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 » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Sad day for Mxsmanic



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old February 23rd 09, 04:53 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Darkwing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 604
Default Sad day for Mxsmanic


"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Steve Foley writes:

I doubt an old DOS version will recognise a USB joystick, and I don't
think
you'll find a game port that will plug into your 64 Bit DualCore
motherboard.


Since DOS didn't support USB, there's no need to recognize a USB joystick
in
DOS applications.



You can't even understand what others mean in their posts. No wonder your a
shut in, social interaction with you has to be tedious at best.


  #22  
Old February 23rd 09, 04:53 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Steve Foley[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default Sad day for Mxsmanic

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Steve Foley writes:

No it cannot. It would end in disaster.


Why?


It has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction that any other outcome is
possible.

I do not accept your conjecture as proof.

When you have evidence that someone with nothing but simulator experience
has successfully landed an airliner full of passengers, let me know.


  #23  
Old February 23rd 09, 05:00 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Darkwing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 604
Default Sad day for Mxsmanic


"Steve Foley" wrote in message
...
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Steve Foley writes:

No it cannot. It would end in disaster.


Why?


It has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction that any other outcome is
possible.

I do not accept your conjecture as proof.

When you have evidence that someone with nothing but simulator experience
has successfully landed an airliner full of passengers, let me know.



This will be a circular conversation where MS insists that simulation is
close enough that it could easily be pulled off with no further proof.


  #24  
Old February 23rd 09, 05:30 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Maxwell[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,043
Default Sad day for Mxsmanic


"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Mike Ash writes:

The bit in the article where he talks about a simmer being asked to land
a passenger plane after the pilots have been debilitated is pretty
funny. Absolutely no mention whatsoever of the difficulty or
improbability of actually pulling off such a feat. It is simply assumed
that it could be done.


It can easily be done.

Large commercial transports are heavily automated, and most flights are
conducted under computer control for most of their durations. With the
automation in operation, no particular flying skill is required to keep
the
aircraft flying, and since the automation can also land the aircraft, no
particularly flying skill is required for landing, either.

Because of this, any person of reasonable intelligence who can follow
instructions precisely can land an airliner, with help over the radio from
a
pilot.

Many people imagine a non-pilot grabbing the yoke and wrestling the
aircraft
to the ground, Hollywood-style, and that type of scenario is indeed
implausible and likely to end in failure. But it's a very unrealistic
scenario, because in reality the automation would fly the plane, and the
non-pilot would never have to touch the controls. As long as he can
follow
instructions, press buttons, and turn dials, he can land the airplane (or,
more precisely, he can direct the computer to land the airplane).

This has already been demonstrated on multiple occasions in full-motion
sims.
In fact, some people are able to land airliners by hand without any
previous
instruction, as long as they have an instructor to guide them. It's not
rocket science.

It's actually easier to land an airliner than it is to land a small
aircraft,
because small aircraft usually have only limited automation, just as small
aircraft pilots usually have no clue about how large airliners work, and
tend
to assume that everything flies like their Cessnas.


You simply must be on drugs, or you are naive you shouldn't walk to school
alone.


  #25  
Old February 23rd 09, 05:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Maxwell[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,043
Default Sad day for Mxsmanic


"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Mike Ash writes:

When it's tested, either with an actual in-flight crisis or by having
somebody set it up as an experiment, then I will believe it. Until then,
please do not act as though the unknown is certain.

And no, I don't mean testing it in a simulator.


The simulators are good enough for the FAA and the airlines, so they're
good
enough for me.


Anything is good enough for you. You are satisfied to live in a hole in
France.


  #26  
Old February 23rd 09, 05:32 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Maxwell[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,043
Default Sad day for Mxsmanic


"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Steve Foley writes:

No it cannot. It would end in disaster.


Why?


He says with the usual child like gaze.


  #28  
Old February 23rd 09, 05:39 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Steve Foley[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default Sad day for Mxsmanic

"Darkwing" theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote in message
...



This will be a circular conversation where MS insists that simulation is
close enough that it could easily be pulled off with no further proof.


Maybe semi-circular.

When he responds with the same conjecture, there won't be any point in
repeating myself.


  #30  
Old February 23rd 09, 06:45 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default Sad day for Mxsmanic

Mike Ash wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:
John Godwin writes:

It seems as if Microsoft is pulling the plug on MS Flight Simulator.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7902468.stm

Existing copies of MSFS will continue to run indefinitely. Software doesn't
wear out.


Yep, all the software for DOS and an EGA display, not to mention the
Apple II stuff is still running, assuming you can find hardware that
still runs outside a museum.


Emulators, my good man! You can find them for nearly any system. There
are plenty of good Apple II emulators out there, good enough to run
pretty much any software made for them. There are even emulators for old
DOS machines that will run in Windows that will do a much better job of
running old software than Windows itself will: check out DOSBox for that
one.


RSTS/E, RSX-11, RT-11, TOPS-10, TOPS-20, VMS...

PDP-6, PDP-8, PDP-10, PDP-11, VAX...

That's just one company.

How about a GE 150, Burroughs B2500, Honeywell H316, SDS 900?

CPU's, OS's and their libraries go obsolete and become unsupportable.

The software is on EBCDIC punch cards, got an emualtor to read those?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
 




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
Apology re mxsmanic terry Piloting 96 February 16th 08 06:17 PM
Mxsmanic : Your results are in Mayo Clinic Piloting 13 May 24th 07 02:01 PM
I saw Mxsmanic on TV Clear Prop Piloting 8 February 14th 07 02:18 AM
Mxsmanic gwengler Piloting 30 January 11th 07 04:42 AM
Getting rid of MXSMANIC [email protected] Piloting 33 December 9th 06 12:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:18 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.