A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

MS Flight Sim



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 1st 07, 03:11 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Sam Spade
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,326
Default MS Flight Sim

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.
  #12  
Old March 1st 07, 03:15 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Sam Spade
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,326
Default MS Flight Sim

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:




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.



I use Netscape as my news reader. Do you know how to kill a pest on
that platform?

I don't have a clue.
  #13  
Old March 1st 07, 03:53 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 597
Default MS Flight Sim

Sam Spade wrote:
I use Netscape as my news reader. Do you know how to kill a pest on
that platform?

I don't have a clue.



No idea. I know how to filter with my software but have no clue with Netscape
either. Surely there's a way.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com


  #14  
Old March 1st 07, 04:25 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Dennis Johnson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 44
Default MS Flight Sim


"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?

Dennis



  #15  
Old March 1st 07, 04:49 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Sam Spade
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,326
Default MS Flight Sim

Dennis Johnson wrote:

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?

Dennis



I've never given this much thought. I have been through stages of this
stuff in my long career:

1. F-100 fligher simulator, without motion. The Air Force indeed called
it a simulator because the cockpit was a real F-100, aerodynamics, etc,
but there was no visual nor any way to really to takeoffs or landings.
(I was not a USAF pilot, rather an elisted guy who had a lot of access
to the simulator; i.e. simulator technican with private pilot's license).

2. Air Force C-11, similar to a T-33 with ILS, DME Zero Reader, etc.
Great navigation and flight procedures trainer. No autopilot so it had
to be hand-flown.

3. "Demo" or some such name, no motion, large single-engine trainer.
Sort of like a Beaver. Can't remember the name of the bird but the
pilot-rated desk jockys flew it 4 hours a month to maintain flight pay.

4. Classic Link C-3.

5. Went with the airline when they had non-motion simulators, which were
approved for only a portion of Part 121 training. The nitty-gritty had
to be done in the actual airplane.

6. Then, Level D simulators with full motion, approved visual, and were
used for all training, including rating ride. Also, for all proficiency
checks, etc.

7. Retired and have taken several ICCs in ATDs, which I found very
effective for that purpose.

Of all these, what came to the closest to flying to me? The Level D
flight simulators, no question about it. But, even they lack a lot of
what really happens in the real world of flying the actual aircraft they
simulate.
  #16  
Old March 1st 07, 05:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Dan Luke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 678
Default MS Flight Sim


"Dennis Johnson" wrote:

Flying is flying, I don't care if it's a Cub without an
electrical system or a computer running MS Flight Sim.


********.

Give the guy a break.


Better yet, give him a plonk.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM


  #17  
Old March 1st 07, 05:07 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Dan Luke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 678
Default MS Flight Sim


"scott moore" wrote:


Flying with flight sim is like sex with a magazine.


Haw!

LOL of the day.


  #18  
Old March 1st 07, 05:30 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Allen[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 252
Default MS Flight Sim


"Dennis Johnson" wrote in message
. ..

"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?

Dennis


Uh, actually being airborne.


  #19  
Old March 1st 07, 06:42 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Jon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 194
Default MS Flight Sim

On Mar 1, 9:53 am, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com
wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:
I use Netscape as my news reader. Do you know how to kill a pest on
that platform?


Which client? I have an older version of Communicator that bundles
Netscape's Mail and News clients, running on a Unix box. Haven't used
it in years, but can check if needed.

I don't have a clue.


No idea. I know how to filter with my software but have no clue with Netscape
either. Surely there's a way.


--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com


If you're using Thunderbird, you can 'kill' a thread, but that might
be overkill. Filtering is straightforward:

Select message from plonkee-to-be
Message - Create Filter from Message

Then it just becomes an issue of managing those that continue to feed
the obsession by replying, e.g. deciding which of those must be
plonked.

HTH...

Regards,
Jon

  #20  
Old March 1st 07, 07:10 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Jon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 194
Default MS Flight Sim

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

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 03:06 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 02:56 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.