Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC

TxSrv writes:

You are missing the point that MSFS does not model, nor need
it for the vast majority of sensible users, the forced
(slewed) behavior of a 172 in the high flight levels be
real.

Without testing the aircraft at that altitude, there's no way to
verify the MSFS modeling of the aircraft at that altitude.

Since the real aircraft cannot reach that altitude on its own, there's
not much point in worrying about the MSFS model; but one cannot simply
say that it is incorrect, one can only say that it is unverified.

If MSFS allowed a 172 to climb to that altitude even though it could
not do so in real life, that would be an obvious flaw in the model;
but I don't believe it does that (I never fly the 172). Slewing does
not count because that is a deliberate overruling of the laws of
physics for convenience in setting up simulations.

Any real pilot, who knows the feel/behavior of a 172
class airplane near sea level, verses say 12,000 feet, and
who understands the aerodynamics involved and the effect of
limited HP in really rarefied air, need not be a "rocket
surgeon" to be able to accurately extrapolate.

In other words, nobody knows for sure. When you actually test the
aircraft at that altitude, be sure to report back, as the data can be
checked again the model. In the meantime, neither you nor anybody
else can say anything definitive about it.

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

TxSrv writes:

They crash.

But that is supposedly what MSFS also does, so it's correct.

If you can give me precise instructions on what to try and what the
result should be, I'll try it on MSFS. I don't know much about the
King Air.

Please also ignore any alleged pilot here who tells you
anything.

I never ignore; but I don't unconditionally believe, either.

The Microsoft Games Development Team are the real gurus; I
though we stipulated that hundreds of posts ago.

Many of the developers who have worked on MSFS over the years have
been pilots, too.

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

Neil Gould writes:

If the real aircraft can't get to a FL, *any* representation of the
aircraft's behavior at that altitude is incorrect.

Not so. The aircraft could be placed there by another aircraft, in
which case it would have some sort of behavior that presumably could
be simulated. It just can't get there under its own power. Slewing
functions in a simulator are the equivalent of carrying the aircraft
to that altitude in real life.

Thus, while there may not be much practical reason to simulate the
aircraft at that altitude, since it is physically possible for it to
be at that altitude, it is also possible to simulate it at that
altitude. However, if nobody ever tests the aircraft for real at that
altitude, any simulation of its behavior there remains a matter of
speculation and unverifiable.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
Rick Branch writes:

A friend of mine is a pilot for an international cargo carrier, and he
does play with MSFS. He just loves to fly a 747 off of a grass strip
that is about half a mile from his (real) house. The grass strip is in
the MSFS database, so he uses it. (I guess it beats pretending to drive
to the airport.)

I didn't think that 747s could be used with grass strips.

In the world of MSFS it's possible. Give it a try.

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

TxSrv writes:

You are missing the point that MSFS does not model, nor need
it for the vast majority of sensible users, the forced
(slewed) behavior of a 172 in the high flight levels be
real.

Without testing the aircraft at that altitude, there's no way to
verify the MSFS modeling of the aircraft at that altitude.

If the real aircraft can't get to a FL, *any* representation of the
aircraft's behavior at that altitude is incorrect. The only correct
modelling would be to accurately represent the aircraft's behavior at its
service ceiling.

Neil

Rick Branch writes:

In the world of MSFS it's possible. Give it a try.

MSFS tends to be more forgiving of such things, although that depends
on the aircraft model used (some add-ons are much more strict).

I wouldn't risk the aircraft on grass in real life, so I won't risk it
in simulation.

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

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Neil Gould writes:

If the real aircraft can't get to a FL, *any* representation of the
aircraft's behavior at that altitude is incorrect.

Not so. The aircraft could be placed there by another aircraft, in
which case it would have some sort of behavior that presumably could
be simulated. It just can't get there under its own power. Slewing
functions in a simulator are the equivalent of carrying the aircraft
to that altitude in real life.

That is an absurd scenario, and of no use in the simulation of the real
aircraft.

Bottom line: if the game allows the aircraft to reach a FL that is twice
the service ceiling of the real aircraft, then the engine is modelled
incorrectly. If the engine is modelled incorrectly, everything else about
the aircraft's behavior in the game is suspect. Of course, it is a
non-issue for those of us that actually fly.

Neil

Mxsmanic wrote:
Sam Spade writes:


Virtually all aircraft that can autoland operate only into Class D airports.


That would mean that all the largest and most expensive aircraft
(which are generally equipped with autoland) avoid all the largest and
most complex airports in the United States (which are generally Class
B or Class C), which is exactly the opposite of reality.


The discussion was about the 91.129 requirement to remain on or above
the G/S whether VFR or IFR. 91.129 is the language for Class D airports.

91.129 also applies to Class C and B airports as a matter of regulation.

So, I made a technical misstatement, I should have said, "Virtually all
aircraft that can autoland operate only into airports subject to 91.129."

For purposes of the issue there is absolutely no difference whether it
be B, C, or D, because the rules for D apply to B and C.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Sam Spade writes:


You think I am making up the knowledge I have about air carrier
operations?


I don't know. But I'm certain that many people make up many things on
USENET, and I know better than to believe whatever I'm told.

When someone tells me that most of the autoland-enabled aircraft are
landing only at Class D airports, I start to wonder.


You could learn from someone like me, instead you would rather be
arrogant and defend your lack of knowledge as being what it is most
certainly not.


I see a lot of anomalies, and it makes me wary. See, despite what
people claim, I _do_ consult other sources, and if they conflict with
what people tell me here, it raises a lot of questions in my mind
about who is correct.


Good, go play with your other sources.

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Nomen,


Why do so many real pilots have trouble landing in the sim, then?

One of the reasons is the useless rudder modeling.



I think the main reason is lack of visual clues.


In a Level D simulator in 121 opertions a rating candidate must
demonstrate landing in the maximum crosswind limit for that aircraft.
This is done with the visual set at severe clear. When the aircraft is
decrab in the flare the rudder has to be used "just right." (another
example of employment of rudder to maintain the present and essential
flight path track. ;-)

Some folks have to practice it more than others before they are ready
for the rating ride.