Structure, Dynamics and Glitter my take

[Guest]

>Therefore my first question-how can one part be more legitimate than another?

[Guest]

So, following your argument, watching a movie, you shouldn't expect realistic behaviors on the part of the characters, or an intelligent plot, because it's not your real life."It's only a dream", (and others would chorus, "A 70$ dream") you seem to repeat, siding with the B, C and D series.Mr Sidoli is asking for a script and rich meaning, structure and dynamics, and, yeah, why not, glitter.

[LAdamson 240]

I was thinking about this yesterday during a flyin/barbeque for our EAA chapter. The sky was "cloudless" which is pretty much how it's been all summer. This is KSLC which is a desert climate at 4200' MSL. Then I thought about my trip to the U.K. which was also in the month of August. As I remember, probably 2/3rds of the ten days we were there, had cloud cover on & off. What it amounts to, is that our flight visuals are quite different. When you're over the "Alps", I assume you're quite high. Out here, we are litterly flying GA aircraft below mountain peaks quite often. When the weather is IMC conditions, we have far too many pilots hitting these peaks, including instrument rated pilots. One just slammed into a peak 200' below the summit last evening in the dark, killing four.Another problem we have here when the sky contains a lot of cloud formations is icing during winter conditions, or turbulence when these clouds are at lower levels over the mountains which generally range from 11,000' msl to 14,000' msl. To go east out of this valley towards Denver as an example, generally requires a climb thru winding canyons to gain altitude in your average GA Cessna or Piper. If it's overcast, you just don't do it, unless you do some major route changing.I realize that the majority of your flight time is cloud formations as in your pics. I can see why you would want them "improved". The majority of MY flight time is over the "Rocky Mountains" which is something I'd rather see than cloud formations obscuring them. These mountains are on the ground, but I feel they present more danger to my type of flying than changing conditions in the sky. This terrain is my flight enviroment, while the clouds are yours. I can see your point, but I hope you can see mine..At the present, FS2002 has more of my enviroment than yours. Therfore I'm happier as my postings suggest. :) L.Adamson

[LAdamson 240]

See my next post to Peter. What you just wrote is rather rediculous, and hardly worth responding to. I know exactly what Mr. Sidoli is writing about. I have conversed with him for years........... although we don't exactly see eye to eye on all points.L.Adamson

[Guest]

LarryOf course I take your point. Flying over the Alps a couple of hundred feet over massive and brilliant white glaciers is a memory I will never forget especially as the Matterhorn past by my left wing.The shear sense of vertigo and energy was something to behold.I was told to not even attempt a crossing at 11000 to 13000 feet unless the winds were light.Even with light winds you could feel the aircraft tremor with air pockets.But lets take flying into mountainous regions. It more important to check your weather as things change fast and you can quickly be in a nightmare situation below mountain tops in worsening visibility with clouds blocking the valleys.Even in the better weather areas of the world weather dynamics play the biggest part in detrmining your flight and gives the largest sense of nerves if you attempt any flight in anything but perfect conditions.I can remember only too well trying to find my way through a line of solid thunderstorms as they blocked my way everywhere I turned.I can remember flying back from Scotland in a Baron on an inky black night.I was given a sigmet as I lined up on the runway with severe turbulence below 10000 feet. Flying that aircraft through blinding snow that swept past the wings making your eyes go funny doing all you could to keep the aircraft level.I can remember being hit by a lightning bolt over Dublin, seeing the autopilot kick out with Turbulence and dropping 2000 feet with the radios turning into a mass of crackle.I can remember the nerves as I tried to get out of icing and a time low on fuel with unforecast fog and a jammed fuel selector taking a PAR and continuing below 200 feet because there was no other choice.These are just a taste but there have been many more including engine and system failures to deal with.That sense of nervousness and challenge could be built into the sim with proper weather dynamics and im sure at some time Microsoft will direct their attention to that.Then we will have a truly living sim, a truly challenging sim with the full face of mother nature rather than just its appearance.Roll on FS2004? Larry we do cross swords but I know that we are always the best of friends :-)Peter

[brucek 38]

Just to add my 2c here too: :)I live on the other (eastern) side of the Rockies, where the rivers begin to feed the Atlantic rather than the Pacific. I'm a very low time private pilot, so venturing into those mountains is just starting for me. I too hear of many accidents, like Larry. The terrain here rises from 5,000 ft to over 14,000 ft (in parts) in 30 miles or less. We get the lee-wards winds too, all that fohn wind stuff. I don't know how you would ever reproduce that nervous feeling of anticipation from mountain turbulence, though. Other than full motion. I woould love to have that though.This is a good thread.Bruce.BJC, Jeffco, CO.