Time to stop flying?

Martin writes:

Secretly?

Given the attitude of the more backward pilots, they might be tempted to avoid
talking about it simply to avoid the kind of sophomoric reactions I'm seeing
here. Of course, they can still become better instrument pilots by regularly
using a sim, even if they don't talk about it.

Following up to Mxsmanic

real world pilots who use MSFS tell me its harder to land MSFS because of
lack of sensory information. How this applies to large planes I cannot
comment.

It is less applicable in large aircraft because there is less hand-flying of
the aircraft and one depends more on instruments even when hand-flying it.
Large aircraft are best flown by the numbers.

I'm reporting what pilots tell me, not guessing for myself.
--
"Mike....."(not "Mike")
remove clothing to email

Following up to Mxsmanic

I think people are not aware of the current strengths of MSFS and some like
to be a bit snooty about it.

That is my impression, also.

theres a fairly prevalent tendency (not usually present amoungst the
younger) that any computer based leisure activity should be denigrated as
"just a game or a toy". "simulator" sounds too "big boys stuff" so they
object to the use of the expression, ignoring logic.
--
"Mike....."(not "Mike")
remove clothing to email

Following up to Mxsmanic

It's not hard to get a pilot's
license, if you have time, lots of money, and you're in robust health.

there certainly seems to be quite a number of fatalities and near misses in
the motor racing crowd, who often fly themselves about in private planes,
Colin McCray, Graham Hill, three the other day whose names I dont know,
David Coultard came close. Thats just Brits, i would be interested how
dangerous small planes are per 1,000 miles. I suspect the death rate for
top racing drivers may now be higher in thier planes than thier race cars.
--
"Mike....."(not "Mike")
remove clothing to email

Mike.... wrote:
Following up to Mr. Travel


a complete episode or period of play, typically ending in a definite
result: a baseball game.


Wouldn't a fatal crash end an "episode" of MSFS?


As in a pro simulator?

its up to the user to set that how they want it. A car crash will end your
episode of driving, doesnt make it a game.

I was answering that part about " a period of play:.

When you play a basketball game, you could decide to end it at 10 or 20
points, just as you can pick a point to end you MSFS game

"Mike...." wrote in
:

Following up to Mxsmanic

real world pilots who use MSFS tell me its harder to land MSFS
because of lack of sensory information. How this applies to large
planes I cannot comment.

It is less applicable in large aircraft because there is less
hand-flying of the aircraft and one depends more on instruments even
when hand-flying it. Large aircraft are best flown by the numbers.

I'm reporting what pilots tell me, not guessing for myself.

As a private pilot myself, I can confirm that you are absolutely right and
Mixi, as usual, is full of ****.

You land the aircraft "by the seat of your pants".

When you get to 1/2 the wingspan of the aircraft AGL, you start getting a
slight increase in lift due to ground effect. The closer you get to the
ground, the more you get. As your coming in for a landing you can feel
this slight increase in lift as a very subtle increase in pressure on your
keyster. With a little practice, you can use this to round out and flare
resulting in your greasing the aircraft onto the runway.

With MSFS, you don't get this subtle increase in pressure and have to rely
either on the instruments or on a very poor visual to round out and flare.
It is a lot harder than when you feel the runway in the seat of your pants.
I find landing with MSFS a significantly higher effort than in a real
airplane, and that's even when I have to deal with a gusting crosswind.

When I'm a passenger in an airliner, I can almost always tell if it was an
autoland or the pilot landed it by hand. The hand landings are noticeably
smoother.

Following up to Mr. Travel

Wouldn't a fatal crash end an "episode" of MSFS?


As in a pro simulator?

its up to the user to set that how they want it. A car crash will end your
episode of driving, doesnt make it a game.

I was answering that part about " a period of play:.

When you play a basketball game, you could decide to end it at 10 or 20
points, just as you can pick a point to end you MSFS game

Choosing to end applies to any activity, the characterisic of game end is
they end either by a combination of time limit/score situation or failure
to complete some required task like shooting aliens before they shoot you.

If you start MSFS and leave it running with a plane on autopilot at 20,000
feet and fuel set to infinite it will fly till the PC crashes. I see that
as highly untypical of "games". The only usage of "game" that matches MSFS
is derogratory usage "its only a.....". "Toy" is viable as its clearly not
aimed at real life pilots (although plenty seem to use it) I think game
isnt.

--
"Mike....."(not "Mike")
remove clothing to email

Following up to Benjamin Dover

With MSFS, you don't get this subtle increase in pressure and have to rely
either on the instruments or on a very poor visual to round out and flare.
It is a lot harder than when you feel the runway in the seat of your pants.
I find landing with MSFS a significantly higher effort than in a real
airplane,

you can add to that the fact that simulation data, lets say grass, doesnt
feed you the "distance from" data that you get in real life. I also get the
impression the peripheral vision is much worse, i've tried zooming out to
get a wide view, but that distorts things a bit.
Not to mention the total lack of forward view in some tailwheel planes or
in particular the sneider trophy racers.
--
"Mike....."(not "Mike")
remove clothing to email

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 06:11:54 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

Martin writes:

Secretly?

Given the attitude of the more backward pilots, they might be tempted to
avoid
talking about it simply to avoid the kind of sophomoric reactions I'm
seeing
here. Of course, they can still become better instrument pilots by
regularly
using a sim, even if they don't talk about it.

That explains it.


It may well explain it to you, but I am still rather puzzled. I don't even
know what a sophomoric reaction is. Could it have something to do with Mixi
sqeezing his joystick whilst dissimulating?
--

JohnT

"Mike...." wrote in
:

Following up to Benjamin Dover

With MSFS, you don't get this subtle increase in pressure and have to
rely either on the instruments or on a very poor visual to round out
and flare. It is a lot harder than when you feel the runway in the
seat of your pants. I find landing with MSFS a significantly higher
effort than in a real airplane,

you can add to that the fact that simulation data, lets say grass,
doesnt feed you the "distance from" data that you get in real life. I
also get the impression the peripheral vision is much worse, i've
tried zooming out to get a wide view, but that distorts things a bit.
Not to mention the total lack of forward view in some tailwheel planes
or in particular the sneider trophy racers.

Yes, you do need to look at the edge of the runway as well as straight
ahead. In many aircraft, regardless of the gear configuration, you can't
see in front of you once you flare.

As for distance, I'm not sure what you are referring to. Once you are on
final, just keep the spot you want to hit steady in front of you. For
example, if you want to land "on the numbers", just make sure they are not
moving as you get closer. If the numbers are moving toward you, you'll
land past them. If away from you, you'll land short. Just keep the
numbers steady and when you feel the ground effects, close the trottle,
round out, flare, and land.

As for removing clothing, flying is the most fun you can have with your
clothes on :-)