Time to stop flying?

d.g.s. wrote:

On 4/19/2008 6:50 AM Mxsmanic ignored two million years of human
evolution to write:

Mike.... writes:

I dont understand why so many people cant accept MSFS for what it is.

Because many people are stupid.

And you're an arrogant prick, but that's obvious, isn't it?

Not if you see it from his point of view, if you get my meaning.
Remember the home operation!

--
(*) of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate -www.davidhorne.net
(email address on website) "If people think God is interesting, the
onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about.
Otherwise they should just shut up about it." -Richard Dawkins

On 4/19/2008 5:19 PM David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) ignored two
million years of human evolution to write:

d.g.s. wrote:

On 4/19/2008 6:50 AM Mxsmanic ignored two million years of human
evolution to write:

Mike.... writes:

I dont understand why so many people cant accept MSFS for what it is.
Because many people are stupid.
And you're an arrogant prick, but that's obvious, isn't it?

Not if you see it from his point of view, if you get my meaning.
Remember the home operation!

Ah yes, forgot about the numbnuts factor for a moment there...

I must say you're up late. I haven't even tottered off to dinner
yet.
--
dgs

d.g.s. wrote:

On 4/19/2008 5:19 PM David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) ignored two
million years of human evolution to write:

d.g.s. wrote:

On 4/19/2008 6:50 AM Mxsmanic ignored two million years of human
evolution to write:

Mike.... writes:

I dont understand why so many people cant accept MSFS for what it is.
Because many people are stupid.
And you're an arrogant prick, but that's obvious, isn't it?

Not if you see it from his point of view, if you get my meaning.
Remember the home operation!

Ah yes, forgot about the numbnuts factor for a moment there...

Good point. Them as well!

I must say you're up late. I haven't even tottered off to dinner
yet.

If you were in Spain, I dare say there's a few more hours left!

As for me, late night research!

--
(*) of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate -www.davidhorne.net
(email address on website) "If people think God is interesting, the
onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about.
Otherwise they should just shut up about it." -Richard Dawkins

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:18:26 +0100, (David Horne, _the_
chancellor (*)) wrote:

Mike.... wrote:

Following up to vid Horne, _the_ chancellor

Nothing wrong with learning on an electronic piano for amateurs. You
won't become a highly trained classical pianist that way.

but you could learn the basics, couldnt you?

Yes, except in my analogy I'm equating the concert pianist with
someone
who can actually fly a plane.

I dont really follow the above.
You can learn basic piano fingering on an electronic instrument, you
can*
familiarise yourself with a lot of navigation on MSFS.

And you won't become either a classical pianist or pilot by only using
electronic keyboards or MSFS.

Am I one of the only people to have flown a plane before he drove a car?

As I said at the time "You should have asked me"
--

Martin


You can get a pilots license before getting a car drivers license. But I
doubt most young pilots had not already driven a car. I drove my first car
as a small child on my uncles lap and as an 8 year old drove quarter
midgets. And at 12 I would hotwire my older brothers car to drive it. So I
and most likely everyone else who has flown a plane also drove a car before
driving a plane.

"Mr. Travel" wrote in message
. ..
Mxsmanic wrote:

Mr. Travel writes:


The FAA doesn't care what toys pilots when they are not getting OFFICIAL
FAA approved training.


The FAA doesn't fly the plane; the pilot does.

In the US, not without FAA approval.

Been a couple of cases where a plane was flown without FAA approval. Been a
few joyrides by people in stolen planes.

"David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)" wrote in message
...
Mike.... wrote:

Following up to vid Horne, _the_ chancellor

Yes- and it can all be worked on, improved upon, and unlocked in the
right envirnoment for many people who otherwise would considfer
themselves not to have those skills.

that's a different thing altogether.

I said
work + poor aptitude = mediocre
work + good aptitude = success

I didnt say anything about people not knowing they had aptitude.

I'm rejecting your fuzzy notion of aptitude.

Are you saying
these prodigies who master the violin or maths at improbable ages are
doing
it just be work rate?

Not all concert violinists (or pianists for that matter) were child
prodigies,

I didnt say they were. I said did those who were do it just by work
effort.

Quite possibly.

and the ones that were generally came from backgrounds where
they were encouraged to play the instrument at a very early age. And
work on it!

would *any* child given the opportunity and doing the work do as well?

Many would.

clearly a child with an obvious learning difficulty or physical
imparement
would not. The same must be true of less obvious lack of ability by
degree.

This is quite obvious.

that I have happened upon a new brand of PCness?

What's PC about it?

I think it's rather un-PC in fact, the view I'm taking. That is, people
aren't lacking ability- but they often lack the other valuable assets
required- such as a penchant for hard work.

--
(*) of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate -www.davidhorne.net
(email address on website) "If people think God is interesting, the
onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about.
Otherwise they should just shut up about it." -Richard Dawkins

Maybe not penchant for hard work, but a love of the music. Both my
daughters played the piano from a young age. The youngest loved it and the
older one was not inspired. Both could play well at a young age. The
younger one went on to get a couple of degrees in music. One in piano
performance. So she if she wanted she could be a concert pianist. She is
extremely good at it. But her primary degree is in Music Therapy and makes
a pretty decent living with that part of the education.

"Mike...." wrote in message
.. .
Following up to Calif Bill

But they may be able to steer a large ship to a berth, and still be a
pilot.

or even be a whale
--
"Mike....."(not "Mike")
remove clothing to email

True.

"Mike...." wrote in message
...
Following up to Calif Bill

that last thing is one thing I *have* found in MSFS, you cant see where
you
are going! (in appropriate aircraft)
--
"Mike....."(not "Mike")
remove clothing to email

Interesting in the loops and rolls, is you did not notice any increase in
G
force.

Of course not, where did I say it simulated G forces? I dont understand
why
so many people cant accept MSFS for what it is. It isnt a game, its a
simulation. It doesnt simulate physical forces. It isnt a pro simulator.
Why is that so hard to accept?

My statement was in a normal loop or roll in the real AT-6 you did not
notice a change in the G force. Pretty much stays 1 G for the complete
maneuver.

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:33:18 +0100, vid Horne, _the_
chancellor wrote:

Anyone can /tell/ the difference but it'll take a great pianist to /expose/
the differences.

Not really. A complete amateur on both instruments exposes the
differences- the main one being the sound.

Apart from the blindingly obvious, I meant.

--
Tim C.

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:44:10 +0200, Martin wrote:

You mean the concert pianist wearing only his underpants, walking boots and
sweat?

Monty Python sketch anyone?
--
Tim C.