

Moron!

Moron!

Moron!

Repetition does not make ad hominem arguments valid or persuasive.

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

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

I find it interesting that you have not responded in any way to Dudley
Henriques post in this thread.

Why? There are many posts to which I do not respond, for various
reasons.

That you can't say he isn't an authority in
either flight sims or actual flying is probably the reason.

Don't infer; ask.

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