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

For example, the Extra 300 model is extremely poor. The acceleration is
slower than the real aircraft, and the roll rate is much, much less than the
full scale plane.

Plus, I'm not pulling or pushing 8 g's or rolling at 400 degrees a second in
the chair. Sims, even full motion ones, can not mimic the visceral cues
found in real flight.

Additionally, the visual cues looking at a computer monitor are not the
same, since there is no peripheral vision input on the simple models such as
MSFS. There are some advantages to multiple monitor systems with motion.

Even without motion, having a full size cockpit with real instruments adds a
lot to the realism (at least this was my experience at Simcomm). Sitting in
front of a computer screen flying with a joystick, pedals, and throttle
really don't come close to the actual experience of flying.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Judah writes:

How do you know?

The honest ones admit it to me.

Spurious conclusion. Those who agree with you are honest, those who
don't are not?

Either way, your judgment of realism is based on anything -but- your
own experience, and you are left to sort the opinions of others. Your
opinion that MSFS is realistic, or unrealistic, has no basis in any
-fact- that you have ascertained, since those... lemme count... yep,
zero is the total.
-----

- gpsman

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

The aircraft is perfectly capable of autolanding in real
life. As far as I know, the actual ground equipment is the same for
all ILS categories.

And you'd be *wrong*.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic wrote:
Thomas Borchert writes:

But to do that would be totally unrealistic.

Not at all. The aircraft is perfectly capable of autolanding in real
life. As far as I know, the actual ground equipment is the same for
all ILS categories. The aircraft equipment differs by category (the
higher the category, the fancier the equipment), but the 737-800 is
fully equipped for Cat IIIc autolanding.

I don't know how often autolanding is used in real life. Apparently
many pilots like to fly the landing and perhaps at least part of the
approach by hand. But they can still autoland if they want to.


Not often. For the most, visual approaches are used over ILS
approaches. When cleared for the visual approach, you won't be using
autoland, as you won't be on an ILS approach, regardless of if you join
the localizer and track it. You're still on the visual approach.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFnXmXyBkZmuMZ8L8RAhhpAJ92Lh5yirlENcqWYuyvC6 pjGHKUHACgkS55
LIEW8SE3CIIXM6D0XJDlLsc=
=DrqL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Viperdoc wrote:
For example, the Extra 300 model is extremely poor. The acceleration is
slower than the real aircraft, and the roll rate is much, much less than the
full scale plane.

Plus, I'm not pulling or pushing 8 g's or rolling at 400 degrees a second in
the chair. Sims, even full motion ones, can not mimic the visceral cues
found in real flight.

Additionally, the visual cues looking at a computer monitor are not the
same, since there is no peripheral vision input on the simple models such as
MSFS. There are some advantages to multiple monitor systems with motion.

Even without motion, having a full size cockpit with real instruments adds a
lot to the realism (at least this was my experience at Simcomm). Sitting in
front of a computer screen flying with a joystick, pedals, and throttle
really don't come close to the actual experience of flying.



It's not a Extra 300 but I had the opportunity years ago to "fly" the
American Airlines Fokker F100 at their DFW training center at full
motion. I thought that was pretty realistic for this general aviation pilot.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

Buck Murdock writes:

And you'd be *wrong*.

OK. What's different about the ground equipment for the different
categories of ILS approach?

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

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

Not often. For the most, visual approaches are used over ILS
approaches. When cleared for the visual approach, you won't be using
autoland, as you won't be on an ILS approach, regardless of if you join
the localizer and track it. You're still on the visual approach.

Yes, from a regulatory standpoint. But I can still configure for
autoland. It looks like any other landing from the tower, heh heh.

Anyway, the usual reason for this is that I'm working on the systems
and procedures, and not on the actual flying of the aircraft. If I
want to practice flying it, I set up a different flight. Sometimes I
just fly offline for practice in flying skills, since I don't need ATC
for that. Exercises like flying holds by hand or by autopilot, touch
and go landings, etc. I do this more in the Baron than in the 737.

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

gpsman writes:

Spurious conclusion. Those who agree with you are honest, those who
don't are not?

No. The honest ones admit it; the dishonest or disingenuous ones
argue about it endlessly.

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

Viperdoc writes:

For example, the Extra 300 model is extremely poor. The acceleration is
slower than the real aircraft, and the roll rate is much, much less than the
full scale plane.

Perhaps so. I presume the Extra 300 is a "fun" plane, not a serious
one, like many of the others.

Note that the accuracy of simulation depends not only on the
simulation engine, but also on the parameters for each aircraft model.
The default aircraft are rather casually defined.

Plus, I'm not pulling or pushing 8 g's or rolling at 400 degrees a second in
the chair. Sims, even full motion ones, can not mimic the visceral cues
found in real flight.

Yes, yes. I'm getting tired of hearing about this. That's not a flaw
in the simulation, anyway.

Additionally, the visual cues looking at a computer monitor are not the
same, since there is no peripheral vision input on the simple models such as
MSFS. There are some advantages to multiple monitor systems with motion.

I can look left and right by twisting the stick, although I'll grant
that it's not like the real thing. However, that's not a defect in
the simulator software, either.

Even without motion, having a full size cockpit with real instruments adds a
lot to the realism (at least this was my experience at Simcomm). Sitting in
front of a computer screen flying with a joystick, pedals, and throttle
really don't come close to the actual experience of flying.

I tried a much more elaborate simulator about a week ago (still
without motion). I wasn't familiar with the aircraft it
simulated--apparently something like a Piper Cub--but I managed to do
several ILS approaches successfully with an instructor alongside.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
bdl writes:

If you want to get a glimpse into real world ATC, take a look at Don
Brown's columns at Avweb
(http://www.avweb.com/news/sayagain/193881-1.html)

I looked at the page. He seems to discuss nothing but politics.

The latest column probalby wasn't a good example, since he no longer
works for the FAA. But you might try any of the ATC courses (ATC 101,
ATC102, etc.) that prevoius columns offer.

Helps me to understand why I get vectors in certain situations. And
why when I request something I might get a "unable, but try again in 10
miles".

Brian