Flying the world, from his own garage

[Dude]

Private pilot James Price, of Pleasanton, Calif., built a flight
simulator, which is housed in his three-car garage. The simulator is
embedded in the cockpit nose of a 1969 Boeing 737.

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_20417444/flying-world-from-his-own-garage

Every time I see one of these I am just baffled at how they integrate
all the real systems / switches into doing what they really do.

Cheers,
Chris

[Tom Garrett]

"Dude" wrote in message
news:dfd083f0-4731-4766...@r32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

Thanks for posting that, Chris. I love what he has accomplished. Wish I had
one.
Tom in Tucson

[NM5K]

Most all that stuff you can buy off the shelf and slap it
all together.. But it's way too rich for my blood.. :(
They are really proud of all the various parts.. Not that
large a market, and I imagine they have to charge the $$$$ to
be financially viable..
I hear he could have upwards to 300 grand tied up in that thing.
This guy in Las Vegas has one that to me, is nearly as good.
Just no real shell and nose..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwHVKuytXU8
He mentioned on one video, he's got over 100 grand in it so far,
and is still a work in progress.
I'm afraid I'll have to make do with the 737NGX.. :(

[Mxsmanic]

Dude writes:

> Every time I see one of these I am just baffled at how they integrate
> all the real systems / switches into doing what they really do.

They don't mention what software he's using as a base, but they do mention
that he has written a lot of extra software. Still, all the interfacing must
take up 95% of his time in building the thing.

[Mxsmanic]

NM5K writes:

> I hear he could have upwards to 300 grand tied up in that thing.
> This guy in Las Vegas has one that to me, is nearly as good.
> Just no real shell and nose..
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwHVKuytXU8
> He mentioned on one video, he's got over 100 grand in it so far,
> and is still a work in progress.
> I'm afraid I'll have to make do with the 737NGX.. :(

The only problem with a set-up like this is that what happens if you decide
you want to fly a different aircraft?

[NM5K]

You basically don't, if you want the same realism. Of course,
using another Boeing jet model would work a lot better than
trying to use it for a prop plane. But it work fine overall
I would think, if you ignored the cockpit not being as real.
The guy with the 100 grand 737 sim is using FS9. So I assume
he could load a lot of different planes and have them flyable
with the hardware he has.
But I doubt it does that much.. If I had a sim that realistic,
it wouldn't bother me much to be limited to one type aircraft.
Heck, of all my jets on FSX, the 737NGX is the only one I use
any more. All of the others except the FA/18 are retired and
collecting dust. I don't even fly the Lear any more, and it was
one of my favorites.. But it's just too lame now as far as
realism.
So unless I buy the 777 when it comes out, and I likely will,
the 737NG is the only jet I run these days.
The 777 going to be out fairly soon.. I've already seen some
images, and it should be as good or better than the 737NGX
as far as the detail, fit, and finish.
They also have a new updated 747 in the cooker that will
come out later. It's mainly to bring their old version up to
NGX standards I think..
I can survive on the normal PC as long as the aircraft are
realistic.. I know I'm way too cheap to ever spend that
kind of big money on a big sit down sim.. Well, unless maybe I
won the lottery, but I rarely ever play the lottery. :/
If I had that kind of money to blow, I'd rather go get my
license and fly some real ones I think.
Could probably get a private pilots license for what they
paid for some of the parts in those sims..
And have money left over to rent planes.. Or maybe even buy
one if you snagged a deal.
The guy with the 100 grand sim also owns and flies his own
plane.. So he's got the best of both worlds.. Must be loaded
to afford such toys.. :|

[Mxsmanic]

NM5K writes:

> If I had a sim that realistic,
> it wouldn't bother me much to be limited to one type aircraft.
> Heck, of all my jets on FSX, the 737NGX is the only one I use
> any more. All of the others except the FA/18 are retired and
> collecting dust. I don't even fly the Lear any more, and it was
> one of my favorites.. But it's just too lame now as far as
> realism.

You never feel like flying into small airports in a light twin? Dreamfleet
makes some excellent small prop aircraft. I love flying their Baron around.

I might stay with big iron if I could fly anywhere with it, but sometimes you
want to fly into little airports where airliners dare not tread. For that you
need something small.

One reason I'm very happy with my Eaglesoft Citation X 2.0 is that it bridges
the gap between airliners and small prop planes. A Citation is small enough to
be able to use lots of GA airports, but fast enough that you don't have to
spend the entire day flying just to get somewhere useful.

> So unless I buy the 777 when it comes out, and I likely will,
> the 737NG is the only jet I run these days.
> The 777 going to be out fairly soon.. I've already seen some
> images, and it should be as good or better than the 737NGX
> as far as the detail, fit, and finish.
> They also have a new updated 747 in the cooker that will
> come out later. It's mainly to bring their old version up to
> NGX standards I think..

Do they still have 2D cockpits for these aircraft? I only fly 2D cockpits.

> If I had that kind of money to blow, I'd rather go get my
> license and fly some real ones I think.

I'd spend the money on a full-motion sim. That way I could fly anywhere,
anytime, and I wouldn't need to bother with a license. Especially since I like
to "fly," but I hate actually going anywhere. I want to still be close to the
bed and the fridge at the end of a long flight.

> The guy with the 100 grand sim also owns and flies his own
> plane.. So he's got the best of both worlds.. Must be loaded
> to afford such toys.. :|

Money is everything.

[sambodidley]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message

A Citation is small enough to
> be able to use lots of GA airports, but fast enough that you don't have to
> spend the entire day flying just to get somewhere useful.

Anybody that spends all day to get ANYWHERE in a sim plane just has too
dang much time on his hand.<g>
Sam

[Dude]

On Apr 23, 8:03 pm, NM5K <n...@invalid.net> wrote:
> On 4/23/2012 9:33 PM, Tom Garrett wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Dude" wrote in message
> >news:dfd083f0-4731-4766...@r32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Private pilot James Price, of Pleasanton, Calif., built a flight
> > simulator, which is housed in his three-car garage. The simulator is
> > embedded in the cockpit nose of a 1969 Boeing 737.
>

> >http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_20417444/flying-world-from-his-own...

>
> > Every time I see one of these I am just baffled at how they integrate
> > all the real systems / switches into doing what they really do.
>
> > Cheers,
> > Chris
>
> > Thanks for posting that, Chris. I love what he has accomplished. Wish I
> > had one.
> > Tom in Tucson
>
> Most all that stuff you can buy off the shelf and slap it
> all together.. But it's way too rich for my blood.. :(
> They are really proud of all the various parts.. Not that
> large a market, and I imagine they have to charge the $$$$ to
> be financially viable..
> I hear he could have upwards to 300 grand tied up in that thing.
> This guy in Las Vegas has one that to me, is nearly as good.

> Just no real shell and nose..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwHVKuytXU8

> He mentioned on one video, he's got over 100 grand in it so far,
> and is still a work in progress.
> I'm afraid I'll have to make do with the 737NGX..  :(

Yeah I seen that one before. In fact I think I posted it a while back.
Impressive set up too. But yeah for that money I could have a very
nice real plane and fly to real airports.
In fact for a lot less money we can do that haha

Chris

[Dude]

Yeah doesnt quite scale well if you want to fly a little single engine
plane just for fun.

Chris

[Mxsmanic]

sambodidley writes:

> Anybody that spends all day to get ANYWHERE in a sim plane just has too
> dang much time on his hand.

I tend to agree, but there are lots of people on VATSIM who do precisely this
... and often do other things while their flights are in progress.

The only explanation I can think of is that they belong to virtual airlines in
which people compete to accumulate flying hours, perhaps with no real interest
in flying. Little boys love competition, no matter what type of competition it
is.

Come to think of it, I wonder if this guy with his fancy sim flies on VATSIM?
It would certainly add additional realism.

[Mxsmanic]

Dude writes:

> But yeah for that money I could have a very
> nice real plane and fly to real airports.

You can't get much for $100,000 in terms of a real aircraft.

And you'll never fly a 737 for fun or at your discretion. Even airline pilots
who actually do fly the aircraft are constrained to fly it when and where
their employers tell them to.

And flying is one thing, whereas being in another city at the end of the day
is quite another. I like to fly, but I hate to travel, and simulation is one
way to have the former without the latter.

[Dude]

You do realize I am a Pilot and look at Aircraft for sale all the
time. There are hundreds of planes for sale right now that most of us
would LOVE to own for $100K and less. Many nice twins even out there
for that kind of money. Would you like to see a shopping list?

Chris

[Mxsmanic]

Dude writes:

> You do realize I am a Pilot and look at Aircraft for sale all the
> time. There are hundreds of planes for sale right now that most of us
> would LOVE to own for $100K and less. Many nice twins even out there
> for that kind of money. Would you like to see a shopping list?

I'd be curious to see what the current prices are, although I'd only buy a new
aircraft if I were a pilot in the market for one, and it would probably be a
twin.

[NM5K]

That's why I run short routes most of the time.. I generally
don't stay at cruise too long in most cases.. I'd rather
run more cycles for a given amount of time, rather than stay at
cruise for several hours and do fewer cycles.
Being at cruise is fairly boring for the most part, and I don't
have time to sit that long..
So the vast majority of my 737 flights are under 500 miles..
I go up, cruise for a bit, and then right on back down..
Most of my flights last about an hour or so.
I still have to work for a living, so I don't have unlimited
time to play pseudo pilot. And I have many other irons in the
fire too, as far as hobbies, etc.. I'm also often dealing with
my mother, who has had four strokes, and is in a nursing home
nearby. So that keeps me fairly busy too running to and fro.
Very few long red eye flights for this buoy.. :|
Even if I get the 777, I doubt I will be doing too many red eye
flights.

[NM5K]

On 4/24/2012 11:10 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
> NM5K writes:
>
>> If I had a sim that realistic,
>> it wouldn't bother me much to be limited to one type aircraft.
>> Heck, of all my jets on FSX, the 737NGX is the only one I use
>> any more. All of the others except the FA/18 are retired and
>> collecting dust. I don't even fly the Lear any more, and it was
>> one of my favorites.. But it's just too lame now as far as
>> realism.
>
> You never feel like flying into small airports in a light twin? Dreamfleet
> makes some excellent small prop aircraft. I love flying their Baron around.

Sure, sometimes.. I used to fly the FSX Baron a lot.. Also the Mooney.
But if I had a sim that detailed, I could ditch the props and lose
little sleep overall.. :)

>
> I might stay with big iron if I could fly anywhere with it, but sometimes you
> want to fly into little airports where airliners dare not tread. For that you
> need something small.
>
> One reason I'm very happy with my Eaglesoft Citation X 2.0 is that it bridges
> the gap between airliners and small prop planes. A Citation is small enough to
> be able to use lots of GA airports, but fast enough that you don't have to
> spend the entire day flying just to get somewhere useful.

I used to have a Citation X for another sim version, but it's been
a while. I've never tried that Eaglesoft version..
I like running that plane, as it's faster than a scalded house cat
at cruise... "up to mach .92 as I recall"

>

>
> Do they still have 2D cockpits for these aircraft? I only fly 2D cockpits.

The 737NGX has all the 2D panels except for the throttle quadrant.
Dunno what the 777 will have yet..
Myself, 2D is totally dead.. I only run VC cockpits.. So no worries
for me.. :) I quit running 2D panels several years back when I
first started using FS9.

>

>
> Money is everything.

It does help..

[NM5K]

On 4/24/2012 5:03 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dude writes:
>
>> But yeah for that money I could have a very
>> nice real plane and fly to real airports.
>
> You can't get much for $100,000 in terms of a real aircraft.

Dunno.. I see some fairly good deal from time to time..
Or you could try to win one...
http://www.1940airterminal.org/TheHangar/RafflePlane/
But buying one is just half the battle.. You have to factor in
a few other costs also.. Maintenance, insurance, hanger, etc..

>
> And you'll never fly a 737 for fun or at your discretion. Even airline pilots
> who actually do fly the aircraft are constrained to fly it when and where
> their employers tell them to.

Well, I do on my sim.. I have my own private 737-600 that I own myself
in the virtual world, and I fly any where I please.. Of course, my life
as a pseudo Southwest pilot is a bit more structured. :/
It's all money.. Look at Travolta.. He owns a 707, along with several
other aircraft, and I think he pretty much goes wherever he pleases..
It's like the Willy song.. If you got the money, I got the time.. :|

>
> And flying is one thing, whereas being in another city at the end of the day
> is quite another. I like to fly, but I hate to travel, and simulation is one
> way to have the former without the latter.

I don't think I'd care for traveling to a lot of the places the
typical airline pilot flies to.. Or at least on a regular basis..
Living out of a suitcase gets old fast.

[Mxsmanic]

NM5K writes:

> I used to fly the FSX Baron a lot..

Ah, but the default Baron isn't even a pale shadow of the Dreamfleet Baron.

> I used to have a Citation X for another sim version, but it's been
> a while. I've never tried that Eaglesoft version..

I've tried both the Eaglesoft Citation X and the Wilco Citation X, and I ended
up preferring the Eaglesoft.

> I like running that plane, as it's faster than a scalded house cat
> at cruise... "up to mach .92 as I recall"

Yup. Great for flying between GA airports. Sits very nicely between big iron
and small props.

> The 737NGX has all the 2D panels except for the throttle quadrant.

So how do you adjust the throttles?

> Myself, 2D is totally dead.. I only run VC cockpits.. So no worries
> for me.. :) I quit running 2D panels several years back when I
> first started using FS9.

I'm more interested in functionality and realism and complete systems than I
am in eye candy, so virtual cockpits waste my time, especially since it's
harder to see anything with them.

[Mxsmanic]

NM5K writes:

> Dunno.. I see some fairly good deal from time to time..

If you are satisfied with a very small aircraft. But you aren't going to find
a Citation or 767 for $100,000.

> But buying one is just half the battle.. You have to factor in
> a few other costs also.. Maintenance, insurance, hanger, etc..

Yup. And none of those costs adds to the enjoyment.

> Well, I do on my sim.. I have my own private 737-600 that I own myself
> in the virtual world, and I fly any where I please.

Exactly.

> Of course, my life
> as a pseudo Southwest pilot is a bit more structured. :/

I mirror Southwest flights occasionally. It's surprising how closely the sim
matches real life. On a 1-hour flight, I'm usually within 2-5 minutes of the
real flight.

> It's all money.. Look at Travolta.. He owns a 707, along with several
> other aircraft, and I think he pretty much goes wherever he pleases..

My guess is that he's struggling to keep those aircraft. He's just not working
enough to earn the kind of money required to keep all those aircraft and fly
them.

And as it is, he settled for a 707 because he couldn't afford anything better.

Now, Paul Allen has two 757s, as I recall, but he doesn't fly them himself.

> I don't think I'd care for traveling to a lot of the places the
> typical airline pilot flies to.. Or at least on a regular basis..
> Living out of a suitcase gets old fast.

Exactly. I'm in the odd position of being very interesting in flying, but
absolutely detesting any type of travel. I could never be an airline pilot
simply because it requires travel. And even being a private pilot could be
problematic, because I really don't want to go anywhere, I just like to fly.

[NM5K]

On 4/25/2012 6:42 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
> NM5K writes:
>
>> I used to fly the FSX Baron a lot..
>
> Ah, but the default Baron isn't even a pale shadow of the Dreamfleet Baron.

Probably, but it's getting a bit aged if it's the one I'm thinking
of, and I doubt I would spend money on it when there are other new hi-fi
props I could buy. I'd probably rather try some of the new A2A planes
if I were to cough up money for props.

>

>
>> The 737NGX has all the 2D panels except for the throttle quadrant.
>
> So how do you adjust the throttles?

Well, visually I'm seeing the throttles right where they would
be if I were sitting in the plane. I actually adjust them with a
throttle on the yoke though. There are two TO/GA switches.. The
button on the throttle, and also a hidden click spot at the left
corner of the MCP.. I use the click spot so I don't have to look down
to find and click the button with the mouse.

>
>> Myself, 2D is totally dead.. I only run VC cockpits.. So no worries
>> for me.. :) I quit running 2D panels several years back when I
>> first started using FS9.
>
> I'm more interested in functionality and realism and complete systems than I
> am in eye candy, so virtual cockpits waste my time, especially since it's
> harder to see anything with them.

Everything is completely realistic using the VC. The 2D panel is less
realistic in my view. Every system works in the VC the same as the
real plane. Some things may be harder to read for some, but it doesn't
bother me. And sometimes I have to twist my head around to set certain
things, pretty much like the real deal.. IE: setting the pressurization
altitude settings up on the overhead for instance.
And on top of all that, the eye candy is good. :)
The 737NGX blows every other jetliner off the map right now as far as
realism. Nothing else really even comes close.. The I-fly 737NG version
is not too bad, but.. not quite in the same league as the NGX in many
aspects.
Only when the 777 comes out, will it have any real competition. I expect
the 777 to be as good, or even better.
Like I say, I can't fly any other airliners any more.. Just too lame,
and unrealistic as far as operation.
I wish PMDG would do a good Learjet.. But I doubt they ever will..
They tend to like the heavier metal..

[NM5K]

On 4/25/2012 6:47 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
> NM5K writes:
>
>> Dunno.. I see some fairly good deal from time to time..
>
> If you are satisfied with a very small aircraft. But you aren't going to find
> a Citation or 767 for $100,000.

uh, nope.. :/

>

>
>> It's all money.. Look at Travolta.. He owns a 707, along with several
>> other aircraft, and I think he pretty much goes wherever he pleases..
>
> My guess is that he's struggling to keep those aircraft. He's just not working
> enough to earn the kind of money required to keep all those aircraft and fly
> them.
>
> And as it is, he settled for a 707 because he couldn't afford anything better.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. He just got another Bombardier jet
not too long ago, so it's not like he's been trimming down..
Heck, Quantas offered him a 747 for doing the tours, and he declined
it, telling them that he would prefer they help him with the 707, which
they did..
Now he's promoting Bombardier jets.. So they probably cut him a deal on
his he couldn't refuse.. :|
I think he uses his promo tours, etc to help with the aircraft costs.
And a lot of that business traveling he probably writes off, etc..

>
> Now, Paul Allen has two 757s, as I recall, but he doesn't fly them himself.

That ain't no fun... :/

[Ibby]

Can't agree anymore with all thats said about the NGX, best aircraft
out there, graphics, modelled systems, sound, dynamics. I've just
purchased FS2Crew for the NGX which adds a great sense of realism,
especially with the voice control.

MX its actually good to see you having a normal conversation on here
givingan insight into what you like to fly :)

Ibby

[Dude]

On Apr 25, 4:47 am, Mxsmanic <mxsma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> NM5K writes:
> > Dunno.. I see some fairly good deal from time to time..
>
> If you are satisfied with a very small aircraft. But you aren't going to find
> a Citation or 767 for $100,000.
>

So your saying if you cant own a multi million dollar aircraft then
you just don't want any. (with pissed look in face and arms crossed)

So a Cessna 310, 320, 401, 402 Barron 55, 56, or 58 to give some twin
examples or maybe get nostalgic and get a Beech 18 (Twin Beech) or one
on my favorites would be to own a Velocity RG that does 200+kts on 10
gal/hr
not to mention the dozens of great examples of Single pistons like
Bonanza's or Mooney's..
Nope nope nope unless it fly's at FL390 at .92 mach I'll just drive is
that what your saying?

Chris

[sambodidley]

"Dude" <chris...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:45f9cfd2-45be-4e55...@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...

Chris,
That's jus the difference between Simmners and Real Pilots. If they
cant' fly what they have simmed thren they don't want it. If I'm not
simming what I have flown (or could have flown if I'd had the opportunity)
it doesn't do much for me. I have no desire to be a vitual fighter polot or
a flight captain in a virtual world. I didn't even have a desire to do that
in RL. Simming just fills in a void I have since I can no longer fly in the
real world.
Sam

[Dude]

On Apr 25, 6:57 pm, "sambodidley" <tails...@stallout.net> wrote:
> "Dude" <chris.ho...@gmail.com> wrote in message

I get what your saying but flying in real life no matter if you in a
1946 Piper Cub doing 80kts at 1000' AGL or in a Citation X at FL390
oing mack .92 is a blast and honestly there is a lot of fun to be had
going low and slow and actually flying the plane versus letting the AP
take you there.

Chris

[NM5K]

On 4/25/2012 8:57 PM, sambodidley wrote:

>
> Chris,
> That's jus the difference between Simmners and Real Pilots. If they
> cant' fly what they have simmed thren they don't want it. If I'm not
> simming what I have flown (or could have flown if I'd had the opportunity)
> it doesn't do much for me. I have no desire to be a vitual fighter polot or
> a flight captain in a virtual world. I didn't even have a desire to do that
> in RL. Simming just fills in a void I have since I can no longer fly in the
> real world.
> Sam
>
>

Well, that's the same with me, except I'm filling a void too. I'll
likely never fly *anything* in the real world. Can't really afford it.
No matter what type plane.
What type aircraft I sim has nothing to do with trying to be a virtual
fighter pilot, or virtual airline capt, or even a virtual Cessna 152
pilot. I'll likely never be any of them.
So.. I fly *everything* on the sim. If it's got wings, I'll fly it, and
if I can't, I'll learn how to fly it.

But you have to understand that after flying something like a realistic
737 for a while, flying a small prop plane is generally quite boring on
the sim. There is little to none of the excitement you would have in
the real world.
And it's so easy, that there is really no challenge to it unless you
do exercises that are difficult, such as blind IFR flight training
exercises, or whatever. That's about all I would do if I had to
fly a 152 on the sim every day. At least there would be some challenge
to it.

Would I fly one in the real world? Heck yea.. In a second if I had the
chance. But it's a lot more exciting to fly a 152 in the real world,
than it is on the sim.
On the sim, a 152 puts me to sleep.. There is hardly anything to do,
and I'm going so danged slow, it's like turning the speed down to 18%..
The challenge for me is almost zero when flying normal type flights
in one of those. And if no challenge, I won't be spending much time on
it. I'm that way with anything. I get bored easily.

Heck, I've been driving real cars and trucks for years, but that
doesn't mean I want to simulate driving one. :/
Where is the challenge in that? I already know how to do it.
If I'm going to simulate flying a plane on the puter, I need something
a little more intensive, not to be bored to tears after about 15 min.
That's why I generally fly more complicated aircraft on the sim.
Gives me enough to do, to not be bored to death. Even using the
autopilot systems, etc, it generally takes more thinking, and more
constant planning, to stay ahead of the aircraft when running a 737
doing 430 knots, and using real plans and procedures, than something
like a 152 doing about 90 knots just buzzing the countryside VFR between
small airports. Fun in the real world.. Not on the sim. Or at least for
me..
And I have to learn all those various systems on the 737, which is just
that much more to have to learn and do, which further lowers the
boredom factor. It's kinda fun being able to watch a real 737NG
pilot, and know most everything that he is doing down to every
single switch.

That's why I told "MX" if I were to spend money on a prop plane,
I would be going for the newer more intensive models, like A2A
Accumsim, etc.. I have to learn all the real procedures and quirks
of the aircraft, which helps keep the boredom at bay.
Try frying an engine with the Dreamfleet Baron.. I bet it's almost
impossible.. :| Quite easy with one of the Accusim planes if you
don't do things in a orderly military manner.
Anyway, being as I've never flown anything in the real world, I
see no reason to restrict myself to any single type in the simulated
world. It's all artificial flying no matter what I run..
So I might as well run something with gusto..
I still wish I had a PMDG Learjet, as that is one of my favorite
planes to fly.. Kinda like the Corvette of the biz jet world..
Small, fast, and just complicated enough to keep me from going to sleep.

BTW, I hope this doesn't dupe.. I sent it off, and the servers went
kaput, so I'm sending it again..

[Mxsmanic]

NM5K writes:

> Probably, but it's getting a bit aged if it's the one I'm thinking
> of, and I doubt I would spend money on it when there are other new hi-fi
> props I could buy. I'd probably rather try some of the new A2A planes
> if I were to cough up money for props.

It's up to you, but remember that software doesn't wear out. The Dreamfleet
Beechcraft aircraft are superlative.

I've read about the A2A stuff, but it seems to all be military.

> Well, visually I'm seeing the throttles right where they would
> be if I were sitting in the plane. I actually adjust them with a
> throttle on the yoke though. There are two TO/GA switches.. The
> button on the throttle, and also a hidden click spot at the left
> corner of the MCP.. I use the click spot so I don't have to look down
> to find and click the button with the mouse.

But I mean, if you are using a 2D view, but there are no 2D throttles, how do
you look at the throttles?

> Everything is completely realistic using the VC.

Perhaps if you have TrackIR (although I have my doubts), but that's too rich
for me. The VCs I have in all my current aircraft are less polished and
detailed than the 2D cockpits. And instrument readability is extremely
important, and it's better in the 2D views.

> The 737NGX blows every other jetliner off the map right now as far as
> realism. Nothing else really even comes close.. The I-fly 737NG version
> is not too bad, but.. not quite in the same league as the NGX in many
> aspects.

It's unfortunate that they chose not to develop it for FS9. I have the older
PMDG 737, which is excellent, but it was an early effort and doesn't have the
finish of the 747-400 that I also have.

I have the Level-D 767, too, which is also very nice, although the cockpit
details are a lot harder to read (too much emphasis on photos and not enough
on clear images). The externals are great.

> I wish PMDG would do a good Learjet.. But I doubt they ever will..
> They tend to like the heavier metal..

I think each company should continue doing what it does best. Spreading things
too thin is not good. I use Dreamfleet for Beechcraft and Piper, Carenado for
Cessna props, Eaglesoft for the Citation X, PMDG for the 737 and 747, and
Level-D for the 767. They are all nice aircraft. And since I like them all, I
can't really switch to FSX until all of the same aircraft were available for
that sim (not to mention all the other add-on and scenery issues).

[Mxsmanic]

Dude writes:

> So your saying if you cant own a multi million dollar aircraft then
> you just don't want any. (with pissed look in face and arms crossed)

What I'm saying is that simulation gives you access to aircraft you're never
going to fly in real life, either because you can't afford to buy the real
aircraft or because you cannot get certified on them.

Like I said, even an airline pilot cannot fly big iron in real life the way he
can on a sim. On the job, he flies where he is told, period. In a sim, he can
fly anywhere, on any type of aircraft. Sure, it's not the real thing, but
simulation still has many advantages that real flight does not.

I also think that many airline pilots actually enjoy the systems and
intellectual aspects of flying, rather than the seat-o'the-pants sensations.
There is great satisfaction to be had in mastering complex systems and getting
them to work in precise ways to complete specific tasks. Some pilots may enjoy
doing loops in a glider, but others may enjoy sitting and watching a huge bank
of instruments in hard IMC and navigating their way in zero visibility to a
perfect landing at a distant airport.

> So a Cessna 310, 320, 401, 402 Barron 55, 56, or 58 to give some twin
> examples or maybe get nostalgic and get a Beech 18 (Twin Beech) or one
> on my favorites would be to own a Velocity RG that does 200+kts on 10
> gal/hr
> not to mention the dozens of great examples of Single pistons like
> Bonanza's or Mooney's..
> Nope nope nope unless it fly's at FL390 at .92 mach I'll just drive is
> that what your saying?

I'd take a Baron. Maybe a Bonanza. Not keen on Cessna. Don't know much about
Piper.

But part of the problem is that I don't want to be stuck with just one
airplane. I want to fly different kinds of airplanes, and that just isn't very
practical in real life. One aircraft is costly enough, but a whole fleet ...
not easily done.

[Mxsmanic]

Dude writes:

> I get what your saying but flying in real life no matter if you in a
> 1946 Piper Cub doing 80kts at 1000' AGL or in a Citation X at FL390
> oing mack .92 is a blast and honestly there is a lot of fun to be had
> going low and slow and actually flying the plane versus letting the AP
> take you there.

It may be a blast for a certain time. But if all you have is one type of
aircraft, and you've had a taste of what various other aircraft are like in
simulation, you might get tired of the real aircraft after a while.

For example, a Cessna 152 may be great fun to fly, up to a point, but if you
want to fly 400 miles, you're going to start wishing that you had something a
lot faster. Conversely, if you have a 747, that's fun, too, until you realize
that you can't really go anywhere other than major airports with it.

[Mxsmanic]

NM5K writes:

> But you have to understand that after flying something like a realistic
> 737 for a while, flying a small prop plane is generally quite boring on
> the sim. There is little to none of the excitement you would have in
> the real world.

I can't agree. The past few days I've been flying mostly a Citation X, but
this morning I made a short flight in one of my pokey little Cessna 152s. Very
different flying. I spent most of the time in the 152 peering out the window,
trying to find landmarks to guide me, since the 152 doesn't have much in the
way of instruments. Very different from the Citation with its FMS. But the
Citation is also different from airliners, since it doesn't have autothrottle
or autoland.

When I get tired of one aircraft type, I switch to another.

> And it's so easy, that there is really no challenge to it unless you
> do exercises that are difficult, such as blind IFR flight training
> exercises, or whatever. That's about all I would do if I had to
> fly a 152 on the sim every day. At least there would be some challenge
> to it.

Try pilotage on the 152. It can be a sobering experience.

And yes, even though MSFS scenery isn't photorealistic, there are enough
landmarks in it to allow you to navigate by pilotage.

This morning I spent a lot of time trying to figure which Interstate I had
below me, and whether or not the shape of the lake ahead matched the lake I
thought I should be over, and so on. Same as real life.

> On the sim, a 152 puts me to sleep.. There is hardly anything to do,
> and I'm going so danged slow, it's like turning the speed down to 18%..

Yes, it's slow, but there's a lot to do just keeping it in level flight. If
you fall asleep in a 152, you end up hitting a mountain. I have to retrim
every time the wind changes, and I have to constantly tweak the yoke to keep
the wings level, lest I enter a slow turn and drift off course. I've become
lost more often in the 152 than in any other aircraft, I think. On several
occasions I've landed at small airports that were not actually my destination
airports (although they were close by, if that counts). And I don't even try
to fly at night.

> If I'm going to simulate flying a plane on the puter, I need something
> a little more intensive, not to be bored to tears after about 15 min.

Fly the 152 between two small airports at night using pilotage alone. That'll
keep you awake.

> That's why I generally fly more complicated aircraft on the sim.
> Gives me enough to do, to not be bored to death. Even using the
> autopilot systems, etc, it generally takes more thinking, and more
> constant planning, to stay ahead of the aircraft when running a 737
> doing 430 knots, and using real plans and procedures, than something
> like a 152 doing about 90 knots just buzzing the countryside VFR between
> small airports. Fun in the real world.. Not on the sim. Or at least for
> me..

You need to take the simulation more seriously. It's not boring if you keep in
mind that you might end up dead if you make mistakes in navigation or flying.

> Try frying an engine with the Dreamfleet Baron.. I bet it's almost
> impossible.

You might be surprised at what's possible with the Baron. I was.

A story I've told before: One time I was doing touch and goes in my trusty
Dreamfleet Baron 58, and after one particularly hard landing, I noticed that
the aircraft kept rolling to the right after I was airborne again. At first I
thought there was a bug in the simulation, but then I wasn't so sure. I tried
lots of things while struggling to keep the wings level. Finally I noticed
that the roll tendency disappear with flaps full retracted. Incredulously, I
landed again and taxiied to the ramp. Just out of curiosity, I took a very
close look at the flaps after extending them ... and lo! I noticed that one
flap was about half an inch lower than the other. The hard landing had jarred
one of the flaps out of position, making the flaps uneven when extended!

Now, that sort of thing cannot happen by accident in a sim. It cannot be a
bug. It has to be something that the designers deliberately programmed into
the simulation. Needless to say, I was impressed. On the Baron, a hard landing
actually does lasting damage. The only way to "repair" the aircraft is to
reload a new copy of the aircraft for the flight.

I've also noticed sometimes, when changing the external view of the aircraft,
that the internal parts of the airframe are simulated, even though they aren't
normally visible in any of the various views available in the sim.

A great deal of care has been put into the Dreamfleet aircraft, and some other
third parties do the same.

> I still wish I had a PMDG Learjet, as that is one of my favorite
> planes to fly.. Kinda like the Corvette of the biz jet world..
> Small, fast, and just complicated enough to keep me from going to sleep.

The Citation X with winglets is the fastest bizjet around.

[sambodidley]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> It may be a blast for a certain time. But if all you have is one type of
> aircraft, and you've had a taste of what various other aircraft are like
> in
> simulation, you might get tired of the real aircraft after a while.

A taste of an aircraft in simulation by a non-pilot is nothing but the
delusion of a dreamer. For me, just one hour, even in a little ultra-light
or power parachute , would be much more enjoyable than a lifetime of simming
in supersonic fantasies. I would be out flying every day right now in
anything I could get off the ground,if my condition permitted, reveling in
every second of it, and never tire of it. Once you've had a taste of the
real thing delusions can no more satisfy your desires than virtual sex. <g>
Sam

[sambodidley]

"NM5K" <no...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:jnarrg$auh$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 4/25/2012 8:57 PM, sambodidley wrote:
>
>>
>> Chris,
>> That's jus the difference between Simmners and Real Pilots. If
>> they
>> cant' fly what they have simmed thren they don't want it. If I'm not
>> simming what I have flown (or could have flown if I'd had the
>> opportunity)
>> it doesn't do much for me. I have no desire to be a vitual fighter polot
>> or
>> a flight captain in a virtual world. I didn't even have a desire to do
>> that
>> in RL. Simming just fills in a void I have since I can no longer fly in
>> the
>> real world.
>> Sam
>>
>>
>
> Well, that's the same with me, except I'm filling a void too.

True, but you have a much larger void to fill than I. My void consists
of the many things I have enjoyed doing in my lifetime but can no longer do
in my present condition. Flying is one of them that I can (sort of) relive
in a stimulator, to a small degree. I can just choose the parts of it I
enjoyed the most and skip the rest of it. Why would I want to waste my
available flying time going over check lists and procedures I've done
thousands of times before in RL? In fact, I start many of my flights from
up in the air when I'm just going to practice maneuvers. Why waste the time
for a take off and climb? That's one of the great advantages of sim flying.
I use it every chance I get.
And speaking of boredom, I can think of nothing that would bore me
worse than reading a lot of manuals ( even if I still had the vision to do
so) to be able to program a plane to fly itself. I've always been a
hands-on pilot and have no interest in riding along. A flight at 30k ansl
would run a close second on my boredom list.
Flying small single engine props can be as interesting as you choose to
make them. I find them very good for practising REAL piloting skills like
flying 8s on pylons and 8s around pylons in a cross-wind. Try slow-flying a
C172 with the stall horn blaring, while making turns, without losing any
altitude. Those are the kind of skills REAL pilots learn before they ever
think about programing airliners to fly them selves. Those are some of the
things Capt. Sully learned to do long before he did his Miracle On The
Hudson. If you really want to go for realism then start from page one. Any
school boy can program a computer.<g>
Sam

[Mxsmanic]

sambodidley writes:

> A taste of an aircraft in simulation by a non-pilot is nothing but the
> delusion of a dreamer.

You're entitled to your opinion.

> For me, just one hour, even in a little ultra-light or power parachute,
> would be much more enjoyable than a lifetime of simming in supersonic
> fantasies.

Not for me. I'm not a big fan of physical sensations, and I like instruments
and systems and safety. I would get next to nothing out of an ultralight.

> Once you've had a taste of the real thing delusions can no more
> satisfy your desires than virtual sex.

As I've said, you're entitled to your opinion. And as I've said, if I had lots
of money, I'd be more likely to spend it on a full-motion simulator than on a
real airplane, for reasons I've already explained.

[Mxsmanic]

sambodidley writes:

> Why would I want to waste my available flying time going over check
> lists and procedures I've done thousands of times before in RL?

Some people like that. Everyone is different.

Why do some air traffic controllers choose to simulate their RL jobs on VATSIM
many times each week? The reason is that some aspect of the job that they
enjoy is also adequately simulated, making the simulation enjoyable as well.

Depending on what a pilot enjoys about flying, simulation may or may not be
enjoyable for him. Obviously, pilots who are mostly interested in strong
physical sensations aren't going to get anything out of desktop simulation at
all. But those who are interested in navigating, instrument flight, etc., can
find simulation very enjoyable.

> In fact, I start many of my flights from
> up in the air when I'm just going to practice maneuvers. Why waste the time
> for a take off and climb?

See abpve. For many real-world pilots, taking off is one of the best parts of
flying.

> And speaking of boredom, I can think of nothing that would bore me
> worse than reading a lot of manuals ( even if I still had the vision to do
> so) to be able to program a plane to fly itself. I've always been a
> hands-on pilot and have no interest in riding along. A flight at 30k ansl
> would run a close second on my boredom list.

Here again, everyone is different.

> Those are some of the things Capt. Sully learned to do long before
> he did his Miracle On The Hudson.

Captain Sully is a poor example, as he is a steely-eyed missile man who is an
expert in systems and procedures and follows them religiously. The type of
flying you're describing is closer to barnstorming.

I think your problem is that you believe that the only viewpoint a real-world
pilot can have is your viewpoint, and since your viewpoint does not hold
simulation in high esteem, you incorrectly assume that simulation is
objectively inferior to real flight.

[ManhattanMan]

On 4/26/2012 5:45 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
> See abpve. For many real-world pilots, taking off is one of the best parts of
> flying.

Wrong, wrong, wrong... Taking off is a piece of cake, if trimmed
correctly, it'll do it by itself. Landing is where the fun is (not
counting navigation, unless a computer is flying the airplane)......

--
MnM

[NM5K]

On 4/26/2012 10:38 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> But I mean, if you are using a 2D view, but there are no 2D throttles, how do
> you look at the throttles?

You would have to look at the VC panel if you were using 2D..
Which would be a pain in the rear I suppose..
Like I say, I'm totally VC..

>
>> Everything is completely realistic using the VC.
>
> Perhaps if you have TrackIR (although I have my doubts), but that's too rich
> for me. The VCs I have in all my current aircraft are less polished and
> detailed than the 2D cockpits. And instrument readability is extremely
> important, and it's better in the 2D views.

I use the space bar and mouse to steer the view.
>
>

[NM5K]

On 4/26/2012 3:40 PM, sambodidley wrote:
> "NM5K"<no...@invalid.net> wrote in message

>>

The thing is, I've done the low and slow stuff.. So it's not like I've
never tried it.. I've been simming for 20 years, and have simmed the
Cessna's many many many hours through those years.
I bet I can make a C152/172, etc, do most anything you would ask me to
demonstrate. And I'll make videos to prove it if need be..
You've seen me putt around on the Cub, D-18, trike.. Like I say, on the
sim, I'll pretty much fly anything if it's got wings.

Fer instance, how many simmers do you see that can do stable high alpha
passes with the FA/18? I can, no problem.. That's a fairly tricky
maneuver.. The balance of thrust vs pitch, etc must be almost perfect.
I'm sure some can do it, but I'm sure many would falter a bit and get
quite ugly. I can even do high alpha turns with that plane.

This is basically the same maneuver as you describe when running the
Cessna near stall speed. I just have more thrust available from
the engine, and the AOA increases *greatly* when doing that in an FA/18.
It will look like I'm popping a wheelie as long as I maintain the pass.
BTW, I never use an autopilot when flying that plane. Pure stick,
rudder, and thrust.

Anyway, the way I look at it, it's a wide, wide world of sims..
No one is going to like simming the same things as others..
Which is no problem to me. If you prefer the small props, more power
to you.
But sometimes with your comments, you seem to give the impression
that if we are not flying something you agree with, or prefer higher
performance aircraft, or do checklists, or fly the aircraft in
the manner they are used in the real world, then we are deluding
ourselves, living a fantasy life, etc.. I find that a bit snarky at
times.. But whatever...
I don't criticize what other simmers might want to do.. That's their
business or fun, not mine.
So I sometimes have trouble seeing why you would even care what anyone
else does. I'm not forcing you to do it, or even suggesting that you
sim like I do.
BTW, I'm no school boy.. I'm 55 years old. Not as old as you, but
I didn't just fall off the turnip truck either..

[NM5K]

On 4/26/2012 11:13 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:

> You need to take the simulation more seriously. It's not boring if you keep in
> mind that you might end up dead if you make mistakes in navigation or flying.

I wish you all would make up your minds.. What do you think I'm
doing when running the 737? :/ Or any other plane for that matter..
It boggles the mind...
If I fly too "seriously" some complain that I'm deluding myself, if I'm
not as serious enough, some complain that I need more fear of whacking
the ground in my blood.. Good grief..
This is starting to get silly..

>
>> Try frying an engine with the Dreamfleet Baron.. I bet it's almost
>> impossible.
>
> You might be surprised at what's possible with the Baron. I was.
>

I know all about the Dreamfleet planes. I've known the guy that
started that outfit since before Dreamfleet was even a glint in his eye.
Yes, they are good aircraft. I agree.. But that does not mean I'm going
to buy one, if there are newer more state of the art aircraft available.
Even if old military, if they are more accurate, those are the ones I'll
likely spend my money on.
Heck, I never bought *any* payware aircraft until the 737NGX.
I usually found suitable planes off the various sim sites,
and then tweaked them until I was satisfied with the way they
flew.
But I just got too tired of "Fisher Price" mickey mouse operating
jetliners.. I'll never go back as far as those.

>
> The Citation X with winglets is the fastest bizjet around.

There "might" be a new one out that is just as fast.. But I
forgot.. But yes, I agree, the X moves on down the road quite
quickly. I used to fly it a lot on past sims. But I still like
the Learjets.. Not quite as fast, but fast enough for gov work.

[sambodidley]

It might seem that way to you, but I'm not really concerned with what
anybody else does with his simmer or what or how he likes to fly. As a
matter of fact, I'm actually amused when listening to a couple of non-pilot
simmers seriously expound on their virtual flying. The range of interest in
this group is broad enough to cover everyone.
I've just merely expressed MY opinion here on the subject just like you
have expressed YOURS. I have no problem with that at all. As Mx stated
everybody is entitled to his own opinion. Your opinion doesn't upset me in
any way. After all, it IS, like mine, only an opinion. I wouldn't argue
with anything you have said. You two simmers don't even agree with each
other on everything. If my opinions have upset anyone then they have a
problem I can't help them with.<g>
Sam

"NM5K" <no...@invalid.net> wrote in message

news:jnd0fl$900$1...@dont-email.me...

[sambodidley]

Now, you see what taking opinions seriously can get you into?<g>

Sam

"NM5K" <no...@invalid.net> wrote in message

news:jnd2c0$hrd$1...@dont-email.me...

[Mxsmanic]

NM5K writes:

> I wish you all would make up your minds.. What do you think I'm
> doing when running the 737?

I've always advocated taking simulation seriously.

The more you "get into" the simulation, the more you get out of it. Maximum
realism requires a suspension of disbelief. You just have to pretend that it's
real, and you'll enjoy it a lot more.

Why do you think kids have so much fun pretending? They are willing to take it
seriously, at least while they are doing it, so there's a greater immersion in
the virtual experience. People seem to lose that ability/desire as they get
older. A stick can be a light saber to a five-year-old, but for most adults,
it seems to stubbornly remain a stick.

I feel sorry for real pilots who have such serious psychological issues that
they can never take simulation seriously, which deprives them of a great deal
of potential enjoyment. When they say "it's not the same thing," what they
really mean is "I refuse to consider it the same thing, even during the
simulation." Naturally they get nothing out of it.

> If I fly too "seriously" some complain that I'm deluding myself, if I'm
> not as serious enough, some complain that I need more fear of whacking
> the ground in my blood.. Good grief..
> This is starting to get silly..

Well, if you want to enjoy the simulation, be serious about it. If you want to
please people who think you shouldn't use your imagination, then don't be
serious about it.

> I know all about the Dreamfleet planes. I've known the guy that
> started that outfit since before Dreamfleet was even a glint in his eye.
> Yes, they are good aircraft. I agree.. But that does not mean I'm going
> to buy one, if there are newer more state of the art aircraft available.
> Even if old military, if they are more accurate, those are the ones I'll
> likely spend my money on.

That's your choice, but for me the type of aircraft is often more important
than having a simulation that is the state of the art. The Carenado Cessnas
have many rough edges, but they are still fun to fly.

> Heck, I never bought *any* payware aircraft until the 737NGX.

Ah. Well, PMDG was my first payware aircraft purchase, too, but PMDG
specializes in large airliners, so I had to look elsewhere when I wanted small
aircraft.

> But I just got too tired of "Fisher Price" mickey mouse operating
> jetliners.. I'll never go back as far as those.

What do you think of Level-D and their 767?

> There "might" be a new one out that is just as fast.. But I
> forgot.. But yes, I agree, the X moves on down the road quite
> quickly. I used to fly it a lot on past sims. But I still like
> the Learjets.. Not quite as fast, but fast enough for gov work.

Another advantage to simulation is that you're not paying for fuel or
maintenance, so you can always fly as fast as the aircraft can safely go. I
set the FMS for MAX SPD most of the time.

An exception is mirroring real-world flights, which requires cranking down the
cost index until the aircraft is just as slow as the real thing, with a
constant 3 degrees of nose-up pitch as it mushes through the sky.

[Mxsmanic]

ManhattanMan writes:

> Wrong, wrong, wrong... Taking off is a piece of cake, if trimmed
> correctly, it'll do it by itself.

I didn't say it was hard, I just said it was fun.

> Landing is where the fun is (not counting navigation, unless a
> computer is flying the airplane)......

I like landing, too.

In fact, I tend to fly short flights because I get bored quickly in cruise.

[Mxsmanic]

sambodidley writes:

> It might seem that way to you, but I'm not really concerned with what
> anybody else does with his simmer or what or how he likes to fly.

Yes, you are. It shows in your posts. There's nothing wrong with that,
however, and it's okay to admit it.

Some people have a great deal of self-esteem invested in being a "real" pilot,
and they feel threatened by anyone who suggests that simulation might be
anything like real flying. Therefore they try very hard to emphasize huge but
not necessarily real distinctions between simulation and flying in real life.
I've seen this pattern thousands of times. It's easy to recognize.

For some real-world pilots, flying is not merely or even principally an
enjoyable activity or a job. Instead, it's a pillar upon which they support
their self-esteem. Pilots like this are extremely sensitive to anything that,
in their perception, might dilute the high-and-mighty status of piloting.
These are the pilots who constantly dismiss simulation and never miss an
opportunity to point out how artificial simulation is (at least to them).

Of course, there are many pilots who fly because they love to fly, and have no
self-esteem issues wrapped up in flying. They usually like to fly in
simulation, too, since it's the next best thing to flying for real when real
flight is not an option.

> As a matter of fact, I'm actually amused when listening to a couple
> of non-pilot simmers seriously expound on their virtual flying.

Amused, or stressed?

It's interesting because one sees this in many other domains as well. People
who undertake something in order to prove to themselves or the world that they
are "better" have a very different attitude about the activity than those who
undertake it just for enjoyment. I've seen it happen with doctors, lawyers,
computer people, actors, musicians, you name it.

[Copter_Six]

On 4/24/2012 11:10 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:

>> If I had that kind of money to blow, I'd rather go get my
>> license and fly some real ones I think.
>
> I'd spend the money on a full-motion sim. That way I could fly anywhere,
> anytime, and I wouldn't need to bother with a license. Especially since I like
> to "fly," but I hate actually going anywhere. I want to still be close to the
> bed and the fridge at the end of a long flight.
>

What's out there as far as motion sims? I think an all electric motion
platform might work better than most.



--


Copter Six

[WayPoint]

Anything from start-up to shutdown was always fun!. :-))

Having to go home again was the only hard bit.

--

/\
^V^ _/__\_
///'}
___ /` \
>-=-I>==( \=\====
``` > >
\ /
--/
Bruce

[Mxsmanic]

Copter_Six writes:

> What's out there as far as motion sims?

In my price range, nothing!

I haven't looked into it because I can't afford it. But I'd probably want the
same thing that airlines use, with the six degrees of motion, collimated
visuals, etc. The only thing that bothers me is that I'm not sure if you can
use these big sims all by yourself--that is, without a copilot and without an
instructor behind you. Maybe I could get a modified one that would work for
flying on my own.

I'd like the same kind of sim for smaller aircraft, too, like Cessnas and
Barons and Citations.

> I think an all electric motion platform might work better than most.

The big ones seem to use hydraulics, smaller ones seem to lean towards
electric. My guess is that hydraulics work better but cost more, whereas
electric actuators are cheaper but perhaps not as responsive.

[sambodidley]

Well, I see that you are also into simming psychology, Dr Freud. You are
no closer to reality in that field than you are in your flight fantasies.
But whatever makes you happy is fine with me.
Like I stated, I have no problems with other peoples fantasies. Heck, I
indulge myself with plenty of my own. I just never lose sight of the fact
that it is actually only a fantasy and has nothing to do with reality. In
fact, some of my fantasies would be down right frightening it I had to face
them in real life. That's what fantasy is all about. Pleasure on demand. All
the fun and no consequences. Who could NOT like that?
But getting back to simming. Having actually experienced many aspects of
flying, it is much more difficult for me to push that knowledge back out of
my mind and pretend I'm doing something that I KNOW is not anything at all
like the real thing. In this case it is not my OPINION but FACT based on
actual experience. That's the real reason real pilots can't get the same
excitement from simming that non pilots enjoy, Dr Freud. It's like when you
learn that there ain't no Santy Claus. Christmas never is as much fun
again.<g>
Sam

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:baikp7pat6k8qcqna...@4ax.com...

[ManhattanMan]

On 4/27/2012 11:12 AM, sambodidley wrote:
> It's like when you
> learn that there ain't no Santy Claus.

OMG!!! Say it ain't so, Sam... [sob]

--
MnM

[sambodidley]

"ManhattanMan" <fly...@usa.gov> wrote in message
news:jneipv$59t$1...@dont-email.me...

See there, I'm just an evil old Grinch going around and stepping on
those children's dreams.<g>
Sam

[Mxsmanic]

sambodidley writes:

> Well, I see that you are also into simming psychology, Dr Freud.

I'm interested in psychology generally.

> You are no closer to reality in that field than you are in your
> flight fantasies.

Because you say so? I think not. The rest of your post illustrates my points.

The mere use of the word "fantasies" reveals more than you'd probably care for
otehrs to know.

> I just never lose sight of the fact that it is actually only a fantasy
> and has nothing to do with reality.

Why not? If you constantly remind yourself that it's a simulation, you cannot
fully enjoy it.

But I know the reason: The exaggerated, pivotal difference that you perceive
to exist between simulation and real flying is important to your
self-esteem--much more important than getting maximum enjoyment out of
simulation.

> In fact, some of my fantasies would be down right frightening it
> I had to face them in real life.

When they become frightening in simulation as well, you'll know that you're
doing it right.

> Having actually experienced many aspects of
> flying, it is much more difficult for me to push that knowledge back out of
> my mind and pretend I'm doing something that I KNOW is not anything at all
> like the real thing. In this case it is not my OPINION but FACT based on
> actual experience.

Lots of uppercase letters there.

You're making a mistake that inevitably results from your restricted
viewpoint. You believe that I share the same perception that you do. You think
that I believe there is a huge difference between simulation and real flying,
when in fact I know that there isn't. You hope that by constantly emphasizing
the difference that you believe exists, you will somehow diminish my own
enthusiasm for simulation, and that I will somehow come to envy you. But
nothing could be further from the truth. Your viewpoint is not mine, and you
are wasting your time whenever you fail to realize this.

> That's the real reason real pilots can't get the same excitement from
> simming that non pilots enjoy, Dr Freud.

You don't speak for all real pilots, whereas I know a great many pilots who
get quite a bit of excitement from simulation, as much as I do. But they enjoy
flying for the sake of flying--it is not a crutch for their perception of
their own worth, as it is for you.

You can make fun and blow smoke all you want, but I know better. In fact, as
an outside observer, I may understand what's going on better than you do.

If you change your attitude, you might come to enjoy simulation a lot more.
But most people never change their attitudes.

[NM5K]

On 4/26/2012 11:15 PM, sambodidley wrote:
> It might seem that way to you, but I'm not really concerned with what
> anybody else does with his simmer or what or how he likes to fly. As a
> matter of fact, I'm actually amused when listening to a couple of non-pilot
> simmers seriously expound on their virtual flying. The range of interest in
> this group is broad enough to cover everyone.
> I've just merely expressed MY opinion here on the subject just like you
> have expressed YOURS. I have no problem with that at all. As Mx stated
> everybody is entitled to his own opinion. Your opinion doesn't upset me in
> any way. After all, it IS, like mine, only an opinion. I wouldn't argue
> with anything you have said. You two simmers don't even agree with each
> other on everything. If my opinions have upset anyone then they have a
> problem I can't help them with.<g>
> Sam

I have no trouble with opinions. I do have trouble with people
that deliver them in a snarky manner though. Not all of your
opinions are delivered that way, but some are. For instance..

>>> I find them very good for practising REAL piloting skills like
>>> flying 8s on pylons and 8s around pylons in a cross-wind.

No problem with this one, and it's one I'm well aware of..
And one I have practiced many times. You gave your opinion in
a non snarky manner.

>>> Try slow-flying
>>> a
>>> C172 with the stall horn blaring, while making turns, without losing any
>>> altitude.

Check.. No problems with this one... And I've practiced things like
that many times, with many types of simulated airplanes.
It's a piece of cake for me on the artificial airplanes.
We know I'm not likely to have the chance of practicing this
in the real world, but life's a bitch.. :(
But I have no problems doing it on the sim, and I'm not sure what
gives you the impression that I can't.

>>> Those are the kind of skills REAL pilots learn before they
>>> ever
>>> think about programing airliners to fly them selves.

Well now.. no $#*!... The snarky part in this opinion, is you seem
to assume I've never practiced any of those types of maneuvers, but
instead went from the ground, straight to the 737 sim, merely as a
button puncher.. :/

The problem with this, is you know danged well that many of the
planes I fly on the sim don't even have an autopilot, or if they
do, it's fairly obvious I wasn't using it when flying that particular
plane.
How was I able to control them? It must have been a miracle I suppose,
being as according to you, it seems I never bothered learning any of
the basics of flight.

When I land a Southwest 737 on the sim, how do I do it?
After all, SWA does not allow autolands, and I must fly them all
manually.

It must truly be a miracle, being as I know none of the basics of
flight.

I don't land the planes, I miracle them upon the runway.. :|

It's obvious I do the same thing when landing the FA/18 onto an
aircraft carrier. :+

And the nearly zero vis approach and landing that I flew by hand,
using only the HGS as guidance, and no buttons involved, was also
purely a miracle, and a stroke of dumb luck.

Crap.. my secret is out.. :/

>>>Those are some of
>>> the
>>> things Capt. Sully learned to do long before he did his Miracle On The
>>> Hudson.

Yes, that is true. No logical person would think otherwise.

>>> If you really want to go for realism then start from page one.
>>> Any
>>> school boy can program a computer.<g>

So.. Let me get this right.. You want me to totally start over,
and go back to 1992?
What makes you so sure I didn't start from page one in 1992 when
I first started flying artificial aircraft?

I may not have taken flight lessons, but I do have all the real
world books and manuals that one would use in such training.
So I've pretty much done most all of the usual "ground school" many
years ago.
The only part I haven't done is actually take flight lessons in a real
plane.

And yea, many a school boy can program a computer, but many
real world pilots like Sully, can too.

I have no trouble with opinions either, as long as they are not
delivered in a snarky condescending manner.
I get lots of good advice from the real pilots as far as techniques,
deficiencies of the sims, etc..
I always welcome that type of opinion.
The rest, I have little use for.

[sambodidley]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> If you change your attitude, you might come to enjoy simulation a lot
> more.
> But most people never change their attitudes.

When did I ever say I didn't enjoy the simulations that I do? Nobody
forces me to sit at my computer and punish myself by doing something I don't
enjoy. Everything I do In FSX is by my own choice and I enjoy what I do just
as much as you enjoy yours. The big difference is that I don't have to
convince myself that I'm doing something that I know quite well I'm not
doing just to enjoy it. I enjoy it for what it is. A simulation, but a
simulation that is restricted in reality by the system in which it exists,
not by my mind. I can get just as enrapt in my fantasy as you, but mine ends
when I hit the exit button on my computer. I don't have to carry it into
every waking moment of my life to convince myself that I'm having fun when
I'm doing it.
And another delusion you have is the importance you seem to believe I
give to your thoughts and interests. You cease to exist, just like my
simulator, when I shut this computer down. So don't flatter yourself by
believing otherwise. Though you might find it hard to believe, some of us do
have another life other than our sims. You remind me of one of those
religious fanatics who feels a need to continuously and vehemently defend
his faith. Not to convince anyone else, but to convince himself. So brush
up on your psychology and try again, Dr Freud. But better yet, try a little
self analysis. You might be surprised at what you find.<g>
Sam

[Mxsmanic]

sambodidley writes:

> When did I ever say I didn't enjoy the simulations that I do?

Your continual refrain emphasizing that simulation is terribly inferior to
real life makes it clear that you are imposing constraints on the simulation
experience deliberately.

> A simulation, but a simulation that is restricted in reality by
> the system in which it exists, not by my mind.

All simulations are restricted in the mind, not in the simulator.

> I can get just as enrapt in my fantasy as you, but mine ends
> when I hit the exit button on my computer.

So you break out in a sweat in difficult emergencies in the simulator? You end
such simulations shaking with stress?

> And another delusion you have is the importance you seem to believe I
> give to your thoughts and interests.

I'm commenting on your attitude for the benefit of others, not you. Your mind
isn't going to change.

[sambodidley]

Watch that sweat, Capt. Kirk! It's bad for the keyboard.<g>

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:7e4np7h7sab6hekjd...@4ax.com...

[sambodidley]

Well, as I said, if my opinions offend anyone they have a problem that I
can't help them with. You seem to be pretty satisfied with yourself, though,
so it
doesn't look like you need any help, anyway. I'll keep expressing my
opinions in the manner of my choice and you are at liberty to do the same.
None of them will in any way offend me. I don't take these thread exchanges
any more serious than I do my simming. Have fun.<g>

[NM5K]

On 4/28/2012 11:32 AM, sambodidley wrote:
> Well, as I said, if my opinions offend anyone they have a problem that I
> can't help them with.

Nothing you say is going to offend me.. Anyone that knows me on
usenet knows that I'm fairly thick skinned..

Heck, I offend some people on purpose, but they provoke me. :/

> You seem to be pretty satisfied with yourself, though,
> so it
> doesn't look like you need any help,

Well, if my satisfaction level descends, I'll remember to
add a bit more thrust.. :/



Have fun.<g>
> Sam

Oh, I generally do.. That's basically the point of all this sim stuff..

[sambodidley]

"NM5K" <no...@invalid.net> wrote in message

news:jni5c1$u4m$1...@dont-email.me...

Right. And BTW, when I'm opining about something I'm mostly just
talking to myself. That comes with the age. HAND Mark<g>
Sam



--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---

[Ibby]

> Perhaps if you have TrackIR (although I have my doubts), but that's too rich
> for me. The VCs I have in all my current aircraft are less polished and
> detailed than the 2D cockpits. And instrument readability is extremely
> important, and it's better in the 2D views.

I simply would never use a flight sim WITHOUT TrackIR. All
instruments on the NGX are of extremely high quality (HD textures) in
VC so they can be read without a problem, cockpit lighting is
completely controllable wether thats overhead lights or backlighting,
turn the knobs and adjust...no simple on/off


> It's unfortunate that they chose not to develop it for FS9. I have the older
> PMDG 737, which is excellent, but it was an early effort and doesn't have the
> finish of the 747-400 that I also have.

This is where FSX comes into a field of its own, it can do things that
FS9 simply cannot. I also have PMDG's 747-400X which is now 7 yrs old
and actually looks extremely primative compared to the NGX. PMDG are
now developing a new version of it, I agree about LEVELD's panels in
VC being poor and hard to read text.


> I think each company should continue doing what it does best. Spreading things
> too thin is not good. I use Dreamfleet for Beechcraft and Piper, Carenado for
> Cessna props, Eaglesoft for the Citation X, PMDG for the 737 and 747, and
> Level-D for the 767. They are all nice aircraft. And since I like them all, I
> can't really switch to FSX until all of the same aircraft were available for
> that sim (not to mention all the other add-on and scenery issues).

I agree developers should stick to their niche and not attempt
everything, all those aircraft you mention above have been long
available for FSX

Ibby