Simulators

writes:

Yep, while some people are serious about simulation, there is nothing
serious about simulation as you would think it would relate to the
real world of flying.

I don't understand.

I know since I have real world experience AND MSFS experience. You
don't since you don't fly a real plane.

From what you've said in the past, it doesn't sound like you have any serious
simulation experience, although I suppose you've toyed with MSFS from time to
time.

There's quite a broad spectrum of MSFS users, from kiddie gamers to people who
spend more on their simulators than they would have to spend to get their
ATPLs.

So, why not post into the sim groups and say you fly a baron then
rec.aviatoin.piloting. You don't fly a baron, you simulate flying a
baron.

Flight is flight. Most of the differences between simulation and the real
world tend to be insignificant in the wide world of aviation.

Since my last post, I've flown three times: a round trip of only nine miles
each way (which taught me that nine miles isn't far enough for a Bonanza), and
a 48-minute trip from Phoenix to Palm Springs, which went well until SoCal
Approach dragged its feet getting me below 11000 and forced me to go around.
At least I got some hand-flying practice in the Citation from that latter
flight.

writes:

A real airplane doesn't have a mouse to click or keyboard sequences to look
out the side windows.

So?

Things change from one aircraft to another. Lots and lots of things. Things
also change between a sim and a real aircraft. The adaptation process is the
same for both cases. Press a button, click a mouse, turn a lever--it's easy to
change.

So it is nowhere near a realistic simulation of flying a real airplane.

How do you quantify "nowhere near"?

That comment has even less to do with the subject at hand than your previous
comment about field of view.

Not really. Some people like to fly IFR. Some people like systems and
procedures, or navigation, or all sorts of other things besides bouncing
around or looking out the window. Aviation has many attractions.

Of course not because you are playing a game, not flying a real airplane
with no clue how important side vision is in some phases of flight.

No, it's just that I adapt easily.

The twist axis on my control stick allows me to look directly behind the
aircraft if I feel so inclined. I only use this capability on rare occasions
because it's not very realistic.

Yet another comment that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

You just said that side vision is important, and now you're dismissing it in
the sim. You can't have it both ways. Is it important or not?

After pushing some buttons to look to the side than pushing buttons again
to look ahead again.

I just twist the control stick, which I already have in my hand if I'm flying
by hand.

I feel that way because MSFS controls, even the expensive ones, feel nothing
like a real airplane ...

The controls of a real airplane feel nothing like the controls of other real
airplanes. Every airplane is different. You're attaching far too much
importance to this.

It seems that flying for you is mostly a visceral experience. It isn't for me.
Motion and wind and control feel are mostly distractions. I operate other
vehicles in the same way.

MSFS does not taxi like a real airplane, none of the
physical forces feel like a real airplane, none of the panel controls work
like a real airplane, and having a monitor in front of me looks nothing
like the view in a real airplane.

Real airplanes do not taxi alike, either.

The people that are truely serious about simulation, like the Air Force and
airlines, don't use MSFS.

Actually, some organizations in the military do use MSFS. Perhaps they are
more open-minded than some pilots here.

I am dubitative of the pertinence of one’s expertise in simulation having
never experienced the genuine activity being simulated. However, we’ve
explored the possibility that mitigating factors, be they medical, pecuniary
or other could make this the only real option. This is fine, however to
profess any sort of expertise in the matter this shortfall would have to be
compensated by an even greater study of the subject. This does not appear to
be the case with MX.



Flight is flight. Most of the differences between simulation and the real
world tend to be insignificant in the wide world of aviation.



This statement is an open gate to a vast sea of ignorance. The topic of
transfer of experience from simulation to real flight, the role of _realism_
and its subset of components (visual, motion, audio, cockpit resource
management, I could go on and on) are the subject of a large number of
published scholarly works and an even greater number of doctoral theses. All
of this ongoing study is tacitly predicated on the assumption that the above
statement is impertinent at best, and probably patently false.


Things change from one aircraft to another. Lots and lots of things. Things
also change between a sim and a real aircraft. The adaptation process is the
same for both cases.

Another statement that reveals a very shallow depth of inquiry and a
superficial understanding of simulation, aside the fact that it is simply
untrue.

I do not contest the right of any enthusiast to delve into simulation to
extract whatever pleasure and learning they may. It is a low-cost, zero-risk
way of learning a lot about aviation and getting a lot of enjoyment out of it.
This is perfectly legitimate, and I have no criticism of MX or any contributor
her to put in and get out whatever they wish from these desktop simulators.
There is a serious side to simulation though, and is clear that MX is not well
versed in the subject. So while he is free to post his observations, based on
his many hours of experience, we cannot consider his view to be that of one
knowledgeable about simulation.

On May 16, 12:17*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
Yep, while some people are serious about simulation, there is nothing
serious about simulation as you would think it would relate to the
real world of flying.

I don't understand.

I know since I have real world experience AND MSFS experience. You
don't since you don't fly a real plane.

From what you've said in the past, it doesn't sound like you have any serious
simulation experience, although I suppose you've toyed with MSFS from time to
time.

There's quite a broad spectrum of MSFS users, from kiddie gamers to people who
spend more on their simulators than they would have to spend to get their
ATPLs.

So, why not post into the sim groups and say you fly a baron then
rec.aviatoin.piloting. *You don't fly a baron, you simulate flying a
baron.

Flight is flight. Most of the differences between simulation and the real
world tend to be insignificant in the wide world of aviation.

Since my last post, I've flown three times: a round trip of only nine miles
each way (which taught me that nine miles isn't far enough for a Bonanza), and
a 48-minute trip from Phoenix to Palm Springs, which went well until SoCal
Approach dragged its feet getting me below 11000 and forced me to go around.
At least I got some hand-flying practice in the Citation from that latter
flight.

MX wrote

Flight is flight. Most of the differences between simulation and the
real
world tend to be insignificant in the wide world of aviation.

When my most important customer is having some difficulties, I do NOT
simulate a flight to Rochester NY. I file an IFR flight plan, and go
there. That is, at least to my pragmatic way of thinking, a
significant difference.

My guess is a significant number of us use are ability to fly to
enhance our quality of life by going to interesting places, others do
that by enjoying the aesthetics of soaring.

And some play computer games.

Perhaps to some the pleasures are equivalent. To some of us, they are
not. For some of us, there's not an important overlap in learning
opportunity, To be lectured by one who has experienced only one side
as to its relevance is, well, you can fill in whatever word or phrase
you choose.

VOR-DME writes:

I am dubitative of the pertinence of one’s expertise in simulation having
never experienced the genuine activity being simulated. However, we’ve
explored the possibility that mitigating factors, be they medical, pecuniary
or other could make this the only real option. This is fine, however to
profess any sort of expertise in the matter this shortfall would have to be
compensated by an even greater study of the subject. This does not appear to
be the case with MX.

My posts are too few on USENET to make any assessment possible. I've been
interested in aviation and have studied it since childhood, and I recall
reading my first ground-school textbook at the age of around six (it belonged
to my father).

This statement is an open gate to a vast sea of ignorance. The topic of
transfer of experience from simulation to real flight, the role of _realism_
and its subset of components (visual, motion, audio, cockpit resource
management, I could go on and on) are the subject of a large number of
published scholarly works and an even greater number of doctoral theses. All
of this ongoing study is tacitly predicated on the assumption that the above
statement is impertinent at best, and probably patently false.

The role of simulation in training and research continues to increase. If it
were not realistic, this would not be the case.

Some pilots have a great deal of their self-esteem invested in their pilot
licenses. These pilots tend to reject simulation summarily because it dilutes
the prestige they imagine to be associated with their licensing and thus dents
their egos. Not all pilots have this type of mental block against simulation,
however, and those who do not may enjoy simulation greatly (albeit not as much
as flying in a real airplane). Most pilots cannot afford to fly a real
airplane during all of their waking hours, so those who reject simulation are
denying themselves considerable aviation-related enjoyment.

Another statement that reveals a very shallow depth of inquiry and a
superficial understanding of simulation, aside the fact that it is simply
untrue.

Some people adapt better than others.

I note that those who refuse to take simulation seriously never enjoy it,
whereas those who do take it seriously find it great fun and sometimes useful
in practical ways that apply to their flights in real aircraft.

There is a serious side to simulation though, and is clear that MX is not well
versed in the subject.

How so?

a writes:

When my most important customer is having some difficulties, I do NOT
simulate a flight to Rochester NY. I file an IFR flight plan, and go
there. That is, at least to my pragmatic way of thinking, a
significant difference.

If you regard flight as only transportation, then I agree. But if all you want
is transportation, simulation is irrelevant. In fact, you can drive a car and
avoid aviation entirely.

My guess is a significant number of us use are ability to fly to
enhance our quality of life by going to interesting places, others do
that by enjoying the aesthetics of soaring.

I don't think that someone who simply wants to get somewhere would decide to
become a pilot and fly there himself. That's an incredibly awkward, expensive
way to travel. People who become pilots usually have some intrinsic interest
in flying. On rare occasions, a person might become a pilot because he has
some extremely specific need for transportation that only an airplane can
provide (as when he must travel to rural areas of Alaska, for example).

For me, travel is a downside to real-world aviation. I hate travel. I don't
want to go anywhere. In fact, having to actually go somewhere is an excellent
reason to avoid flying for real in my book. A huge advantage of simulation for
me is that I can fly without the need to step outside my room.

Perhaps to some the pleasures are equivalent. To some of us, they are
not. For some of us, there's not an important overlap in learning
opportunity, To be lectured by one who has experienced only one side
as to its relevance is, well, you can fill in whatever word or phrase
you choose.

I note that people who are hostile towards me here always resent being told
anything by anyone else. They are very conscious of a semi-imaginary
hierarchy, like a treehouse club. They lord it over people whom they consider
inferior, and they grovel before people whom they consider superior (if any).
And they worry a lot about what other people think of them in general.

On May 15, 11:17*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
Yep, while some people are serious about simulation, there is nothing
serious about simulation as you would think it would relate to the
real world of flying.

I don't understand.

FINALLY YOU ADMIT SOMETHING I AGREE WITH.

On May 16, 8:47*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
a writes:
When my most important customer is having some difficulties, I do NOT
simulate a flight to Rochester NY. I file an IFR flight plan, and go
there. That is, at least to my pragmatic way of thinking, a
significant difference.

If you regard flight as only transportation, then I agree. But if all you want
is transportation, simulation is irrelevant. In fact, you can drive a car and
avoid aviation entirely.

My guess is a significant number of us use are ability to fly to
enhance our quality of life by going to interesting places, others do
that by enjoying the aesthetics of soaring.

I don't think that someone who simply wants to get somewhere would decide to
become a pilot and fly there himself. That's an incredibly awkward, expensive
way to travel. People who become pilots usually have some intrinsic interest
in flying. On rare occasions, a person might become a pilot because he has
some extremely specific need for transportation that only an airplane can
provide (as when he must travel to rural areas of Alaska, for example).

For me, travel is a downside to real-world aviation. I hate travel. I don't
want to go anywhere. In fact, having to actually go somewhere is an excellent
reason to avoid flying for real in my book. A huge advantage of simulation for
me is that I can fly without the need to step outside my room.

Perhaps to some the pleasures are equivalent. To some of us, they are
not. For some of us, there's not an important overlap in learning
opportunity, *To be lectured by one who has experienced only one side
as to its relevance is, well, you can fill in whatever word or phrase
you choose.

I note that people who are hostile towards me here always resent being told
anything by anyone else. They are very conscious of a semi-imaginary
hierarchy, like a treehouse club. They lord it over people whom they consider
inferior, and they grovel before people whom they consider superior (if any).
And they worry a lot about what other people think of them in general.

MX wrote


I note that people who are hostile towards me here always resent being
told
anything by anyone else. They are very conscious of a semi-imaginary
hierarchy, like a treehouse club. They lord it over people whom they
consider
inferior, and they grovel before people whom they consider superior
(if any).
And they worry a lot about what other people think of them in
general.

Rather defensive, aren't you? I take pleasure in flying, and in
driving. You, having no PIC (actual) have little real world aviation
experience to draw on. "I read" or "I simulated" does not carry much
credibility, and to those ignorant but eager to learn of the realities
of general aviation would be prudent to consider the source of advice
and/or teachings. Your pontifications are sometimes right, other times
wrong. The reactions those statements draw help the inexperienced
reader evaluate them.

I've gotten useful ideas from this newsgroup, but not from you. Some
suggestions I've posted have become part of other aviator's
checklists, and that's a nice form of payback. I suspect it's a reward
you don't often get, but I could be wrong.

a writes:

Rather defensive, aren't you?

Not at all. Just making an observation.

You, having no PIC (actual) have little real world aviation
experience to draw on. "I read" or "I simulated" does not carry much
credibility, and to those ignorant but eager to learn of the realities
of general aviation would be prudent to consider the source of advice
and/or teachings.

There are instructors who have never flown. You can become an instructor
without flying, as I recall. Do you dismiss them as well?

Your pontifications are sometimes right, other times
wrong.

How often right, and how often wrong?

The reactions those statements draw help the inexperienced
reader evaluate them.

The smart reader always verifies everything he sees on USENET by some other
means.

I've gotten useful ideas from this newsgroup, but not from you. Some
suggestions I've posted have become part of other aviator's
checklists, and that's a nice form of payback. I suspect it's a reward
you don't often get, but I could be wrong.

Actually, I provide instruction in other venues, and that seems to work quite
well. There are far fewer dorks when there's no anonymity.

In article ,
says...

I don't think that someone who simply wants to get somewhere would decide to
become a pilot and fly there himself. That's an incredibly awkward, expensive
way to travel. People who become pilots usually have some intrinsic interest
in flying. On rare occasions, a person might become a pilot because he has
some extremely specific need for transportation that only an airplane can
provide (as when he must travel to rural areas of Alaska, for example).



It’s not really the topic of this thread, but I fully agree with that. Anyone
who is tempted to get into aviation in a pragmatic desire to solve a specific
transportation need (outside of Alaska or the Outback of Australia or
something) is probably going to come up short on the goods, and the initial
expressed need will not suffice to get him/her through the whole process of
getting and maintaining all the proficiency needed to do this successfully.
And if they do slug it out, still focused on that travel need and never
developing a passion for aviation, they are likely to make poor pilots. Their
initial decision was probably a poor one, and others are likely to follow.
However, someone passionate about aviation, motivated enough to go through the
whole thing, and who flies regularly. Someone to whom filing an IFR flight
plan and flying off somewhere is completely a non-event, is likely to procure
a huge amount of flexibility, a greatly widened operational footprint and the
satisfaction of being spared the grind of long drives and the belittling
aggravation that airline travel has become.