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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|