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 |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC
TxSrv writes:
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. That would probably be a flaw in the specific model. How does the 172 fly when you pilot it at FL250 yourself? Plus, the mixture control does not react as it should at even 7000. What does it do wrong? 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. Speak for yourself. 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. See above. I guess a lot of pilots like all those strong physical sensations. There doesn't seem to be much of an intellectual component to their enjoyment, and they seem to regard the brain work parts as necessary evils rather than as enjoyable in themselves. This may be relatively specific to GA pilots, though. Large aircraft involve fewer sensations and a lot more brain work, and might appeal to the sedate and cerebral types a bit more. 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. Because that's how it is done in real life. In real life, you don't buzz control towers and fly through narrow canyons in a 737. You fly it on sedate, planned, IFR routes from one major city to another. Some people like that, some don't. It's like the differences among speedboats, sailboats, aircraft carriers, and tankers. And taking ATC instructions from VATSIM people who likely know little of the real-life nuances of ATC at least. Actually, they know a great deal about it. They have to train for it, and many of them are pilots or controllers in real life. What % of air carrier pilots actually fly MSFS as an avocation? A surprising number of pilots enjoy MSFS. You can't always jump in a real plane and go. This is especially true if you fly large aircraft for a living; few people have jet airliners of their own to fly for pleasure. 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. Then it's best not to ask anyone up front if he ever uses MSFS, as you might get a very unpleasant surprise. Conversely, if flight exp via computer is all you want (and moot, as all you can afford), fine. It's all that is practical, and I'm not entirely sure that real flight would be an improvement. There are a lot of unpleasant things about flying for real. 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! No problem. You've just put me into the same category that you had previously set aside for many airline pilots, and that's not bad company. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC
Thomas Borchert writes:
That information is rather easy to find on the internet. Look it up. Information is elsewhere. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC
Thomas Borchert writes:
Actually, no, it doesn't. The word "for" is to be avoided because it sound the same as "four". It sounds like many airline pilots (just like "twelve hundred" or "with you"), but professional it is not. Which airline do you fly for, again? -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC
Nomen Nescio writes:
Uh, gee, Einstein, a real rudder DOES control flight path. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. It rotates the aircraft about its yaw axis, which can have a number of different effects, depending on the situation. There is in MSFS. There isn't in real life. My guess is that MSFS merely uses a random number generator to add a degree or 2 of bank or pitch. Real turbulence can throw a plane up or down a few hundred ft in seconds. Turbulence in MSFS has NO effect on altitude. It does when I encounter it. One of the reasons is the useless rudder modeling. No, I think the main reasons are that some pilots depend excessively on physical sensations, and become disoriented without them. Also, some depend a lot on a large field of vision, which most simulator configurations don't provide. Here's a test you can do yourself. Fly straight and level. Look at your heading. Now feed in full rudder (pick a direction) and hold the wings level (this is critical). After doing this for couple minutes or so, release the rudder. Again, always keeping the wings level (any bank at all will screw up the test). Now look at the heading. If you did this perfectly, the heading will be exactly the same. Now check your flight path. You'll see that it's a straight line. With a real rudder, your heading will change significantly and your flight path will not be a straight line. I did it. The plane turns (reluctantly), and the flight path curves. The heading changes. And the wings were level, because I turned on the wing leveling function in the autopilot, which forces them to stay level (it was using quite a bit of aileron to keep them level, but they did not budge). So MSFS apparently passes the test. BTW, The rudder responses are reasonably accurate in "x-plane" so there's no reason MSFS couldn't model it properly. But that does not change the fact that it's not. It seems to work fine on my copy of MSFS. Rather like your rudder test. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC
Mxsmanic,
Which airline do you fly for, again? Are you determined to make a complete idiot of yourself now? But I'm glad to see it is possible to penetrate that armor you've conveniently constructed around your sorry self. GA aircraft and airlines use the same radio frequencies. They are required to use the same phrases in their radio work. So I don't need to fly for an airline to make qualified statements about radio work. I have been educated in radio work in just the same way as an airline pilot. You haven't. So take the advice of another poster: STFU and take notes! FWIW, the part I mentioned is easily obtainable by reading the AIM or the Pilot-Controller-Glossary, which you have been pointed to, but are too lazy to read. Instead, you prefer to try making silly personal attacks. You're a lying troll. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
... Nomen Nescio writes: Uh, gee, Einstein, a real rudder DOES control flight path. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. It rotates the aircraft about its yaw axis, which can have a number of different effects, depending on the situation. Staying within the context of this discussion vis-a-vis rudder input alone and your statement above, can you describe when it does and does not affect flight path and in which aircraft this is true? What are the number of different effects it can have and what situations do they occur in. |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC
BDS writes:
Staying within the context of this discussion vis-a-vis rudder input alone and your statement above, can you describe when it does and does not affect flight path and in which aircraft this is true? What are the number of different effects it can have and what situations do they occur in. There are many different possibilities. In the experiment suggested to me, I held the wings level (via the autolevel function of the autopilot), applied full right rudder, and the aircraft yawed and gradually changed heading. The ground track was a segment of a circle (depending on how long I held the rudder). Supposedly MSFS can't do this, but it did. Adjusting the rudder yaws the aircraft. In ordinary level flight, this will tend to cause the aircraft to enter a turn. The asymmetric lift resulting from the yaw will tend to push the aircraft into a bank in the same direction as the rudder is turning the aircraft, and aerodynamic forces on the rest of the aircraft will assist this. The rudder can also be used to compensate for other forces acting about the yaw axis. It can be used to compensate for crosswinds or engine torque. It can be used to establish and maintain coordinated turns. And so on. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC
While this thread is obviously degenerating to your base level of illogic
and circular reasoning, I can tell you that your statement "anyone competent to flying can probably can land (an Extra) virtually blindfolded" is laughingly untrue. Landing a tailwheel airplane is a distinctly different challenge compared to a tricycle gear plane. I have close to 1000 hours in tailwheel planes, and I (along with any other pilot of tailwheel aircraft) will tell you that it takes a lot more attention to land these planes, particularly in gusting crosswind conditions. The Extra is harder in some ways, because it lands fast and sinks rapidly, with no forward visibility. On the other hand the controls (especially the rudder) remain effective even at low airspeeds. Once on the runway it is very stable, and does not hop around like a Pitts. The reason why people are alienated by your posts are the ridiculous pronouncements like the one quoted above, which are illogical conclusions based on no meaningful experience or reasoning. Get a clue. |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC
Mxsmanic wrote:
bdl writes: The realism is very striking. That doesn't make it REAL, however. As long as the realism is striking, it doesn't have to be real. The whole purpose of simulation is realism without reality, after all. In the context of aviation the purpose of simulation is to faithfully duplicate the aircraft flight deck, panels and systems, motion, and outside visual references so that pilot qualification in the simulator translates into pilot qualification in the aircraft. |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
... I guess a lot of pilots like all those strong physical sensations. There doesn't seem to be much of an intellectual component to their enjoyment, and they seem to regard the brain work parts as necessary evils rather than as enjoyable in themselves. This may be relatively specific to GA pilots, though. It's insulting diatribe like this that convinces me that contrary to what Jose and Jay seem to think, Mx is not here to learn but rather to provoke. He is always the first to resort to insults when he has nowhere else to go in the argument. Why else would he make comments like the above along with such things as "GA pilots are incompetent", "people in the USA have no courage, only ego", etc., etc. Not once have I seen him admit that he might be mistaken, and that in itself is very telling. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|