MS Flight Sim As a Training Tool
Jay Honeck
wide open to the possibilities a sim can provide. Here are a few data
points for discussion:
1. IFR Flight
Today I visited a friend (and fellow pilot) who heard about our new
flight sim, and has set up MS Flight Sim 2004 (not the new version) to
serve as an advanced instrument flight trainer. He owns an Aerostar,
and has downloaded add-ons to the original program that precisely
recreate his panel equipment, as well as the flight model of the
Aerostar itself.
He has installed this on a very fast computer, with a very nice 22"
wide screen monitor. The results are quite amazing. I shot a full
approach into Cedar Rapids (CID) terminating in an ILS to Rwy 9 at
minimums. By the time I broke out, after flying the published
procedure, I was sweating! This thing was just plain as real as it
gets, and (in my rusty, haven't practiced instrument flight in a long
while) I was working my butt off.
He has it programmed to start with the aircraft out of trim, and with
variable crosswinds throughout the approach. It's diabolically
difficult, and authentic as hell. He says he uses it all the time to
maintain proficiency -- and I think it would be helpful for any pilot.
2. Formation Flying
He then showed me a scenario he has created with a second aircraft, the
task being to fly formation with it throughout the various phases of
flight. Again, the experience was as real as it could get, and quite
difficult. He has attended formation school, and says that this
program and scenario are dead on.
Inspired, I went back to the hotel, fired up our "Kiwi" (see it here:
http://alexisparkinn.com/the_kiwi_is_born.htm ) and started downloading
various enhancements. First was an enhanced terrain mesh that brings
the detail down to 38 meters, nationwide. (This is double the detail
of the default program's terrain.) Then I added another program that
corrects and enhances bodies of water, roads, and lights, which are
often inadequately rendered in FS2004.
These two programs have allowed me to kick up the realism even higher,
to the point where I can quite literally taxi to my own hangar, or fly
through realistic mountain passes. Runway markings, wind socks,
rotating beacons, radar (if applicable) -- it's all there now, and with
a frame rate of over 55 frames per second (thanks to the new computer),
the flight model is absolutely seamless and realistic.
3. Emergency Procedures
I have downloaded the AOPA Cherokee Six sim model (which utilizes an
exact flight model replica of a Cherokee Six), and have been using it
(in lieu of a Pathfinder, which I haven't yet found on the net) to
practice emergency procedures.
Wow, what an amazing eye-opener THAT is. With full cockpit controls, a
photo-realistic panel (on a dedicated monitor), and butter-smooth
control response, it is possible to perfectly simulate engine-out
scenarios that you would NEVER be able to practice in your real
airplane.
Specifically, I've been practicing the dreaded "return to the airport
after engine failure" on takeoff, killing the engine completely at
various heights and in different wind conditions. The results are
truly stunning, and anyone who has flown this scenario will never, EVER
try to initiate the 180-degree-turn to land that has killed so many.
I'm here to tell you that it will result in a stall-spin scenario,
every time...
What's great is that you can actually turn the engine off -- something
you can never do in a real plane -- and it's astounding the difference
that makes. That idling engine is still making some power, and it's
enough to completely throw off your perception of flight.
Same goes with how far you THINK you can stretch your glide, with an
engine out. With the engine at flight idle, you can glide MUCH farther
than you can with the engine off -- and this is something that can only
be demonstrated in the sim.
4. Primary Flight Training
Here's where many pilots object, and I used to agree -- until we set up
the Kiwi. With the 104" projection of the world, a second monitor of
the panel, and authentic flight controls, I'm now prepared to say that
this thing is valuable for showing newbies what flying is all about.
I've been using our hotel's night manager (a fellow we've taken flying
a couple of times, but who has no flight training experience) as a
guinea pig, and he has really progressed nicely in just a few days of
practice. Not only is he now able to land the sim reliably, but he has
learned an awful lot about basic flight procedures and conditions
during various portions of flight -- without burning a gallon of avgas.
I think you could probably shave several hours off of your Private by
practicing in the Kiwi -- and it will be invaluable to me as an
instrument procedures trainer.
Besides just being a helluva lot of fun, of course!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
Mxsmanic
> Okay, I know this one has been beaten up before -- but my eyes are now
> wide open to the possibilities a sim can provide.
Careful ... those are fighting words in this newsgroup.
> I shot a full approach into Cedar Rapids (CID) terminating in an ILS
> to Rwy 9 at minimums.
I collapsed the nose gear landing at KCID just last night, after an
ILS approach to runway 27. The winds were incredibly gusty. I kept
getting pushed up and down as I landed. I touched down but a gust
picked me back up a few feet. I got down again, landing rather hard
on the main gear, but the nose gear hit a lot harder and collapsed.
Only a few days earlier, in similarly gusty weather, I lost all the
gear landing in fog at Logan International.
I'm beginning to wonder if all the East and Midwest have winds like
this all the time, or if I've just had bad luck with the weather, or
if there is some mystery setting in MSFS that I've accidentally turned
on that is creating unrealistic gusts of substantial strength. The
weather was otherwise clear with scattered clouds at around 2600 feet
last night, and a 9-knot wind from the west.
Maybe with practice I'll get better.
> Specifically, I've been practicing the dreaded "return to the airport
> after engine failure" on takeoff, killing the engine completely at
> various heights and in different wind conditions. The results are
> truly stunning, and anyone who has flown this scenario will never, EVER
> try to initiate the 180-degree-turn to land that has killed so many.
> I'm here to tell you that it will result in a stall-spin scenario,
> every time...
I've tried engine failures on a number of occasions, although mostly
in the Baron. That and attempts with failures in a single-engine
plane have taught me that engine failures need to be avoided at all
costs. Particularly with just one engine, there's a good chance that
you won't make it, period. At least that what simulations have told
me.
> 4. Primary Flight Training
Now you are definitely training on dangerous ground.
> I think you could probably shave several hours off of your Private by
> practicing in the Kiwi -- and it will be invaluable to me as an
> instrument procedures trainer.
Oh dear. But as long as I'm here to attract most of the fire, you'll
probably be moderately safe.
> Besides just being a helluva lot of fun, of course!
That's the worst part. You're not supposed to say it's fun.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Steve Foley
news:1165207605.8...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
> I've been using our hotel's night manager (a fellow we've taken flying
> a couple of times, but who has no flight training experience) as a
> guinea pig, and he has really progressed nicely in just a few days of
> practice. Not only is he now able to land the sim reliably, but he has
> learned an awful lot about basic flight procedures and conditions
> during various portions of flight -- without burning a gallon of avgas.
What would it cost to duplicate the kiwi? How much gas could one buy for
that?
Jon Kraus
honestly? In my always humble opinion there is a huge difference
between flying IMC for real and playing a computer game. If MSFS were
"as real as it gets" then why can't your time playing be logged?
Jon
Judah
73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com:
> Okay, I know this one has been beaten up before -- but my eyes are now
> wide open to the possibilities a sim can provide. Here are a few data
> points for discussion:
>
> 1. IFR Flight
Here I have to agree with you. I found my sim time to be very valuable with
respect to Instrument training and currency. I think it's too easy to
"cheat" in real life because if you stop scanning for a moment, and the
plane starts drifting, you usually get "seat of the pants" cues to remind
you to keep up your scan. Even if the cues are the wrong direction, they
bring you out of your coma and get you back on your scan.
The simulator doesn't give you that, so if you stop your scan, it starts
drifting, and it becomes very clear that you and your plane have drifted
and demonstrates just how important it is to keep your scan going.
OTOH, I find the most disorienting part of IMC flight to be takeoff - I
believe that the same factors that cause left turning tendency also create
seat of the pants feelings that are innacurate and distracting. Combine
that with the fact that your most likely to be "out of practice" when you
first take off in IMC (as opposed to landing, when you've probably spent
some amount of time getting re-acquainted with your scan), and I think it's
easiest to get yourself into trouble on takeoff in IMC. I find that I have
to consciously make an effort to focus on my scan during takeoff in IMC,
and after the first time I found myself having trouble, I actually tell
myself outloud to stay on scan if I know I'm taking off into soup...
I think it's hard to simulate that without a full motion simulator...
Avia...@gmail.com
everyday home computer will cost you 50 bucks... (or 5 bucks if you buy
the previous one) and the overall introduction that you get to seeing
how the instruments work and trying things that you're told about from
your instructor at home can save you thousands on flight training.
Can you log it? No, for one the flight models are rubbish.
Is it worth paying 5 bucks to a student who can take flight simulator
and see what they can do about flying approaches, especially DME arcs
etc on a sim, which they can pause and see whats going on, instead of
doing it cold turkey in an airplane the first time burning valuable
time and too busy doing the next thing before they grasp the last
thing? Yeah, the 5 bucks goes a long way.
Jay Honeck
> that?
Good question. Since this is a prototype for the sim(s) we're planning
to build at the Iowa Children's Museum (Google for the Big Kids Toy
Show that I helped organize last spring, and you'll see why), I've been
trying to keep costs as rock-bottom as possible.
I haven't come to a final figure yet, but it really depends on how you
slice it. For example, the projection system was something we needed
for our meeting room. If that was something you bought for your home
theater, would you count it as part of the sim price? Same goes for
the computer -- if you've got one in your home now, should you count
*that* as part of the sim? And the stereo system?
I don't think so, for the purpose of this discussion.
So, if we eliminate those three (admittedly big) items, we're down to
the "fuselage", the flight controls, and the various extra cables
(which are NOT insignificant, BTW). The flight controls are around
$200. The fuselage...is anyone's guess. My A&P thinks he can build
one a day, when the time comes, so figure eight hours at his shop rate,
so call it $480. I scavenged the seat out of my Mustang, but any seat
will do, really, and I had the 12 volt power supply (for the electric
seat) sitting in my workshop for a decade. Figure an extra $100 for
cables, and various other stuff I'm not thinking about.
So, for around $780, you can build yourself a world-class flight sim.
Eliminate the "fuselage" (you *can* sit at a desk) and you're down to
$200 - $300.
Add everything in, including computer, projection system, etc, and
you're probably over $3500, cheapest. Basically, for 2/3rds the price
of installing a GNS-430, you've recreated the world, and every aircraft
in it.
Avia...@gmail.com
thousands) to make a complete mock-up of a stationary flight simulator
for an ATR-42 and ATR-72.
Why? Pure fun I guess, plus it's a great way to get people interested
in aviation. If you are interested in seeing what can be done using
just flight simulator as a tool take a look at a company called project
magenta (google it to find their website), if you were to add a
hydraulic system to what they do it could be considered the same sort
of full motion simulator I did my Dash-8 training on.
Jay Honeck
> honestly? In my always humble opinion there is a huge difference
> between flying IMC for real and playing a computer game. If MSFS were
> "as real as it gets" then why can't your time playing be logged?
I'm not really sure, but I think it's because the sim set-up is too
widely variable from person to person. For example, flying MSFS on my
laptop at work using a mouse would *NOT* recreate flight in a way that
would be truly meaningful. Flying the Kiwi (and some step in between)
is.
Since the FAA can't delineate between the two experiences, they simply
disallow it. Makes sense to me, really.
Basically the only way I will ever convince you is for you to come fly
the damned thing. You'll be amazed, I think.
Andrew Sarangan
an ancient piece of crap at the FBO which is approved for logging
time. I consider most PC simulators to be far more realistic, but they
cannot be logged. Logging has nothing to do with realism.
Jay Honeck
Actually, I've found this is NOT true. What I *thought* were bad
flight models was actually the computer lagging just a split
millisecond behind my control inputs. It was imperceptible, and
everything *looked* smooth -- but it was obviously there.
When we hooked everything up to a truly world-class computer, the
impact was immediate and everyone noticed it. Suddenly, the "flight
models" were dead-on, because the controls were finally responding in
real time.
Avia...@gmail.com
Spin the plane, stall it and put it in a spin... the models are not
full, it won't do a spin.
fromTheShadows
I'm not a pilot, but there add-on aircraft that according to their
developers will spin. The description for the (free) RealAir Cessna 172
specifically states that "it will side-slip and spin".
Avia...@gmail.com
Great I'm getting into one of these arguments...
Anyway, the only readily available simulator that can be bought at a
store that simulates aerodynamics "properly" is x-plane, in fact the
engine that is used to simulate the physics of an airfoil does so
completley without using benchmarks of real world aircraft, just their
virtual models, and does it accuratley. X-plane is also endorsed by the
FAA as a PCATD... or something along those lines, I don't remember
exactly what, but it's a lot better (from a physics standpoint) than
Microsoft's release.
fromTheShadows
I'm not trying to be argumentative at all. You said that MSFS aircraft
won't spin, and that isn't necessarily true. I even went so far as to
state that I'm not a pilot and so am only going off what the developers say.
Mxsmanic
> Oh really. Have you flown in any clouds so you can make that statement
> honestly? In my always humble opinion there is a huge difference
> between flying IMC for real and playing a computer game.
MSFS isn't exactly a computer game, although the latest version tries
to be.
> If MSFS were "as real as it gets" then why can't your time playing
> be logged?
For the same reason you can't just install any replacement lamp in
your aircraft.
Mxsmanic
> I think it's hard to simulate that without a full motion simulator...
For IFR, a simulator with no motion would also be useful. You may
have to learn to ignore distracting sensations, but it's also useful
to learn to fly with no sensations at all. After all, in IMC you may
not have distracting sensations--you may simply feel that your in
comfy, level flight, even as the plane turns or does other unwanted
things. I've seen a lot of discussion of spatial disorientation, but
none of simply losing all cues altogether, even though that would be
quite an issue in IMC flight.
Gig 601XL Builder
"fromTheShadows" <f...@NOTrtecNEEDED.co.uk> wrote in message
news:el1ba0$db0$1...@aioe.org...
It's my understanding is that MSFS has no Physics engine it is table based
where as X-Plane does have a Physics engine. The better add-on planes for
MSFS just have more data in the tables but still there is no way a table
based simulator can have every possible combinations.
Even X-Plane's physics engine isn't as good as that in some of the more
complex games such as "Half Life." It really surprises me that someone
hasn't come along and used a modified Half-Life engine in a flight sim.
Mxsmanic
> Can you log it? No, for one the flight models are rubbish.
This changes with a few expensive add-ons. The standard MSFS aircraft
are compromises, but you can but add-ons that are just like the real
thing ... so much better, in fact, that it's not unlike having a
completely new simulator.
> Is it worth paying 5 bucks to a student who can take flight simulator
> and see what they can do about flying approaches, especially DME arcs
> etc on a sim, which they can pause and see whats going on, instead of
> doing it cold turkey in an airplane the first time burning valuable
> time and too busy doing the next thing before they grasp the last
> thing? Yeah, the 5 bucks goes a long way.
You can also analyze your flights in MSFS, to see just how closely you
followed your intended course or pattern. I do that all the time.
You can see how consistent your climbs and descents are, how smooth
your turns are, how well you can stay in a holding or traffic pattern,
how well you can hold a course over a long distance, etc.
You can also dial up whatever weather you want, including weather that
would be far too dangerous to train in in real life. Want to see if
you can land in a 40-knot crosswind? No problem. Want fog so thick
you can't see the nose of your own aircraft? Coming right up. Have a
particular blend of IMC or VMC that you'd like to try out but that
never seems to actually occur in your neck of the woods? That's easy
to do, too.
Do you need to learn how to use a GPS? The GPS simulations in some
add-on aircraft are _identical_ to the real thing: you can literally
step away from the sim and use the real GPS on a real aircraft without
missing a beat. A great many other instruments behave identically.
Flight models can be very accurate if you purchase add-ons that are
optimized to match the real aircraft as closely as possible. If you
want to spend ten minutes starting the engines on a 737, that's
possible, too. If you like programming an FMS and then watching it
fly the aircraft for you, you can do that.
All of this would be cripplingly expensive and time-consuming--and
sometimes impossible--in a real aircraft. If you've spent tens of
thousands of dollars on real flight, why deprive yourself of
simulation that you could have for just a few dollars more?
Mxsmanic
> Actually, I've found this is NOT true. What I *thought* were bad
> flight models was actually the computer lagging just a split
> millisecond behind my control inputs. It was imperceptible, and
> everything *looked* smooth -- but it was obviously there.
The sensitivity adjustments in MSFS produce a lag. That is, when you
set the control sensitivity low, what MSFS actually does is lag the
response to controls, so they seem less "sensitive." If you want
instant response, dial the sensitivity up to maximum on all controls.
> When we hooked everything up to a truly world-class computer, the
> impact was immediate and everyone noticed it. Suddenly, the "flight
> models" were dead-on, because the controls were finally responding in
> real time.
I suppose that's a factor, too. If you are getting less than 25
frames per second, the controls are probably lagging to some extent,
although the frame lag is worse.
Mxsmanic
Mxsmanic
> Anyway, the only readily available simulator that can be bought at a
> store that simulates aerodynamics "properly" is x-plane, in fact the
> engine that is used to simulate the physics of an airfoil does so
> completley without using benchmarks of real world aircraft, just their
> virtual models, and does it accuratley.
There are many ways to accurately model flight.
> X-plane is also endorsed by the FAA as a PCATD... or something along
> those lines, I don't remember exactly what, but it's a lot better
> (from a physics standpoint) than Microsoft's release.
When you do remember exactly what you're talking about, come back and
explain it again.
John Theune
10 seconds as you could have if you bothered at least a little bit to
look things up on your own.
N2310D
>>> store that simulates aerodynamics "properly" is x-plane, in fact the
>>> engine that is used to simulate the physics of an airfoil does so
>>> completley without using benchmarks of real world aircraft, just their
>>> virtual models, and does it accuratley.
>>
>> There are many ways to accurately model flight.
>>
>>> X-plane is also endorsed by the FAA as a PCATD... or something along
>>> those lines, I don't remember exactly what, but it's a lot better
>>> (from a physics standpoint) than Microsoft's release.
Except for:
"Now, with X-Plane, we have a flight sim that can be used for logging time
towards your instrument rating, Commercial Certificate, or even your AIRLINE
TRANSPORT CERTIFICATE! Actually LOGGING this time requires you to be in a
Motus full-motion sim (price tag: about $150,000.00) "
More properly stated, X-Plane is a component "part" of a certified PCATD, it
is NOT a PCATD.
Big difference.
That said, the X-Plane reviews for the home PC are pretty darn good.
Jon
John Theune wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Avia...@gmail.com writes:
> >
> >> Anyway, the only readily available simulator that can be bought at a
> >> store that simulates aerodynamics "properly" is x-plane, in fact the
> >> engine that is used to simulate the physics of an airfoil does so
> >> completley without using benchmarks of real world aircraft, just their
> >> virtual models, and does it accuratley.
> >> X-plane is also endorsed by the FAA as a PCATD... or something along
> >> those lines, I don't remember exactly what, but it's a lot better
> >> (from a physics standpoint) than Microsoft's release.
> The details are here ( http://www.x-plane.com/FTD.html )
Nice stuff. We used it one of the demos in our booth at the recent ATCA
conference in DC.
> Found them in 10 seconds as you could have if you bothered at least a little bit to
> look things up on your own.
Wot? And waste all that valuable time telling us what's up?
Just a 21st century variation on an old theme: "we were given two ears
and one mouth and...."
Jose
> the damned thing. You'll be amazed, I think.
I'd like to see what Mx would think. :)
Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
Jay Masino
I think I have to agree with Jon. Flying a non precision approach in
heavy rain, down to minimums, knowing that every decision you make might
kill you and your passenger... that's real. Flying a simulator in your
conference room is just helpful for learning procedures, not matter how
"real" you try and make it. That said, practicing the procedures is
probably well worth it.
--
Jay Masino "Home is where My critters are"
http://www.JayMasino.com
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com
Jon
ISTR a (former?) regular on this group that ran one of those out of PA.
Haven't seen him post on here in ages, though. Nice guy. Richard
(sorry, last name escapes me right now)...
Andrew Sarangan
ago. I don't know if real 182's will spin or not, but this one did
quite nicely and realistically.
Mxsmanic
> I think I have to agree with Jon. Flying a non precision approach in
> heavy rain, down to minimums, knowing that every decision you make might
> kill you and your passenger... that's real.
Spoken like someone who hasn't been in a good simulator.
Someone who has actually done this in a simulator a few times will be
a lot better equipped to face it in real life, should he ever have to.
Someone who shuns simulators because he thinks the experience doesn't
count unless he's sick with fear is going to be caught completely off
guard when bad things happen, and not only will he be terrified of
making the wrong move, he won't know what the right move is supposed
to be.
Besides, as I've already said, the best pilots are the least emotional
pilots. If you're frothing at the mouth with emotion in some delicate
situation aloft, you're going to make mistakes no matter how good you
are.
Contrary to what you might think from watching movies or reading
novels, the more emotional you are in an emergency, the more likely
you are to die.
Mxsmanic
> It's my understanding is that MSFS has no Physics engine it is table based
> where as X-Plane does have a Physics engine. The better add-on planes for
> MSFS just have more data in the tables but still there is no way a table
> based simulator can have every possible combinations.
There are multiple ways to achieve the same goal.
Nether X-Plane nor MSFS tracks every molecule of air flowing around
the aircraft. Therefore neither of them accurately models aircraft
behavior.
> Even X-Plane's physics engine isn't as good as that in some of the more
> complex games such as "Half Life." It really surprises me that someone
> hasn't come along and used a modified Half-Life engine in a flight sim.
You don't install code just to meet someone's arbitrary expectations
of what type of code is required, you install it to accomplish your
purpose. It doesn't matter what kind of engine you have, as long as
the results are correct.
Mxsmanic
> The details are here ( http://www.x-plane.com/FTD.html ) Found them in
> 10 seconds as you could have if you bothered at least a little bit to
> look things up on your own.
I don't look things up to help others support their arguments, I look
them up to support mine. Others are free to do the same.
Besides, without a link to an explanation of the details of the MSFS
flight engine, knowing how X-Plane does it doesn't help much.
Gig 601XL Builder
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ebs8n2hfhk58vrmj8...@4ax.com...
> Jay Masino writes:
>
>> I think I have to agree with Jon. Flying a non precision approach in
>> heavy rain, down to minimums, knowing that every decision you make might
>> kill you and your passenger... that's real.
>
> Spoken like someone who hasn't been in a good simulator.
>
>
Tell us Anthony, Have you EVER been in a certified flight training device or
is your personal experience limited to PC flight simulators?
Mxsmanic
> At the risk of starting an old dispute up again, try making a
> "rudder only" turn before claiming that the flight models are
> accurate.
What is the difference between such a turn in MSFS and such a turn in
real life?
Gig 601XL Builder
A physics engine can take the necessary variables and create a simulated
reality that can be significantly more flexible than a table based system.
And just because the game you choose to play hasn't adopted a technology
that is very popular in the gaming world for the very reason of enhanced
reality once again shows the "Anthony knows best" thought process we have
all come to know and love.
Many of those of us that actually fly aircraft have told you many times that
MSFS doesn't correctly simulate real flight correctly. What's arbitrary in
that?
Jay Honeck
>
> Spin the plane, stall it and put it in a spin... the models are not
> full, it won't do a spin.
Interesting statement. I've stalled and spun the AOPA Cherokee Six in
half a dozen times, trying to return to the runway after the engine
stalled.
Mxsmanic
> Tell us Anthony, Have you EVER been in a certified flight training device or
> is your personal experience limited to PC flight simulators?
I've used only MSFS, which is a good flight simulator. It hasn't been
in any certified configuration.
N2310D
> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> At the risk of starting an old dispute up again, try making a
>> "rudder only" turn before claiming that the flight models are
>> accurate.
>
> What is the difference between such a turn in MSFS and such a turn in
> real life?
A lot.
Yes, I do own and operate MSFS, and I fly a real airplane also, and I
have done both.
Mxsmanic
> A physics engine can take the necessary variables and create a simulated
> reality that can be significantly more flexible than a table based system.
True, which is why something like X-Plane can work for craft that
aren't ordinary airplanes. But for ordinary airplanes, you can take
shortcuts and get identical results.
Apply your reasoning to the average pilot's understanding of stalls.
Pilots worry a lot about "stall speeds," when there is no such
thing--only angle of attack determines stalls. But the illusory
notion of a stall speed works just as well within the constraints of
normal flight that concern pilots, and it's easier to measure than
angle of attack, so it is used.
> Many of those of us that actually fly aircraft have told you many times that
> MSFS doesn't correctly simulate real flight correctly. What's arbitrary in
> that?
Many of those who fly aircraft have little or no experience with
flight simulation. I think it's a macho thing.
Gig 601XL Builder
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Tell us Anthony, Have you EVER been in a certified flight training device
>> or
>> is your personal experience limited to PC flight simulators?
>
> I've used only MSFS, which is a good flight simulator. It hasn't been
> in any certified configuration.
>
So you're not even knowledgeable on flight simulators. You can't even
compare, with any authority, the value of MSFS against its competitors much
less against the flight characteristics of real aircraft.
You are just proving to be more useless than even I thought.
Gig 601XL Builder
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> A physics engine can take the necessary variables and create a simulated
>> reality that can be significantly more flexible than a table based
>> system.
>
> True, which is why something like X-Plane can work for craft that
> aren't ordinary airplanes. But for ordinary airplanes, you can take
> shortcuts and get identical results.
>
This might be true if MSFS only tried to simulate one or two aircraft in a
limited amount of flight evelopes but it doesn't. It cuts corners so it can
simulate everything from an ultalight to a 747.
And because it trys to model so many aircraft MSFS would be the best example
of where a well designed physics engine would be useful. The problem is MS
for some reason I can't quite figure out wnats to use all the CPU cycles to
run the graphics and not just the physics of the enviroment but much of the
rendering as well. Instead of designing the software to offload the graphics
to a dedicated graphics card.
>> Many of those of us that actually fly aircraft have told you many times
>> that
>> MSFS doesn't correctly simulate real flight correctly. What's arbitrary
>> in
>> that?
>
> Many of those who fly aircraft have little or no experience with
> flight simulation. I think it's a macho thing.
>
Well this doesn't apply to me. I've owned every version of MSFS, except for
X, since the one I bought the day I bought an Apple IIe.
I did download the X demo and I was really unimpressed. Since there were so
few planes on the Demo I tried out the ultralight which I had never done on
any of the other versions for some reason. I set the realizam to full and
the weather as bad as possible and was still able to fly the little guy. It
should have ripped the thing apart or at very least blown me over.
Neil Gould
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Many of those of us that actually fly aircraft have told you many
>> times that MSFS doesn't correctly simulate real flight correctly.
>> What's arbitrary in that?
>
> Many of those who fly aircraft have little or no experience with
> flight simulation. I think it's a macho thing.
>
Some of us have a lot more sim experience than anyone whose sim experience
began with the use of personal computers. And, we, too have told you that
MSFS isn't all that correct in its representation of flight. Yes, it's can
be fun, interesting and useful to those who also fly real planes, but
that's a different matter altogether.
Neil
gatt
"Jay Honeck" <jjho...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:1165207605.8...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
> I shot a full approach into Cedar Rapids (CID) terminating in an ILS to
> Rwy 9 at minimums. By the time I broke out, after flying the published
> procedure, I was sweating! This thing was just plain as real as it gets,
> and (in my rusty, haven't practiced instrument flight in a long
> while) I was working my butt off.
Yep. I often shoot practice approaches on FS2004 before doing the exact
approaches in the actual airplane, or if the weather isn't complaint
(Columbia Gorge winds, usually) and I have to cancel a practice flight.
-c
gatt
"Jon Kraus" <jkr...@indy.rr.com> wrote in message
news:d6Uch.2112$ja6...@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> Oh really. Have you flown in any clouds so you can make that statement
> honestly?
Yes.
I agree with Jay. I used MFS2004 to practice a VFR flight from TTD to Paine
Field, and then set it to real-time weather (IFR) to fly back.
The next day, I made the actual flight. The flight sim didn't model the C-7
that I got to see popping out of one cloud and disappearing into another or
possible spatial disorientation issues, but on the IFR panel on the sim you
have to ignore physical stimulus (lack thereof) and you're pretty much under
the hood.
-c
gatt
<Avia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165239367....@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> Really?
>
> Spin the plane, stall it and put it in a spin... the models are not
> full, it won't do a spin.
Neither will the Arrow II that I fly. At least, it's not approved for
spins. So what's the difference?
-c
gatt
"Neil Gould" <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote in message
news:tC%ch.120$Gr2...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
> Some of us have a lot more sim experience than anyone whose sim experience
> began with the use of personal computers. And, we, too have told you >that
> MSFS isn't all that correct in its representation of flight.
Okay. I'm IFR rated and on occasion when I can't fly, I take my approach
plates and shoot them in FS2004 in the Mooney or C-172.
It allows me to remember to set and ident freqs, follow the instruments,
time the approach (I use my kneeboard and timer), plan the course with an
E6B and fly it with a sectional. Teaches reliance on the instruments (you
can simulate instrument failures), reinforces use of checklists such as
GUMPS and procedures for radio navigation as well as remain sharp on
concepts such as reverse sensing and maintaing course headings.
My flying experience began in high school on the first MS Flight Simulator.
It helped me through groundschool and my private because I was already
familiar with navigating using one or two VORs and quickly interpreting and
responding to instruments.
I highly recommend it. It won't make you, say, IFR current, but it'll sure
polish your edge for much less than it costs to shoot practice approaches
each month.
I guess that's why they have flight simlators.
-c
Gig 601XL Builder
"gatt" <LiveFromTh...@gfy.com> wrote in message
news:12n96cr...@corp.supernews.com...
It is an example that there is a problem with the flight model. If there is
a problem there where else is there a problem.
Jay Honeck
If it makes you feel any better, we're running X-plane on the Kiwi,
too.
I find it no different to "fly" than MS FS2004 in most ways -- but
much, much harder to use. The user interface is simply inferior, which
(I suppose) is due to the awesome flexibility it offers.
Gig 601XL Builder
Gatt this thread and many others lately are here because of posts written by
an idiot named Anthony aka msxmaniac who not only has never flown and
aircraft and has no desire to, thinks that most of us that do fly don't know
what the hell we are talking about because our real world experience doesn't
jive with his playing of MSFS.
There is no doubt that MSFS is great for use as you describe but it doesn't
make anyone an aviation expert as Anthony thinks it does.
Gig 601XL Builder
>> That said, the X-Plane reviews for the home PC are pretty darn good.
>
> If it makes you feel any better, we're running X-plane on the Kiwi,
> too.
>
> I find it no different to "fly" than MS FS2004 in most ways -- but
> much, much harder to use. The user interface is simply inferior, which
> (I suppose) is due to the awesome flexibility it offers.
> --
Jay, where you will really se the difference between the two is when the
"aircraft" is outside the normal envelope. You mentioned the AOPA Cherokee 6
model in an earlier post. This is an example of a plane that has been well
simulated in MSFS.
On the other hand I came across a model of the 601XL like I'm building and
when ever you stall it the engine quits and won't restart. And it doesn't
matter if it is a power on or power off stall. I talked to the guy that
designed it and he can't for the life of him figure out why it does it.
Jay Honeck
> an idiot named Anthony aka msxmaniac who not only has never flown and
> aircraft and has no desire to, thinks that most of us that do fly don't know
> what the hell we are talking about because our real world experience doesn't
> jive with his playing of MSFS.
Ahem -- not THIS thread. I haven't been reading MX's stuff much,
lately, so if this thread seem to be echoing his thoughts, it's purely
coincidence.
As a pilot with over 1600 hours in the logbook, over the last 12 years,
I think I'm qualified to state that the Kiwi reproduces flight in every
way possible, short of full motion. Until you take a few turns around
the patch in the Kiwi, I don't think you can quite appreciate the level
of realism this thing can produce. With the real world projected in
full scale, and the panel reproduced in actual scale size, real flight
controls, and a lightning-fast computer, it's quite amazing.
I'll be glad to let you fly it for an hour or three, absolutely free,
if you ever get in my neighborhood. (Just don't show up on Tuesday
night -- Movie Night -- or you might have to stand in line... :-)
Jose
How do you set and ident the freqs? Using the mouse on the radio stack
and the OBS is pretty lame, and (at least for FS 2002) I can't find a
better way. So, I just have them preset and fly the approach.
Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
Jay Honeck
> I think I'm qualified to state that the Kiwi reproduces flight in every
> way possible, short of full motion. Until you take a few turns around
> the patch in the Kiwi, I don't think you can quite appreciate the level
> of realism this thing can produce. With the real world projected in
> full scale, and the panel reproduced in actual scale size, real flight
> controls, and a lightning-fast computer, it's quite amazing.
Oh, and I forgot to mention the surround-sound system -- with the
subwoofer firmly attached to the bottom of the Kiwi's metal frame.
I've flown a Lockheed Constellation, and I'm here to tell you that the
Connie sim absolutely NAILS the sound of those big four radial
engines...and the vibration you get through your keister in-flight...
;-)
Gig 601XL Builder
Jay I will of course take you up on that... BUT you are letting the big
projection screen and chair fool you into believing the simulation. All that
screen and controls changes nothing in the software itself and that is where
the difference is.
Ask your self this. Would you if it were legal allow your son to be trained
in nothing but the Kiwi and then solo?
Bob Noel
"Jay Honeck" <jjho...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> Basically the only way I will ever convince you is for you to come fly
> the damned thing. You'll be amazed, I think.
next time I'm there... but probably not for 3-4 years, at least.
--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate
Tom Conner
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
news:12n98ue...@news.supernews.com...
> Ask your self this. Would you if it were legal allow your
> son to be trained in nothing but the Kiwi and then solo?
>
Who has ever advocated flying solo after only sim training? The military
makes extensive use of simulators and even they do not do that. The point
is the sim trained student will probably solo sooner and fly better than the
non-sim student.
http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/future0004.html?PF
Bob Noel
"Jay Honeck" <jjho...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > Can you log it? No, for one the flight models are rubbish.
>
> Actually, I've found this is NOT true. What I *thought* were bad
> flight models was actually the computer lagging just a split
> millisecond behind my control inputs. It was imperceptible, and
> everything *looked* smooth -- but it was obviously there.
>
> When we hooked everything up to a truly world-class computer, the
> impact was immediate and everyone noticed it. Suddenly, the "flight
> models" were dead-on, because the controls were finally responding in
> real time.
Can you do a soft-field take-off with it?
Jose
> solo sooner and fly better than the
> non-sim student.
Will they have sim-bad habits to unlearn?
Jay Honeck
> in nothing but the Kiwi and then solo?
Of course not. That's the motion part of the equation that can't be
reproduced in the Kiwi.
There is also the subtle but very real fact that you can't produce the
fear of death in the Kiwi. Although this sounds sensational and
silly, it's truly not -- since when you're flying a real airplane, your
life (and the lives of your loved ones) are literally in your own
hands.
This is a responsiblity that some may not be able to handle (I've often
wondered if it wasn't fear of this consequence that causes some
post-solo students to drop out of flight training), and you can't
simulate that feeling in any real way.
Still, it's as close as you can get, outside of the real plane. And,
as a training tool, it is therefore terrific.
Mxsmanic
> So you're not even knowledgeable on flight simulators.
I seem to know a lot more than many people here, some of whom sound
like they've been out of the loop for many years.
> You can't even compare, with any authority, the value of
> MSFS against its competitors much less against the flight
> characteristics of real aircraft.
MSFS doesn't have any real competitors. X-Plane is interesting but
not as comprehensive as MSFS.
> You are just proving to be more useless than even I thought.
Your entire post is a personal attack against me, and doesn't mention
the topic of the thread at all. How useful do you think that is?
Mxsmanic
> This might be true if MSFS only tried to simulate one or two aircraft in a
> limited amount of flight evelopes but it doesn't.
It's true for whole categories of aircraft.
> It cuts corners so it can simulate everything from an ultalight to a 747.
It cuts corners on the aircraft models, not on the simulation. If you
use add-on aircraft (as all serious simmers do), you get vastly more
accurate models ... practically a different simulator.
> The problem is MS
> for some reason I can't quite figure out wnats to use all the CPU cycles to
> run the graphics and not just the physics of the enviroment but much of the
> rendering as well.
Graphics is the major workload for any flight simulator. Computers
got fast enough to handle the dynamics decades ago.
> Instead of designing the software to offload the graphics
> to a dedicated graphics card.
Most of the graphics cannot be offloaded.
> Well this doesn't apply to me. I've owned every version of MSFS, except for
> X, since the one I bought the day I bought an Apple IIe.
Wow.
> I did download the X demo and I was really unimpressed. Since there were so
> few planes on the Demo I tried out the ultralight which I had never done on
> any of the other versions for some reason. I set the realizam to full and
> the weather as bad as possible and was still able to fly the little guy. It
> should have ripped the thing apart or at very least blown me over.
How do you know? Were you killed in an ultralight accident in bad
weather previously?
Peter R.
> How do you set and ident the freqs? Using the mouse on the radio stack
> and the OBS is pretty lame, and (at least for FS 2002) I can't find a
> better way. So, I just have them preset and fly the approach.
http://www.flypfc.com/avionics/avionics.html
--
Peter
Mxsmanic
> Gatt this thread and many others lately are here because of posts written by
> an idiot named Anthony aka msxmaniac ...
Only if his other alias is Jay Honeck (the originator of this thread).
You might want to direct your venom towards the original poster, if
you really must spend your time on that instead of discussion of the
topic at hand.
Mxsmanic
> Jay I will of course take you up on that... BUT you are letting the big
> projection screen and chair fool you into believing the simulation.
That's the hallmark of good simulation. If it fools you, it's
working.
> All that screen and controls changes nothing in the software itself
> and that is where the difference is.
Not if it behaves just like the real thing.
Mxsmanic
> Will they have sim-bad habits to unlearn?
There aren't a lot of bad habits you can learn in a sim, depending on
the sim. On a PC simulator, it's more what you don't learn than what
you learn incorrectly. Sitting in front of a PC, you have no
movement, and not much in the way of visibility. By a strange
coincidence, those are the two differences that many pilots here claim
are more important than anything else, which is manifestly untrue.
If you learn in a sim where your primary source of information is
instruments, you'll tend to develop a dependence on instruments. If
you learn in a real plane that moves, you'll tend to develop a
dependence on sensations. I don't see how the latter is any better
than the former, particularly given that sensations are so unreliable.
Mxsmanic
> There is also the subtle but very real fact that you can't produce the
> fear of death in the Kiwi. Although this sounds sensational and
> silly, it's truly not -- since when you're flying a real airplane, your
> life (and the lives of your loved ones) are literally in your own
> hands.
Fear of death is a great reason to remain with a simulator. Why would
anyone want to be terrified of dying?
Mxsmanic
> > [MSFS] allows me to remember to set and ident freqs, follow the
> > instruments, time the approach (I use my kneeboard and timer)
>
> How do you set and ident the freqs? Using the mouse on the radio stack
> and the OBS is pretty lame, and (at least for FS 2002) I can't find a
> better way. So, I just have them preset and fly the approach.
I don't remember about FS 2002, but you can try using the mouse wheel,
if you have one, to set frequencies when you put the mouse over the
frequency knob.
Mxsmanic
> I think the use of MSFS can be summed up pretty simply.
>
> It won't teach you to fly a plane.
Sure it will. It will cover perhaps 90% of flying a plane (or some
other high percentage), which is about as much as actually being in a
plane would cover. However, the skills taught by the simulator are
different from those of a real plane. For example, you can learn to
use an FMS or GPS very effectively on a sim, but you can't do that on
a real plane if you don't have this equipment.
You can learn to fly with instruments on a sim; indeed, you don't have
too many other options, although you can fly visually with a somewhat
restricted visibility.
> In order to make use of MSFS for procedural training however you can't slack
> off. You have to fly the sim identically to the way you would fly the real
> plane. Real charts, real plates, you have to change the radios manually,
> not just let the sim do it for you. You need to talk *on the radio* exactly
> as you would during a real flight even if there's no one to hear you.
Isn't that what all simmers are doing already?
If you use VATSIM, there will be plenty of people hearing you (and
talking back).
> Emergency procedures for example are not only thought based but are physical
> based as well. You don't have time to translate *fuel selector to fullest
> tank*, for example, into a physical motion. You have to have muscle memory
> trained and unless you have one of these high fidelity sim cockpits that
> some folks build for themselves you're not going to train any muscle memory
> on the sim.
Nor are you going to learn that on a real aircraft, since many
emergencies never arise and are too dangerous to attempt in a real
aircraft.
> As nutty as this may sound, with some of the added scenery packs you can
> actually start to train pilotage as well.
It doesn't sound nutty to me.
> Note that none of this has anything to do with the mechanics of flying the
> plane.
Nevertheless, it's a large part of flying. A hundred years ago,
flying by the seat of your pants was the be-all and end-all of
flight--there was nothing else. Now there is a lot else.
Mxsmanic
> On the other hand I came across a model of the 601XL like I'm building and
> when ever you stall it the engine quits and won't restart. And it doesn't
> matter if it is a power on or power off stall. I talked to the guy that
> designed it and he can't for the life of him figure out why it does it.
How much did you pay for it?
Mxsmanic
> It is an example that there is a problem with the flight model. If there is
> a problem there where else is there a problem.
Aircraft will spin in MSFS. It depends on the individual aircraft and
the quality of its model, of course.
Mxsmanic
> A lot.
Okay. Describe the difference. I'm tired of hearing "it's
different," followed by silence. Describe exactly what is different.
Jay Honeck
> > fear of death in the Kiwi. Although this sounds sensational and
> > silly, it's truly not -- since when you're flying a real airplane, your
> > life (and the lives of your loved ones) are literally in your own
> > hands.
>
> Fear of death is a great reason to remain with a simulator. Why would
> anyone want to be terrified of dying?
In order to live.
Jay Honeck
> > the damned thing. You'll be amazed, I think.
>
> next time I'm there... but probably not for 3-4 years, at least.
Ah -- you'll be here for the kick-off of the "holodeck" version...
;-)
Blanche
(and probably JAA) ground rules. Doesn't matter how Microsoft
brands and markets it's software, "Microsoft Flight Simulator" is
NOT a simulator. It's a game.
The FAA blesses PCATDs when administered by a CFI(I) under certain
rules. A "simulator" is one of those multi-million dollar (or euro)
hardware & software environments, such as used by Flight Safety
and the airlines and NASA. These may or may not be full-motion, but
often are.
I have operated United's 737 sim, the STS (Space Shuttle), and
the Apollo simulator. (My employer, many years/decades ago, did a
great deal of the software and displays -- I got to have a great time).
The Apollo sim was full-size. Required a 3-story area, just for the
unit, not counting all the computer equipment needed. No, that
one wasn't full motion.
There are a number of people on this newsgroup that for various reasons
(company and/or insurance) pay Flight Safety and similar companies a
great deal of money each year. To put MSFS into the same category as
Flight Safety is absurd.
Now, with that in mind, I agree with Jay and others that using MSFS
is a great tool for learning concepts such as IFR scan, reviewing
terrain and airports that you haven't encountered yet, etc.
Mxsmanic
> Doesn't matter how Microsoft
> brands and markets it's software, "Microsoft Flight Simulator" is
> NOT a simulator. It's a game.
It's a simulator. There is no "official" definition of a simulator
versus a game, and MSFS far more closely resembles other simulators
than other games.
> I have operated United's 737 sim, the STS (Space Shuttle), and
> the Apollo simulator. (My employer, many years/decades ago, did a
> great deal of the software and displays -- I got to have a great time).
> The Apollo sim was full-size. Required a 3-story area, just for the
> unit, not counting all the computer equipment needed. No, that
> one wasn't full motion.
Then how could it possibly be of any use to astronauts? Everyone
knows that, without full motion, it doesn't count.
> There are a number of people on this newsgroup that for various reasons
> (company and/or insurance) pay Flight Safety and similar companies a
> great deal of money each year. To put MSFS into the same category as
> Flight Safety is absurd.
To put MSFS in the same category as Grand Theft Auto is no less
absurd.
> Now, with that in mind, I agree with Jay and others that using MSFS
> is a great tool for learning concepts such as IFR scan, reviewing
> terrain and airports that you haven't encountered yet, etc.
How can that be, if it's just a game? Games entertain; simulators
teach.
Mxsmanic
> In order to live.
You can live more comfortably without being terrified.
Jay Honeck
>
> You can live more comfortably without being terrified.
Part of the allure of flying (to me) has always been the feeling of
conquering death in some visceral way. Because of this, I feel more
alive in the air than anywhere else. That's what I mean by saying "In
order to live".
The ability to use your skills and intellect to do something that is
completely unnatural for humans to do -- and survive -- carries with it
a thrill that simply can't be duplicated. This is why pilots often
laconically remark "It ain't golf..." when asked what it's like to fly.
The bottom line is this: We can live, or we can wait to die. I choose
the former, and -- in my world -- that means flying. In the end, as
much as I'm thrilled with the way the Kiwi performs, it will never,
ever duplicate that feeling for me.
--
Jay Honeck
Owner/Innkeeper
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
Dudley Henriques
"Tom Conner" <tco...@olopha.net> wrote in message
news:lS1dh.6842$ql2....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Hi Tom;
>Reference;
"PCATDs?which, as far as Hampton is concerned, include both FAA-certified
PCATDs and off-the-shelf products like Microsoft Flight Simulator?are
restricted to teaching cognitive activities such as holding patterns and
approach procedures, where they can provide practical experience, practice,
and reinforcement. The university relied heavily on PCATDs during the first
private/instrument class, and experienced some negative learning. For
example, the computer?s performance didn?t always match that of the actual
aircraft, especially during slow flight and stalls. Also, if the monitor
isn?t properly sized and positioned, it can lead to poor scanning habits."
There is a key paragraph in this report that hints toward a most important
aspect in the use of desktop simulators in flight training; that being the
fact that they can not at this point in time duplicate the actual control
pressures required in the real airplane. The actual physical cues involved
in flying a specific actual aircraft are considered as critical factors for
the pre-solo student and must be experienced. The input from the desk top
simulator of familiarization with control DIRECTION is fine and should be
considered a training asset up to a point. That point is when the beginning
student must start the process of learning control PRESSURES.
Although there is reason to believe that this technology may be forthcoming
down the line, it is still the opinion of many QUALIFIED instructors in the
training community (myself included) that because of this single factor
involving the familiarization with control PRESSURES in the aircraft being
used for the instruction, the use of desk tops between the period spanning
the first hour of dual through the first solo should be discouraged.
The periods both before and after this period is where the desktops can be
quite useful and complimentary to the training environment.
Addendum; if Mxmanic underposts this reply, please excuse my not dealing
with it directly. If you or anyone else on the forum would like to discuss
this issue with me, please post freely and I'll be most happy to answer.
Thank you
Dudley Henriques
Flight Instructor Retired
[MVP] For Microsoft Flight Simulator
Jay Beckman
"Jose" <teac...@aol.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:a02dh.19109$9v5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>> The point is the sim trained student will probably solo sooner and fly
>> better than the non-sim student.
>
>Will they have sim-bad habits to unlearn?
>
>Jose
Jose, et al...
As a sim user for many, many years and now a PP-ASEL for the last two years,
I can tell you that yes, there are sim induced bad habits to be broken when
you go fly for real.
Probably the most egregious is panel fixation and not flying "head up."
It took several raps to the back of the head with a rolled up sectional to
get me to quit looking inside and learn to fly by reference to the view
outside. The interesting thing is that now when I spend any time with MSFS,
I find myself really frustrated at how lacking FS is when it comes to being
able to see "outside."
Another one that I had to unlearn was a casual disregard for systems status.
One just doesn't take into consideration things like oil temp/pressure, fuel
flow, suction, etc when one is in front of a computer screen.
Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ
N2310D
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kuc9n2pogjbnavdmd...@4ax.com...
> N2310D writes:
>
>> A lot.
>
> Okay. Describe the difference. I'm tired of hearing "it's
> different," followed by silence. Describe exactly what is different.
Well, no I won't.
Since you have in the past not been willing to accept statements
provided by experienced pilots and, on several occasions not been willing to
back up your own cryptic statements and told us that you've done your
research to get your information and we should do likewise, I think it is
appropriate for me to tell you that you need to go for a ride in an airplane
and find out for yourself.
I am NOT going to give you an opportunity to impugn my hard earned
knowledge in your typical puerile manner. Take it or leave it, or go for a
ride.
Jose
Interesting. This should be added to the kiwi. :) Ho wmuch was it?
(the web site is price-free)
I like the line "Note: The GNS430.530 can only be used in simulator and
cannot be used in your aircraft."
Jay Beckman
news:12n966u...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Jon Kraus" <jkr...@indy.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:d6Uch.2112$ja6...@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
>>Oh really. Have you flown in any clouds so you can make that statement
>>honestly?
>
>Yes.
>
>I agree with Jay. I used MFS2004 to practice a VFR flight from TTD to
>Paine Field, and then set it to real-time weather (IFR) to fly back.
>
>The next day, I made the actual flight. The flight sim didn't model the
>C-7 that I got to see popping out of one cloud and disappearing into
>another or possible >spatial disorientation issues, but on the IFR panel on
>the sim you have to ignore physical stimulus (lack thereof) and you're
>pretty much under the hood.
>
>-c
And that, IMO, really hits the nail on the head. It's how you use the
software. It isn't what MSFS brings to you, it's what you bring to MSFS.
At one end of the spectrum there are those who want to go out and fly a 747
inverted under a bridge .. at the other are those who spend both the time
and the money to immerse themselves as completely as possible via both
hardware (bleeding edge computer systems and things like the radio stack
Peter R posted about) and software (better terrain mesh, more accurate
airport scenics, etc.) When you slap that level of commitment behind three
(or more) high-quality 24" monitors using good quality control peripherals
and go to the extent of building a "Kiwi" of your own, it isn't too bad a
flight simulator exprience.
Google some screenshots taken using the best hardware/software and I think
you'd be suprised at the visual fidelity that some are able to achieve. If
you bring any desire to fly your sim "by the book" then you can (..and I do)
get satisfaction from MSFS. You may not be able to keep your body connected
to flying with MSFS but you can keep your brain in gear.
Just my $0.02 ...
randyw
> Really?
>
> Spin the plane, stall it and put it in a spin... the models are not
> full, it won't do a spin.
>
The Maule in FSX spins like a champ (not to be confused with "like a
Champ", though they may in fact spin in a similar manner). I think spins
have been possible since FS98 in fact. I've been flying since MS95, and
I get some of the previous versions mixed up in my head.
MSFS was a great tool for helping me knock out my private ticket
quickly. I've heard some simmers transition to *real* airplanes and have
a problem looking out the window (they get gauge fixation). I've always
been a big fan of the hat switch on my joystick and like looking outside
as much as scanning the gauges.
Here are a few screenshots I've taken:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pixelrandy/sets/72157594322710096/
Happy landings,
Randy
KSTS, Sonoma County CA
PPSEL
Mxsmanic
> Well, no I won't.
I know.
> Since you have in the past not been willing to accept statements
> provided by experienced pilots ...
You're right: I won't accept unsupported, unexplained assertions, no
matter who makes them. The appeal to authority does not work with me.
> ... and, on several occasions not been willing to back up your
> own cryptic statements and told us that you've done your research
> to get your information ...
I explain my assertions. I don't provide lists of citations. Others
have the same resources for research that I have.
> ... I think it is appropriate for me to tell you that you need
> to go for a ride in an airplane and find out for yourself.
If you cannot explain the difference after riding in a plane yourself,
why would I be able to do so?
> I am NOT going to give you an opportunity to impugn my hard earned
> knowledge in your typical puerile manner.
I have seen virtually nothing in the way of hard-earned knowledge in
this newsgroup. I've seen a great deal of puerile behavior, however.
But that is par for the course on USENET, which is filled with angry
young male "experts."
randyw
> Gatt this thread and many others lately are here because of posts written by
> an idiot named Anthony aka msxmaniac who not only has never flown and
> aircraft and has no desire to, thinks that most of us that do fly don't know
> what the hell we are talking about because our real world experience doesn't
> jive with his playing of MSFS.
>
> There is no doubt that MSFS is great for use as you describe but it doesn't
> make anyone an aviation expert as Anthony thinks it does.
I don't know Anthony, but his posts have been informative and well
written. He also hasn't personally attacked anyone, or made
misrepresentations of his flight experience (real or not). I know a lot
of real pilots that think they're aviation experts when in fact the
little guy with glasses sitting behind his computer desk flying flight
sims has a lot more knowledge, even though he lacks seat time.
I fly both sims and Cessnas, I find that the flight models to be good
enough to simulate (that's what it's doing, right?) flight in a manner
that feels like it does in reality. The plane stalls when and how it
should, P-factor is there, and I can fly by the numbers just when I do
when flying real approaches.
I always know I'm flying a sim, and I guess for some people it's always
just going to be a game until one can't tell the difference between the
sim and real life. Thankfully I have a great imagination and I can fill
in the gaps. If only I could press the Y button and slew when flying in
real life...
Randy
KSTS Sonoma County CA
PPSEL
randyw
> Sitting in front of a PC, you have no
> movement, and not much in the way of visibility.
Not true as far as the visibility is concerned. If you fly using MSFS's
virtual cockpits, then you have full eye movement around the inside and
out all the windows. I can even move up and down, left and right in the
seat. There's even IR head-tracking software that let's you look around
the cockpit by moving your head.
Here it is in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMKtkPR0idY
Randy
Mxsmanic
> Not true as far as the visibility is concerned. If you fly using MSFS's
> virtual cockpits, then you have full eye movement around the inside and
> out all the windows. I can even move up and down, left and right in the
> seat. There's even IR head-tracking software that let's you look around
> the cockpit by moving your head.
True, but it's not as easy to do as it would be in real life. I have
a rotary on my throttle quadrant set to "turn my head," and that works
pretty well if I must look out the side windows.
One advantage to MSFS (at least with some aircraft) is that you can
turn to look completely behind the aircraft, whereas in real life the
aircraft itself blocks many angles of view. Not all aircraft let you
turn off the virtual cockpit though (making it invisible so you can
look anywhere).
Hmm ... maybe I should assign a rotary to vertical pan as well.
Avia...@gmail.com
simulators are just as good as real flight or better, their not even
close. And I'll give you a few reasons why real flight is different.
Aside from one being real and the other not... the field of view you
ahve in an airplane as compared to a simulator is different and
superior.
A simulator (with any Force Feedback system available at the local
computer store) is nowhere close to re-creating the forces excerted on
the controls by the atmosphere.
A simulator does not let you feel the back pressure from the braking
system, as a matter of fact in a sim (like MSFS) you can slam the
brakes on or you can leave them off.
A simulator does not actually allow you to manipulate a trim tab and
physically feel the difference in the control.
In a simulator it's extremley difficult to actually fail to start an
engine, as a matter of fact you can't flood an engine in a sim, which
you can in real life.
A simulator does not re create the stresses that you feel being
excerted upon the aircraft, such as the distinct sound of an engine
operating at too high of a manifold pressure for the engine to handle.
A simulator does not re create the changes of trim as the cowl flaps
are retracted.
A simulator does not bring you the concern of a pre-flight check or a
making sure that the tires are fully inflated.
A simulator comes nowhere close to re-creating landing on a wet runway,
on a short field or on a soft field.
A simulator does not properly represent ground effect.
A simulator does not represent weather properly with the exception of
the immediate local area.
A simulator does not require radio communication when you approach any
large city, when you approach any airspace.
It does not necessitate proper flight planning to reinforce the safetey
of the flight.
It does not make you experience G-Forces or the empty feeling in your
stomach when you thermal... for that matter a simulator does not
represent thermals.
It allows you to pause and get a drink.
In a simulator the amounts of turbulence that exist in the real world
do not make it necessary for you to adjust the elevator, ailerons or
rudder when landing a plane. A botched landing does not reward you with
a bounce, but rather with a flight analysis saying you landed at x
amount of feet per second.
There is a monumental difference between sitting in front of a screen
and watching a two dimensional image, than being at the controls of an
airplane and seeing the real world move past the glareshield.
By your logic of simulators being as close to reality as being in an
airplane I can assume that I can safely operate a train with people on
board, I can safely drive an 18 wheel truck, I can safely and with
utter brilliance command a submarine, or surface naval vessel in
combat. The reality is that I cannot, and the reality of the matter is
that you may be able to control an airplane to a reasonable extent in
the real world, I may be able to control an 18 wheeler with a
reasonable degree of success, or a train without exiting the railroad
tracks, but I cannot operate any of those real world items, with the
exception of an airplane. So , you may find a reasonable degree of
succes trying to take off in a real Beech Baron, but you'll get chicken
skin the moment you feel the torque pull you to the side as the turbos
spool up, thats what seperates you from anyone who has flown a plane,
they know what it's like and they can do it... you don't.
For me... every time I come to work and fly the Dash 8s, not only am I
using all my previously gained knowledge to make money for a company,
I'm also dealing with people, and to an extent they are putting their
lives in mine and the First Officers hands, and I would gladly walk up
to any of them, standing next to you and tell them that "Yes, I have
over 8,000 hours of flight time, but mxsmanic here has, say 35,000
hours of simulated flying time in front of his computer at home without
the guidance of an instructor or any license, who would you like to fly
your plane?", 10 times out of 10 they are going to choose me over you.
Morgans
>>I have seen virtually nothing in the way of hard-earned knowledge in
>>this newsgroup.
>
EVERYone ! ! !
LOOK at THIS above proclamation !!!
THIS is what the troll wrote, as to what he thinks of your experiences.
Read it again, and again.
**************************************
**************************************
MXSMANIC WROTE:
>> I HAVE SEEN VIRTUALLY NOTHING IN THE WAY OF HARD-EARNED KNOWLEDGE IN THIS
NEWSGROUP.
**************************************
**************************************
This should do it, for anyone EVER answering him, again, forever.
He respects you, not.
PLEASE
Don't feed this troll, at all, EVER again.
It is time to close the chapter on him. Starting now.
Neil Gould
> "Neil Gould" <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote in message
> news:tC%ch.120$Gr2...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
>
>> Some of us have a lot more sim experience than anyone whose sim
>> experience began with the use of personal computers. And, we, too
>> have told you >that MSFS isn't all that correct in its
>> representation of flight.
>
> Okay. I'm IFR rated and on occasion when I can't fly, I take my
> approach plates and shoot them in FS2004 in the Mooney or C-172.
>
> It allows me to remember to set and ident freqs, follow the
> instruments, time the approach (I use my kneeboard and timer), plan
> the course with an E6B and fly it with a sectional. Teaches
> reliance on the instruments (you can simulate instrument failures),
> reinforces use of checklists such as GUMPS and procedures for radio
> navigation as well as remain sharp on concepts such as reverse
> sensing and maintaing course headings.
>
> My flying experience began in high school on the first MS Flight
> Simulator. It helped me through groundschool and my private because I
> was already familiar with navigating using one or two VORs and
> quickly interpreting and responding to instruments.
>
> I highly recommend it. It won't make you, say, IFR current, but
> it'll sure polish your edge for much less than it costs to shoot
> practice approaches each month.
>
> I guess that's why they have flight simlators.
>
I completely agree with you under the "...useful to those who fly real
airplanes" statement that you snipped. Simulators *are* useful, even those
that don't even remotely simulate the actual flight environment, if the
task that they are put to is well structured. I found the time spent in a
Link trainer some 40 years ago useful, but it didn't ever make me think it
was real flying. I've also seen people sweat while playing "Space
Invaders", and I doubt that they thought that was real, either. So,
perhaps it's the investment in "winning" that causes such reactions rather
than being fooled?
Neil
Bob Noel
"Avia...@gmail.com" <Avia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It allows you to pause and get a drink.
more important: later you can pause again to return the rental.
--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate
Bob Noel
"Morgans" <jsmo...@charterJUNK.net> wrote:
> >>I have seen virtually nothing in the way of hard-earned knowledge in
> >>this newsgroup.
>
> EVERYone ! ! !
>
> LOOK at THIS above proclamation !!!
>
> THIS is what the troll wrote, as to what he thinks of your experiences.
think about it, "virtually" .... it has to be a joke.
It's actually funny. Not as funny as when it mis-states newtonian physics,
but it's still kind of funny.
Neil Gould
Recently, Avia...@gmail.com <Avia...@gmail.com> posted:
Jay Honeck
More like a buck and a quarter...
Well put!
Jay Honeck
got slightly wrong:
> A simulator does not re create the stresses that you feel being
> excerted upon the aircraft, such as the distinct sound of an engine
> operating at too high of a manifold pressure for the engine to handle.
Actually, some of the planes we're modeling do just that. (And some
are truly dreadful, to be honest.)
> A simulator does not properly represent ground effect.
It comes pretty close. A Mooney will float and float, just like the
real deal.
> A simulator does not represent weather properly with the exception of
> the immediate local area.
How would I be able to tell this? I'm only flying in "the local
area", after all.
> A simulator does not require radio communication when you approach any
> large city, when you approach any airspace.
Although I don't have it, there are some add-ons that apparently make
ATC very real.
> It allows you to pause and get a drink.
Hey -- you say that like it's a bad thing!
:-)
> In a simulator the amounts of turbulence that exist in the real world
> do not make it necessary for you to adjust the elevator, ailerons or
> rudder when landing a plane. A botched landing does not reward you with
> a bounce, but rather with a flight analysis saying you landed at x
> amount of feet per second.
This is truly wrong. You can bounce, and skid sideways, and collapse
the gear -- just like the real thing. Make sure you've got the realism
settings all the way up, or you'll only see that stupid flight analysis
thing.
(Which is actually quite useful -- along with the "instant replay"
feature. On movie night, we'll watch a guy botch an approach -- and
then we'll watch it from several different angles, everyone hootin' and
hollerin' like it's a rodeo. Along with a few cold ones, that makes
for a fun evening!)
:-)
Jay Honeck
> Champ", though they may in fact spin in a similar manner). I think spins
> have been possible since FS98 in fact. I've been flying since MS95, and
> I get some of the previous versions mixed up in my head.
I've been flying Flight Sim since before Microsoft bought it. I was
running it on an Atari ST computer, and it fit entirely on a single
floppy disk.
Everything (and there wasn't much) was rendered in wire frames, and the
flight control was a mouse (Atari was very advanced, for the day, with
a real GUI and everything!) -- but it was enough to get me (and
millions like me, apparently) hooked. The sim was my first
introduction to flight, and it stoked the fires that eventually roared
into life some 20 years later, when I got my ticket.