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.

Thomas Borchert writes:

That information is rather easy to find on the internet. Look it up.

Information is elsewhere.

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

Thomas Borchert writes:

Actually, no, it doesn't. The word "for" is to be avoided because it sound
the same as "four". It sounds like many airline pilots (just like "twelve
hundred" or "with you"), but professional it is not.

Which airline do you fly for, again?

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

Nomen Nescio writes:

Uh, gee, Einstein, a real rudder DOES control flight path.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. It rotates the aircraft
about its yaw axis, which can have a number of different effects,
depending on the situation.

There is in MSFS. There isn't in real life. My guess is that MSFS merely
uses a random number generator to add a degree or 2 of bank or pitch.
Real turbulence can throw a plane up or down a few hundred ft in seconds.
Turbulence in MSFS has NO effect on altitude.

It does when I encounter it.

One of the reasons is the useless rudder modeling.

No, I think the main reasons are that some pilots depend excessively
on physical sensations, and become disoriented without them. Also,
some depend a lot on a large field of vision, which most simulator
configurations don't provide.

Here's a test you can do yourself.
Fly straight and level.
Look at your heading.
Now feed in full rudder (pick a direction) and hold the wings level (this
is critical).
After doing this for couple minutes or so, release the rudder. Again, always keeping
the wings level (any bank at all will screw up the test).
Now look at the heading. If you did this perfectly, the heading will be exactly
the same. Now check your flight path. You'll see that it's a straight line.
With a real rudder, your heading will change significantly and your flight
path will not be a straight line.

I did it. The plane turns (reluctantly), and the flight path curves.
The heading changes. And the wings were level, because I turned on the
wing leveling function in the autopilot, which forces them to stay
level (it was using quite a bit of aileron to keep them level, but
they did not budge).

So MSFS apparently passes the test.

BTW, The rudder responses are reasonably accurate in "x-plane" so
there's no reason MSFS couldn't model it properly. But that does not
change the fact that it's not.

It seems to work fine on my copy of MSFS. Rather like your rudder
test.

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

Mxsmanic,

Which airline do you fly for, again?


Are you determined to make a complete idiot of yourself now? But I'm
glad to see it is possible to penetrate that armor you've conveniently
constructed around your sorry self.

GA aircraft and airlines use the same radio frequencies. They are
required to use the same phrases in their radio work. So I don't need
to fly for an airline to make qualified statements about radio work. I
have been educated in radio work in just the same way as an airline
pilot. You haven't. So take the advice of another poster: STFU and take
notes!

FWIW, the part I mentioned is easily obtainable by reading the AIM or
the Pilot-Controller-Glossary, which you have been pointed to, but are
too lazy to read. Instead, you prefer to try making silly personal
attacks. You're a lying troll.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Nomen Nescio writes:

Uh, gee, Einstein, a real rudder DOES control flight path.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. It rotates the aircraft
about its yaw axis, which can have a number of different effects,
depending on the situation.

Staying within the context of this discussion vis-a-vis rudder input alone
and your statement above, can you describe when it does and does not affect
flight path and in which aircraft this is true? What are the number of
different effects it can have and what situations do they occur in.

BDS writes:

Staying within the context of this discussion vis-a-vis rudder input alone
and your statement above, can you describe when it does and does not affect
flight path and in which aircraft this is true? What are the number of
different effects it can have and what situations do they occur in.

There are many different possibilities. In the experiment suggested
to me, I held the wings level (via the autolevel function of the
autopilot), applied full right rudder, and the aircraft yawed and
gradually changed heading. The ground track was a segment of a circle
(depending on how long I held the rudder). Supposedly MSFS can't do
this, but it did.

Adjusting the rudder yaws the aircraft. In ordinary level flight,
this will tend to cause the aircraft to enter a turn. The asymmetric
lift resulting from the yaw will tend to push the aircraft into a bank
in the same direction as the rudder is turning the aircraft, and
aerodynamic forces on the rest of the aircraft will assist this.

The rudder can also be used to compensate for other forces acting
about the yaw axis. It can be used to compensate for crosswinds or
engine torque. It can be used to establish and maintain coordinated
turns. And so on.

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

While this thread is obviously degenerating to your base level of illogic
and circular reasoning, I can tell you that your statement "anyone competent
to flying can probably can land (an Extra) virtually blindfolded" is
laughingly untrue.

Landing a tailwheel airplane is a distinctly different challenge compared to
a tricycle gear plane. I have close to 1000 hours in tailwheel planes, and I
(along with any other pilot of tailwheel aircraft) will tell you that it
takes a lot more attention to land these planes, particularly in gusting
crosswind conditions.

The Extra is harder in some ways, because it lands fast and sinks rapidly,
with no forward visibility. On the other hand the controls (especially the
rudder) remain effective even at low airspeeds. Once on the runway it is
very stable, and does not hop around like a Pitts.

The reason why people are alienated by your posts are the ridiculous
pronouncements like the one quoted above, which are illogical conclusions
based on no meaningful experience or reasoning. Get a clue.

Mxsmanic wrote:
bdl writes:


The realism is very striking. That doesn't make it REAL, however.


As long as the realism is striking, it doesn't have to be real. The
whole purpose of simulation is realism without reality, after all.

In the context of aviation the purpose of simulation is to faithfully
duplicate the aircraft flight deck, panels and systems, motion, and
outside visual references so that pilot qualification in the simulator
translates into pilot qualification in the aircraft.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

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.

It's insulting diatribe like this that convinces me that contrary to what
Jose and Jay seem to think, Mx is not here to learn but rather to provoke.

He is always the first to resort to insults when he has nowhere else to go
in the argument. Why else would he make comments like the above along with
such things as "GA pilots are incompetent", "people in the USA have no
courage, only ego", etc., etc.

Not once have I seen him admit that he might be mistaken, and that in itself
is very telling.