2 minutes ago, Sylvenzo said:

I am a new simmer

- I don’t fly 787 thru the Eiffel Tower(The wingspan is too wide)

True, we were all new - sometime!

Don’t take offense im certain it’s not directed at every new simmer, but one look at videos on YouTube and well, you know...

 

43 minutes ago, Cmcollazo71 said:

First off, thank you for your service on this Veterans Day here in the US!

I don’t disagree with anything you said. I am not qualified to do so anyway. I know my personal minimums and they are low! 😃

However, in transport category aircraft I can imagine the tolerances being much smaller, 2-3%, as noted by the poster before, but in GA - where after all it’s a select group from the general public, but non-the less the general public, and there’s no dedicated group of engineers and technicians to keep the airplanes within those tolerances, such as in the military or airline, that there would be much more variance as noted by other GA pilots on here?

Again, I’m not questioning any one’s knowledge as I probably have the least here.

This question is meant in the Socratic sense to gain more insight!

Thanks!!! I hear your point. Technically, you can consider the jets I fly as GA lol. But, I must admit that I get just a tiny bit apprehensive in GA aircraft and it's because of the world I come from. As you have stated, I started out in the heavy metal world where rules and standards were strictly enforced. I have been in recurrents where some of the class mates were not as familiar with climb gradients performance because they rely on the box and never had to depend on the theory or application of it. Since biz aviation, I have relaxed a bit and I'm fine seeing an obstacle and turning. I am also very comfortable in the soup flying towards terrain/obstacles because I stick to procedure and know the jet's climb performance at that given time. 

Here's a interesting one. There was this navigator in my squadron who would fly at the base aero club. Our av gas was brought to base by a truck each day in the morning. He was taking a cessna some where in the morning but the truck was delayed. He waited and waited, but the delay kept sliding. He jumped into the POH and started doing some serious fuel calculation. He decided he had the fuel and left. He said that he had a 2 hour flight time with his range being at 2.5. The winds or temperature was a little off on the planning and he said right at 2.5 hours into the flight, the engine quit. He was just shy of the airport. He was able to put it down in a farmers field. Problem was that the 152 had USAF on it's body. The media in the area quickly reported that a Air Force aircraft had crash landed in a farmers field. Shortly after that, the base commander killed the aero club. Said it was too much of a liability. That sucked, but was funny when he told me the story over drinks lol.    

2 hours ago, mtr75 said:

Disagree. Saying "we can create ISA standard conditions, therefore the planes should be perfect" is fallacy. Do you have the engine leaned properly (for pistons)? Do you have power set properly for the altitude (for turbines)? Are you trimmed properly or are you dragging the plane around the sky? I can think of plenty of variables.

Remember, the most unreliable piece of equipment in the airplane is the pilot.

All of the settings you mention are repeatable as part of a testing process.

There is no excuse for the aircraft in the sim that don't have the right cruise speed, or range, on a Clear Skies day.  It's just Asobo doing a crappy job, and people are more than happy to give them a pass because maybe the simulator that I just spent $120 on is somehow magically simulating an aircraft where the engine has been abused and it it has 5,000 hours on it?   Guess what - that's not it, it's just Asobo doing a crappy job.

Edited November 11, 20205 yr by marsman2020

14 minutes ago, marsman2020 said:

There is no excuse for the aircraft in the sim that don't have the right cruise speed, or range, on a Clear Skies day.  It's just Asobo doing a crappy job, and people are more than happy to give them a pass.

But the consensus so far from posters with actual flight experience is that perfect match to POH doesn’t exist in the real world - so why replicate it in the sim. 

Now, I’m not saying Asobo designed the game with this in mind, and if they did they didn’t communicate that in their promotional material, but it seems that having what we ended up with in the sim is not outside the realm of probability in variance from the POH.

If we made friends with someone who owed one these aircraft and took us for a ride and if they then told us, “Oh, it’ll do x and x not too far off POH,”we would be fine with that but of information, but would complain about it in the sim.

Now, how many angels can dance on the point of a needle? 🤪

 

Edited November 11, 20205 yr by Cmcollazo71

You can fly through the Eiffel tower ?

Cool I am going to try that.

24 minutes ago, Cmcollazo71 said:

But the consensus so far from posters with actual flight experience is that perfect match to POH doesn’t exist in the real world - so why replicate it in the sim. 

Now, I’m not saying Asobo designed the game with this in mind, and if they did they didn’t communicate that in their promotional material, but it seems that having what we ended up with in the sim is not outside the realm of probability in variance from the POH.

If we made friends with someone who owed one these aircraft and took us for a ride and if they then told us, “Oh, it’ll do x and x not too far off POH,”we would be fine with that but of information, but would complain about it in the sim.

Now, how many angels can dance on the point of a needle? 🤪

 

Because the simulator is representing all aircraft, not some specific aircraft, the POH is the publicly available record of the performance of that aircraft, and it's also the only documentation that users of the sim have access to (since no documentation is provided with the sim).

If they want to make the aircraft exceed the POH performance based on some extra data that shows the POH is being overly conservative (like with the Diamond aircraft) I could see that being reasonable, but it shouldn't do worse.

This is an "if you give them an inch they will take a mile" situation, if we can't agree to hold Asobo to anything....then we get junk.  I get the feeling a lot of people on this forum are happy to get junk though, as long as it has pretty graphics for them to look at.  So whatever they need to rationalize the fact that it's "ok" that Asobo did a word not allowed job, is only A Good Thing.

Edited November 11, 20205 yr by marsman2020

6 minutes ago, marsman2020 said:

  I get the feeling a lot of people on this forum are happy to get junk though, as long as it has pretty graphics for them to look at.

^^^This.

The way I enjoy the hobby is foreign to most of the frequent commentators here. Every now and then, the folks that indeed simulate real world pilotage (and as much as can be simulated) will come out and speak. But mostly their voices are drowned out by the "that's not what I call fun" crowd. Don't even get me started about the VR crowd.

Asobo has done some incredible things with their scenery simulator but, in my usage, it has not quite made it to flight simulator. Mostly because of the aircraft products and weather simulation.

PS I don't fly any tubeliners. GA and MIL. BTW, if a military pilot's handbook numbers doesn't match the plane you are piloting, you have a huge problem as @G550flyer pointed out.

 

Edited November 11, 20205 yr by yurei

4 hours ago, mtr75 said:

As a licensed pilot, I can tell you, POH numbers are a guide at best.

I always considered them "study" material while gaining in-type familiarization. That in GA.  I never flew anything more substantial than a Baron.  Good to know what to expect as the general increment of difference based on altitude and/or temperature (OAT/TAT).  Can be as significant in fuel planning as is winds aloft and as  wt and balance is in flying stability.

I agree with the OP that here in the sim world POH material perhaps a bit too much focus in comparing developer's models with the real world.  But then again, pilots across the globe seem to be looking for that bit extra as well.  There are plenty of performance and stability mods out there flying around.  AOPA Pilot is full of related articles.  So it's not just sims.
 

1 hour ago, marsman2020 said:

  I get the feeling a lot of people on this forum are happy to get junk though, as long as it has pretty graphics for them to look at.  So whatever they need to rationalize the fact that it's "ok" that Asobo did a word not allowed job, is only A Good Thing.

When you make such claim you have to be very specific who are "a lot of people" and what is "junk" 🙂

 

Take a POH with a grain of salt?  I'm not sure what you guys are flying but the Beech my best friend owns (and the one I fly), is pretty dang close to performance numbers.  My friend also has a CGR30P engine monitor so it's pretty easy to see direct information and then compare with charts.

Again, as a baseline...Asobo should be coding their aircraft based on the POH.  I mean, the POH - it's not like it's written by the manufacturer or anything 🙄

so ... let us be honest here, much as people want to fantasise about these sort of products being an accurate "simulator" in terms of stick and rudder they are no more realistic than a horse riding simulator or a banjo playing simulator in comparing with the real world experience.  Even a full motion level D simulator worth millions is really only accurate as a systems and procedure simulator. They are not useless or airlines would not spend a fortune buying and maintaining them (they are particularly good at familiarising a pilot with a new type or new procedures for example) but they are limited.

That said, it is better if  a sim is as accurate as possible. Even though it is generally a bad idea to encourage low hour students to spend 100s of unsupervised hours in a PC sim, young students are going to do it, for no other reason then real time flying (unless their family own an aircraft) is expensive.   One example that annoys me is taking off in a Cessna at my local (3500') airstrip you just set the mixture to full rich like the checklist says - however in game I need mixture at about 70% somewhere to get full take-off power.

Part of the issue here is PC sim pilots get obsessed with instruments and numbers. They will fly an entire circuit with their head down watching the instruments. One thing this sim does do well is get peoples head out of the cockpit. With real world GA circuits, you stay on track downwind by picking  a point on the horizon to head towards, you stay level by looking at your attitude versus the horizon and you judge height by looking at the nearby runway. Sure you occasionally look at your T&Ps, altimeter and heading indicator to make sure everything is as expected, but it is a brief glance.

 

 

Gratuitous (rather cute) video from a few weeks back of a 16 year old doing her first solo.  Note how she hardly looks at the instruments at all.

 

 

8 minutes ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

Part of the issue here is PC sim pilots get obsessed with instruments and numbers. They will fly an entire circuit with their head down watching the instruments. One thing this sim does do well is get peoples head out of the cockpit. With real world GA circuits, you stay on track downwind by picking  a point on the horizon to head towards, you stay level by looking at your attitude versus the horizon and you judge height by looking at the nearby runway. Sure you occasionally look at your T&Ps, altimeter and heading indicator to make sure everything is as expected, but it is a brief glance.

I will concur overall with your general statement about PC sim pilots. What I would note is even real world VFR pilots have to be to calculate fuel consumption and range within a close margin of error. There are A LOT of very popular sim aircraft on the market that cannot even manage this fundamental with accuracy. Heaven forbid you try to forward slip them on approach (another important VFR flight characteristic).

PS loved the video !!

44 minutes ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

so ... let us be honest here, much as people want to fantasise about these sort of products being an accurate "simulator" in terms of stick and rudder they are no more realistic than a horse riding simulator or a banjo playing simulator in comparing with the real world experience.  Even a full motion level D simulator worth millions is really only accurate as a systems and procedure simulator. They are not useless or airlines would not spend a fortune buying and maintaining them (they are particularly good at familiarising a pilot with a new type or new procedures for example) but they are limited.

That said, it is better if  a sim is as accurate as possible. Even though it is generally a bad idea to encourage low hour students to spend 100s of unsupervised hours in a PC sim, young students are going to do it, for no other reason then real time flying (unless their family own an aircraft) is expensive.   One example that annoys me is taking off in a Cessna at my local (3500') airstrip you just set the mixture to full rich like the checklist says - however in game I need mixture at about 70% somewhere to get full take-off power.

Part of the issue here is PC sim pilots get obsessed with instruments and numbers. They will fly an entire circuit with their head down watching the instruments. One thing this sim does do well is get peoples head out of the cockpit. With real world GA circuits, you stay on track downwind by picking  a point on the horizon to head towards, you stay level by looking at your attitude versus the horizon and you judge height by looking at the nearby runway. Sure you occasionally look at your T&Ps, altimeter and heading indicator to make sure everything is as expected, but it is a brief glance.

Gratuitous (rather cute) video from a few weeks back of a 16 year old doing her first solo.  Note how she hardly looks at the instruments at all.

 

 

"Part of the issue here is PC sim pilots get obsessed with instruments and numbers. "

LOL

If she is flying IFR she should look at the Instrument and would have to believe in the numbers

Performance = Attitude + Power 

If not, she could believe her aircraft could perform like a an Airbus A320. or a 747 or an F16 and be dead like many idjiat who relied on their gut feeling, their seat of the pants f;uing, their intuition. .. like 

Boston political family scion who plunged into a  lake with two other innocent women. His arrogance killed two innocent people who trusted him while he trusted his gut feelings?

Edited November 12, 20205 yr by Manny

11 minutes ago, Manny said:

"Part of the issue here is PC sim pilots get obsessed with instruments and numbers. "

LOL

If she is flying IFR she should look at the Istrucment and would have to believe in the numbers

Performance = Attitude + Power 

If not she would believe her aircraft would perform like a an Airbus A320. or a 747 or an F16 and be dead like many idjiats.

 

 

I think it goes without saying that if you are in genuine IMC, then seat of the pants flying will get you killed.

Which does not mean for an entire IFR flight you focus entirely on the instruments and never look outside, even when clear of cloud.

Edited November 12, 20205 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

7 hours ago, SUNDR1V3R said:

What the hell is an Anal Bunch..?

I have a CPL and still love the sim.. Stop writing nonsense word not allowed..

And I have an ATP and I still love the sim. So what’s your point????

when someone is considered to be anal, they are considered to be way too up tight and take them sleeves to seriously....