Boeing 777 runs out of air

Mr Travel writes:

That is the only flying he does, on MS similulator.

So using a simulator is flying? Hmm.

Mr Travel writes:

You don't know Chilly?

I don't keep track of personalities and individuals on USENET. I just discuss
interesting topics, when possible.

He believes his simulator GAME is more accurate than real life.

I suppose it depends on the simulation.

In message Mxsmanic
wrote:

Mr Travel writes:

You don't know Chilly?

I don't keep track of personalities and individuals on USENET. I just discuss
interesting topics, when possible.

In general, I'd agree with that. Chilly8 is an exception, as
necessitated by Chilly8's own behaviour.

He believes his simulator GAME is more accurate than real life.

I suppose it depends on the simulation.

No, it doesn't. By definition, you cannot get more accurate then real
life, although you can arguably get close.

R. Mark Clayton ("R. Mark Clayton" ) gurgled
happily, sounding much like they were saying:

In order to reduce the carbon footprint and the amount of fuel
carried on long haul flights, pilots need accurate (calibrated)
fuel gauges.

One would think that on any transatlantic flight the tanks will filled
to 100 percent of capacity.

How do you fly transatlantic from Beijing to London?

Anti-clockwise when looking at the north pole. It is quite a bit
further though!

The 'great circle route is 8,160km over Mongolia, Russia, Helsinki
[Finland], Sweden and Denmark.

A quick google shows Beijing-to-London to be _well_ within range of a
777-200 ER like the Heathrow one, especially with only a half load of
passengers.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777...rc_london.html

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 20:49:17 -0700, DevilsPGD
wrote:

He believes his simulator GAME is more accurate than real life.

I suppose it depends on the simulation.

No, it doesn't. By definition, you cannot get more accurate then real
life, although you can arguably get close.

The main thing is that you can test the effects of particular actions
& failures on a simulator that you would not *dare* to do in real
life. Thus they are great for safely training a person to cope with
an emergency situation where a wong move in real life would kill you
or cause a lot of damage.

--
Cynic

Mr Travel writes:

Not on a MS PC simulator

The difference is only one of degree, and (to some extent) bureaucracy.

DevilsPGD writes:

In general, I'd agree with that. Chilly8 is an exception, as
necessitated by Chilly8's own behaviour.

Not for me. Personal bickering is for kids; I manage to live without it.

No, it doesn't. By definition, you cannot get more accurate then real
life, although you can arguably get close.

Some aspects of simulation can be more accurate, because selected variables
can be held constant. For example, the tendency of an aircraft to remain in
level flight in still air can be tested in simulation with greater accuracy
than in real life, because in real life the air is never truly still, whereas
it can be forced that way in simulation.

Chilly8 writes:

FS-Passengers brings a whole new level of realism to Flight
Simulator, since it simulates having real passengers on board.

I've heard a lot of criticism of FSPassengers.

Of course, some of the emergencies they simulate would NEVER
happen in the real world. I even had FSP once simulate a door
blowing off and rapid decompression of the aircraft. That is
something that would never happen. I have never heard of a
door blowing off in mid flight. Doors just don't blow off in
mid flight like that.

So much for the realism, then.

"Chilly8" wrote in message
...

FS-Passengers brings a whole new level of realism to Flight
Simulator, since it simulates having real passengers on board.
Of course, some of the emergencies they simulate would NEVER
happen in the real world. I even had FSP once simulate a door
blowing off and rapid decompression of the aircraft. That is
something that would never happen. I have never heard of a
door blowing off in mid flight. Doors just don't blow off in
mid flight like that.


Wrong again. 3rd March 1974, following take-off from Paris. 345 people died.
--

JohnT

In message Mxsmanic
wrote:

DevilsPGD writes:

In general, I'd agree with that. Chilly8 is an exception, as
necessitated by Chilly8's own behaviour.

Not for me. Personal bickering is for kids; I manage to live without it.

Exactly why it's worth keeping track of Chilly8 -- Nearly anything he
posts is bickering, but it sometimes takes a couple posts to figure that
out.

That being said, he is just rational enough that his posts do need to be
refuted, if for no reason other then the fact that he appears to be an
expert if a single post is reviewed out of context.

No, it doesn't. By definition, you cannot get more accurate then real
life, although you can arguably get close.

Some aspects of simulation can be more accurate, because selected variables
can be held constant. For example, the tendency of an aircraft to remain in
level flight in still air can be tested in simulation with greater accuracy
than in real life, because in real life the air is never truly still, whereas
it can be forced that way in simulation.

True enough, *if* you assume your simulation is accurate to begin with.
Despite Microsoft's substantial resources, I would most definitely *not*
make that assumption in a product marketed as a game rather then a
certified simulation product.