Re: Tidal Causeways
 

Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

[]
> 3750 reports of dangerous situations at Schiphol in 12 months. In 2008 they
> promise to tell us what they were!

Sightings of irate residents in Leiden with catapults? :)

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Ex-Pres. Blair- May, 2007

Re: Tidal Causeways
 

Following up to [email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
(*)) wrote:

>> its a photo draped over + 19m gap contour data
>
>And it looks nothing like a photo- more like an OKish graphic.
>
>> >> Or this one of Blencathra
>> >> "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk/blencathra.htm"
>> >
>> >My, I almost feel as though I'm there!
>>
>> if you knew Blencathra, you would say its very accurate. That is the
>> point.
>
>it's not accuracy, it's realism. You could have a beautifully accurate
>pencil drawing, and recognise the feautures, but you still know it's a
>pencil drawing, beautiful though that may be in its own right.

So what? Nobody thinks its real. You made an analogy to a sex
simulator, that wouldn't work because its all about physical
sensation, theres a whole lot of things in flying that are *not* about
physical sensation. The layout of the land, navigation, ATC etc etc

>> >No, the programme is manipulating photographs heavily. That's why it's,
>> >well, not a photograph,
>>
>> obviously they are stretched to fit, still a photo source.
>
>Which doesn't matter, given how non-realistic it looks.

you are nitpicking realism v accuraty. Its a very good representatoin
of the hills, thats not the reason you are sneering.

>> >> You are sneering actually. Its a mistake to pick up Martins know it
>> >> all condescending attitude to anything and everything.
>> >
>> >If I'm condescending for saying that looking into a screen and seeing
>> >poor resolution graphics of computerised drawings of landscapes and
>> >buildings is not a bit like flight simulation, then so be it.
>>
>> exactly, that is condescending because its f***** obvious.
>
>Well I'm glad we agree on something.

that you have been breathtakingly condescending, yes. You seem to
think flight simulation is about reproducing the physical sensations
of flying, it isnt.
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)

Re: Tidal Causeways
 

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:50:03 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_
chancellor (*)) wrote:

>Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>[]
>> 3750 reports of dangerous situations at Schiphol in 12 months. In 2008 they
>> promise to tell us what they were!
>
>Sightings of irate residents in Leiden with catapults? :)

aerodynamic shaped charge knoedels fired from crossbows.

Schiphol has introduced a "report a major dangerous situation and you won;t be
fired on the spot scheme". They'll wait until the pilot has landed and shut down
the engines. :-)
--

Martin

Re: Tidal Causeways
 

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:32:10 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_
chancellor (*)) wrote:

>The Reid <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Following up to [email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
>> (*)) wrote:
>[]
>> >I think they're better than they used to be- that's all.
>>
>> In think they are **excellent** and I know the mountains a lot better
>> than you
>
>There you go again.

It's that 'kin condescending know it all attitude again. I can't think who he is
modeling himself on.
--

Martin

Re: Tidal Causeways
 

The Reid <[email protected]> wrote:

> Following up to [email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
> (*)) wrote:
>
> >> its a photo draped over + 19m gap contour data
> >
> >And it looks nothing like a photo- more like an OKish graphic.
> >
> >> >> Or this one of Blencathra
> >> >> "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk/blencathra.htm"
> >> >
> >> >My, I almost feel as though I'm there!
> >>
> >> if you knew Blencathra, you would say its very accurate. That is the
> >> point.
> >
> >it's not accuracy, it's realism. You could have a beautifully accurate
> >pencil drawing, and recognise the feautures, but you still know it's a
> >pencil drawing, beautiful though that may be in its own right.
>
> So what? Nobody thinks its real. You made an analogy to a sex
> simulator, that wouldn't work because its all about physical
> sensation,

Sex certainly isn't entirely physical.

> theres a whole lot of things in flying that are *not* about
> physical sensation. The layout of the land, navigation, ATC etc etc

Which are very poorly represented in a programme like FS.

> >> >No, the programme is manipulating photographs heavily. That's why it's,
> >> >well, not a photograph,
> >>
> >> obviously they are stretched to fit, still a photo source.
> >
> >Which doesn't matter, given how non-realistic it looks.
>
> you are nitpicking realism v accuraty.

Because it's _not_ realistic, and it's only accurate up to an extremely
limited point. If you enjoy playing with it, fine.

> Its a very good representatoin
> of the hills, thats not the reason you are sneering.

I'm not sneering- you're doing a bit of it though.

>
> >> >> You are sneering actually. Its a mistake to pick up Martins know it
> >> >> all condescending attitude to anything and everything.
> >> >
> >> >If I'm condescending for saying that looking into a screen and seeing
> >> >poor resolution graphics of computerised drawings of landscapes and
> >> >buildings is not a bit like flight simulation, then so be it.
> >>
> >> exactly, that is condescending because its f***** obvious.
> >
> >Well I'm glad we agree on something.
>
> that you have been breathtakingly condescending, yes.

You're doing a bit of this, if you read what you write. I don't need to
know the paths up Scafell to tell the difference between a sterile
computer image and what things in reality look like.

> You seem to
> think flight simulation is about reproducing the physical sensations
> of flying, it isnt.

I didn't say that. The visual element is so far removed from reality
that it's just a cartoon, really.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Ex-Pres. Blair- May, 2007

Re: Tidal Causeways
 

Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:32:10 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_
> chancellor (*)) wrote:
>
> >The Reid <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Following up to [email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
> >> (*)) wrote:
> >[]
> >> >I think they're better than they used to be- that's all.
> >>
> >> In think they are **excellent** and I know the mountains a lot better
> >> than you
> >
> >There you go again.
>
> It's that 'kin condescending know it all attitude again. I can't think who
> he is modeling himself on.

Not moi!

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Ex-Pres. Blair- May, 2007

Re: Tidal Causeways
 

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:59:16 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_
chancellor (*)) wrote:

>Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:32:10 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_
>> chancellor (*)) wrote:
>>
>> >The Reid <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Following up to [email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
>> >> (*)) wrote:
>> >[]
>> >> >I think they're better than they used to be- that's all.
>> >>
>> >> In think they are **excellent** and I know the mountains a lot better
>> >> than you
>> >
>> >There you go again.
>>
>> It's that 'kin condescending know it all attitude again. I can't think who
>> he is modeling himself on.
>
>Not moi!

/me points at Mixi
--

Martin

Re: Tidal Causeways
 

Following up to [email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
(*)) wrote:

>> So what? Nobody thinks its real. You made an analogy to a sex
>> simulator, that wouldn't work because its all about physical
>> sensation,
>
>Sex certainly isn't entirely physical.

then you could simulate the bits that are not.

>> theres a whole lot of things in flying that are *not* about
>> physical sensation. The layout of the land, navigation, ATC etc etc
>
>Which are very poorly represented in a programme like FS.

Are they? I dont use the ATS but the navigation systems seem fine. I
can do VFR over the ELD, so how can it be so poor?

>> >> >No, the programme is manipulating photographs heavily. That's why it's,
>> >> >well, not a photograph,
>> >>
>> >> obviously they are stretched to fit, still a photo source.
>> >
>> >Which doesn't matter, given how non-realistic it looks.
>>
>> you are nitpicking realism v accuraty.
>
>Because it's _not_ realistic, and it's only accurate up to an extremely
>limited point. If you enjoy playing with it, fine.

the "limited point" of being able to recognise familar hills instantly
through gaps in cloud. What are you talking about?

>You're doing a bit of this, if you read what you write.

intentionally, obviously.

>I don't need to
>know the paths up Scafell to tell the difference between a sterile
>computer image and what things in reality look like.

Really? Lots of hillwalkers agree with me.

>> You seem to
>> think flight simulation is about reproducing the physical sensations
>> of flying, it isnt.
>
>I didn't say that.

you made references to a sex simulator, you initially said that if I
really thought hard about it I would realise it wasnt the same. What
did all that mean then?

>The visual element is so far removed from reality
>that it's just a cartoon, really.

nonsense. (And remember *you* are only seeing stills)
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)

Re: Tidal Causeways
 

Following up to The Reid <[email protected]> wrote:

full stop missing:-

you made references to a sex simulator. You initially said that if I
really thought hard about it I would realise it wasnt the same. What
did all that mean then?
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)

Re: Tidal Causeways
 

The Reid <[email protected]> wrote:

> Following up to [email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
> (*)) wrote:
[]
> >> theres a whole lot of things in flying that are *not* about
> >> physical sensation. The layout of the land, navigation, ATC etc etc
> >
> >Which are very poorly represented in a programme like FS.
>
> Are they? I dont use the ATS but the navigation systems seem fine. I
> can do VFR over the ELD, so how can it be so poor?

I mean the graphics, etc. It's a cartoon.

> >> >> >No, the programme is manipulating photographs heavily. That's why it's,
> >> >> >well, not a photograph,
> >> >>
> >> >> obviously they are stretched to fit, still a photo source.
> >> >
> >> >Which doesn't matter, given how non-realistic it looks.
> >>
> >> you are nitpicking realism v accuraty.
> >
> >Because it's _not_ realistic, and it's only accurate up to an extremely
> >limited point. If you enjoy playing with it, fine.
>
> the "limited point" of being able to recognise familar hills instantly
> through gaps in cloud. What are you talking about?

What are _you_ talking about. You recognise the hills because you know
that area. If someone did a papier-mâché model of them you'd recognise
them too.

> >You're doing a bit of this, if you read what you write.
>
> intentionally, obviously.

Well, that's OK then. I'm not being condescending- I'm pointing out the
facts as I see them. You're problem is that you take everything so damn
personally.

> >I don't need to
> >know the paths up Scafell to tell the difference between a sterile
> >computer image and what things in reality look like.
>
> Really? Lots of hillwalkers agree with me.

So on earth what?

> >> You seem to
> >> think flight simulation is about reproducing the physical sensations
> >> of flying, it isnt.
> >
> >I didn't say that.
>
> you made references to a sex simulator, you initially said that if I
> really thought hard about it I would realise it wasnt the same.

That's the opposite of what I said.

> What
> did all that mean then?

What I said-

"It's not a simulation of flying, any more than looking at a porn film
is a simulation of sex."

>
> >The visual element is so far removed from reality
> >that it's just a cartoon, really.
>
> nonsense.

OK- a not very good cartoon?

> (And remember *you* are only seeing stills)

So what?

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Ex-Pres. Blair- May, 2007

Re: Tidal Causeways
 

Following up to [email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
(*)) wrote:

>> Are they? I dont use the ATS but the navigation systems seem fine. I
>> can do VFR over the ELD, so how can it be so poor?
>
>I mean the graphics, etc. It's a cartoon.

so your objection is to the graphics? OK, its a matter of opinion, I
think they are fine as do the hilwalkers who have looked at it.
I think a "cartoon" would be computer generated, the ELD in this
instance is manipulated photos, I dont call that a cartoon.

>> >You're doing a bit of this, if you read what you write.
>>
>> intentionally, obviously.
>
>Well, that's OK then. I'm not being condescending- I'm pointing out the
>facts as I see them. You're problem is that you take everything so damn
>personally.

Well, it was you who started with "if only you though about it for a
minute...." (or similar) After lots of shouting theres still nothing I
see wrong with the graphics or wasnt already aware of. I'm not
qualified to give an opinion on the flight dynamics but they are good
enough for me. One day I may manage to land a large plane!

>> >I don't need to
>> >know the paths up Scafell to tell the difference between a sterile
>> >computer image and what things in reality look like.
>>
>> Really? Lots of hillwalkers agree with me.
>
>So on earth what?

they are good people to judge if the hills look realistic

>> >> You seem to
>> >> think flight simulation is about reproducing the physical sensations
>> >> of flying, it isnt.
>> >
>> >I didn't say that.

I thought you reference to sex simulation implied thats what you
meant.

>OK- a not very good cartoon?

see above

>> (And remember *you* are only seeing stills)
>
>So what?

try taking a still capture from TV and see how bad it is compared to
the moving picture.
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)

Re: Tidal Causeways
 

Following up to The Reid <[email protected]> wrote:

>I'm not
>qualified to give an opinion on the flight dynamics but they are good
>enough for me. One day I may manage to land a large plane!

if anything made it a toy rather than a simulator it would lie in the
above area, it really doesn't matter how "real" the landscape looks
from the point of view of flight simulation. As long as you can
recognise hazards and runways.
I dont have a feel for how good the fight dynamics side is, but I'm
aware of pilots using it and if you set realism levels high enough,
you seem to have to know what you are doing.
(A lot of users of the newest version are complaining two much effort
is going into "pretty" landscape and not enough into things like
helicopter dynamics).
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)

Re: Tidal Causeways
 

The Reid <[email protected]> wrote:

> Following up to [email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
> (*)) wrote:
>
> >> Are they? I dont use the ATS but the navigation systems seem fine. I
> >> can do VFR over the ELD, so how can it be so poor?
> >
> >I mean the graphics, etc. It's a cartoon.
>
> so your objection is to the graphics? OK, its a matter of opinion, I
> think they are fine as do the hilwalkers who have looked at it.
> I think a "cartoon" would be computer generated, the ELD in this
> instance is manipulated photos,

Manipulated by what? Human hands?

> I dont call that a cartoon.

It's as good as a cartoon.

[]
> >> >I don't need to
> >> >know the paths up Scafell to tell the difference between a sterile
> >> >computer image and what things in reality look like.
> >>
> >> Really? Lots of hillwalkers agree with me.
> >
> >So on earth what?
>
> they are good people to judge if the hills look realistic

I'm judging myself whether or not I think it looks realistic.

Just because the hills are in the right place, and you can make out a
few paths doesn't make it realistic any more than flying over London
does, where again, a lot of the buildings are in the right place, and
the right height.

[]
> >> (And remember *you* are only seeing stills)
> >
> >So what?
>
> try taking a still capture from TV and see how bad it is compared to
> the moving picture.

With digital TV? The actors look exactly the same, the scene looks exact
the same. I don't have to squint my eyes at the screen and sort of
imagine what it looks like based on the experience of having been there
at one time.

Ironically, I got a perfect view of the Lake District as I flew over it
on Friday. I was reminded of this argument for a brief moment, but
looking at the spectacular view was more fun.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Ex-Pres. Blair- May, 2007

Re: Tidal Causeways
 

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:45:43 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_
chancellor (*)) wrote:


>Ironically, I got a perfect view of the Lake District as I flew over it
>on Friday. I was reminded of this argument for a brief moment, but
>looking at the spectacular view was more fun.

Griff Rees Jones had lots of nice aerial shots of the Pennines in his Mountains
program on Sunday evening.
--

Martin

Re: Tidal Causeways
 

Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:45:43 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_
> chancellor (*)) wrote:
>
>
> >Ironically, I got a perfect view of the Lake District as I flew over it
> >on Friday. I was reminded of this argument for a brief moment, but
> >looking at the spectacular view was more fun.
>
> Griff Rees Jones had lots of nice aerial shots of the Pennines in his
> Mountains program on Sunday evening.

I haven't caught any of that. To tell the truth, there seems to have
been a glut of 'beautiful Britain" TV shows recently, so I've gone off
them a bit! Or rather, there's only so many of that kind of programme I
can take in a period of time! :)

I've flown over the Pennines quite a bit on the approach to Manchester-
but never over the Lake District It was a fantastic route as it happens,
with clear views over the Lake District, the Southern Uplands and over
the highlands up to Inverness.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Ex-Pres. Blair- May, 2007