"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
...
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:

The problem with him is that he asks a seemingly good question then when
he
is answered by someone knowledgeable in the subject he argues that the
answer is wrong based on either his experience with MSFS or just his on
preconceived notions.

This is a fair comment - he is argumentative, but that label
can apply to many here :-) He does tend to argue based on
his understanding, which is often wrong and often based on
his flight sim experience, but the point is that he does it
because he believes in his position, not because he's trying
to be a troll and merely stir up argument. I suspect that
what most object to is his style of questioning, coupled
with some natural defensiveness of a sim pilot under attack
in a pilot forum.

I can recall being labeled a troll. I was trying to figure
out why my glider's oxy tank got hot when it was filled.
Every pilot I spoke to said it was because the oxy was being
"compressed" That just makes no sense. You start with a
high pressure fill tank and my empty oxy tank, connect the
two together and let the oxy that was at high pressure in
the fill tank, expand to fill the increased volume defined
by the fill tank volume plus the empty tank volume. That
seems like it should cause cooling due to expansion, not
heating due to compression.

Anyway, since no pilots knew the answer, I figured scuba
enthusiasts could explain it, so I went to a scuba group
where they deal with tank filling more than we do. Guess
what - the majority of them thought it was due to
compression too. They kept explaining air compressors and
referring to the gas laws.

I tried to explain calmly why that couldn't be right since
we were dealing with expansion, not compression. We weren't
looking at compressors, and the gas laws they quoted didn't
define the answer (mostly they had the wrong volumes
defined). They got hotter and hotter and started labeling
this newcomer as a troll, insisting that they were trained
in this, had instructors ratings, etc and they knew the
answer. Pretty soon they were ganging up, saying how no
one should discuss this any more, since I was so thick
headed, not a diver (not true) and just trying to troll for
more dispute. I finally researched and found the answer -
partly elsewhere, but mostly from an astute comment by a
physicist who liked to dive (Could you run a windmill
generator on the flow between the two tanks - what happens
to the energy you could extract if you don't extract it?) .

Perhaps I became a bit defensive, perhaps I stated my point
with more vigor than I should have used against some who
seemed particularly dense, but my point is just that a
different viewpoint from an outsider does not a troll make.



--
Rule books are paper - they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and
metal.

- Ernest K. Gann, 'Fate is the Hunter.'

On the issue of the O2 tank, I must admit that I still don't quite
understand. Intuitively, when filling a smaller tank from a larger one and
with both starting at the same temperature, I would expect the cooling due
to expansion of the gas from the larger tank to offset the heating due to
compression in the smaller tank being filled. I would have first expected
both tanks to end at the starting temperature; but I can also understand how
the source tank might end up cooler and the tank being filled might end up
warmer, in inverse relationship to their volumes, so that the added warmth
of the smaller tank might be more noticeable. Conservation of energy would
explain that much. However, if the difference was great, then I don't
understand the reason--but simply accept the observation pending further
data.

On the original subject of the thread. I have not personally tried any of
the PC sims since just after the 8080 days. However, in the old days, with
the very first MSFS, I seem to recall that the field of view was
approximately 90 degrees (or 45 degrees each side of center) for each screen
and the "camera" could be panned in either 90 degree or 45 degree increments
(I have forgotten which) to obtain a 360 degree view. Thus, with a single
monitor, it was extremely difficult to accurately simulate VFR operation of
a real aircraft. However, it is reputed to be a very credible IFR procedure
simulator; and can I've also been told that it is an acceptable substitute
for the old link trainers when a little turbulence is added and the
stability is reduced. In addition, millions of youths have proven that it
can be flown visually--and is acrobatic when treated as a video game--but
the cues are radically different from an aircraft and could even be a source
of really dangerous bad habits for a pilot (such as only looking straight
ahead).

So, I really don't know why Mxsmanic says he won't take a familiarization
flight. But remember that this is Usenet, and some of the inhabitants are
unusually large or small, or have other physical limitations. Therefore, I
reserve judgment.

Peter