Big mustache

Being cursed with bad eyesight, I was never able to become a real pilot so I have to settle for the next best thing, Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004 with various add ons. My question is this - How true to life is it really? Do any of you professionals use it?

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

I had MS Flight Sim some years ago which I used to play with. I also had an ATC simulator programme - think it was called Tracon, or something similar, which (supposedly) simulated the London TMA where I worked. I could land the 747 in FlightSim 9 times out of 10 but a friend of mine who used to fly them had great difficulty. Equally, when I played at ATC I kept having airmisses yet my buddy could do it with no trouble!!
Great fun, but definitely not to be taken seriously.

Big mustache

Thanks, Heathrow. Have you tried the "London Control" ATC simuulator? Real bugger that is. How ATC in the real world cope is a mystery to me!

enicalyth

The sim is not what people hear it to be. "This is as good as it gets..." is a slogan that could well have been written by a politician. It basically means take it or leave it whereas some people think it means so good that pilots cannot tell the difference. I do have FS2004 on my PC but only one add-on, the B737-600/700 because I like short flights. Every now and then I have a bit of fun with it especially with the young relloes and of course every prezzie I buy has to be thoroughly tested first (ahem). If you are sure you can't go further with flying then may you go far with the PC and enjoy. Only save yourself cash I'd say and keep the rig simple, forget the frills. You might enjoy procedures or love it when faults develop or try inverted under the Harbour Bridge. I wish you lots of fun and if anyone wants to know what I'd like for my birthday- the Spitfire package please!
Best Rgds
The "E"

Blues&twos

Well, I enjoyed FS2002 then FS2004 (with force feedback joystick and some improved scenery as my only add-ons). I've since had some flying lessons (not many) and although of course it isn't particularly similar to real flying I found that I was more relaxed on my first flight as I had a better idea of what to expect.

Recently I've started using it to practice basic navigation (use of NDBs/ADF, DME and VORs). Again I'm aware that it's not the same - ADF needle doesn't point randomly every time you sneeze on the sim!)but it's kind of nice to be able to try out some of the theory from the comfort of your living room, and without actually killing yourself in thick fog.

I would like to bet that flying jets on the sim is nothing like flying real a/c.

WALSue

I know this probably sounds really daft, but I got a set of rudder pedals for FS and found them a great help for my 'real'.
Perhaps its just me, but the idea of guiding something round with my feet a bit odd, it was a lot safer trying it on on FS rather than on the real thing in LPL

5150

Depends if you want to replicate the real world or just have a laugh by trying to land a 737 on an aircraft carrier?

For the latter, get microsoft flight sim. For the real world, you can't go wrong with the precision simulator that aerowinx do for the 744. Very little is done about exciting visuals, but the aircraft systems and FMS are spot on.

But like I say, depends what you're after. . .

Cypherus

Have run the FS series since it's first tenuous incarnation by Microsoft way way back when, with and without the control enhancements you can find today, including the headset vision systems, always found them to be very timid in there approach but as it's all things to all ect I assumed they had to build it that way.

However after a period testing various real life simulators from the Nimrod through to the 737-400 series I realised the limitations were in essence only visual for as an instrument training tool it can be very useful to those about to move onto IMC training.

I know there will be those that doubt this but in reality if you have the will power NOT to look outside or take the time to fiddle with it and disable the exterior scenery and use the instruments alone it has it's good points, taught me a lot about what to ignore and what was important.

But overall it's just a PC game after all and though some of the add-on's are getting very sophisticated, the above mentioned FMC system to name one, you pays your money and takes your choice with FS.

IO540

Years ago I used FS2002 to shave many hours off my IMC Rating training. It isn't at all accurate in pitch behaviour and one sometimes ends up trimming the plane using power instead. The real plane is usually much easier to fly. But it's very good for procedural stuff; you can set up a flight from Heathrow to Hong Kong and it can be very real.

My 11 year old son now plays with FS2004 and FSX. FSX is very good but the controls (without force feedback) are still not even close to real. I did try a FF stick a while ago and it was cr*p.

However, after many hours of flying all different types, the other day he ended up in the front seat of my TB20 and flew it perfectly, to a very good PPL standard, headings and altitudes, steep turns and holding altitude to 100ft, and then flew it all the way to the runway. I just had to pull back on the yoke a little to make it flare, but the landing would have been fine safety-wise anyway. Quite amazing. I did the landing gear and flaps for him.

FSX is pretty amazing. If they got a force feedback stick/yoke to work properly, it would be very realistic.

A sim is however difficult for VFR approaches because one doesn't have the side/down view and the same time as the front view. This is crucial; could be achieved with multiple monitors.

planecrazy.eu

Well i have had FS since 98, and i think its more about the game play and giving more real world feeling to the whole game,

Where as i have found, X-Plane is more about real world dynamics, the planes seem to act more real, but even though you can get 15GB of scencery for it, the "Game Play" or the whole environment just doesnt feel realistic. I have no add-ons for X-Plane, i know there are a fair few, some maybe these addons make the experience seem more real?

There is also FlightGear flight sim, has a few claims to fame as NASA, BAe, M-D, Boeing, Airbus and for sure more have used it, it pairs very nice with a few packages such at MAT-LAB/SIMULINK...

I am the only one who might well think this, But FS-X to me is a pure game, i cant take it serious, i think its because of all the things "games" you can do, like dropping em packages on targets and doing the red-bull air-race. I havnt had a serious flight on it to date...

JamesT73J

Depends what you're after. X-Plane has a very active community. Personally I use both FS and X-Plane, but I am increasingly leaning toward the latter - it is catching up very rapidly indeed.
A strength of X-Plane (other than the lovely flight model) is that all simulated data can be outputted - you can see what the flight model is generating both numerically and graphically. Much of this data can be written to as well. There is an SDK interface that has allowed some great mods, including a superb fly-by-wire script, a pushback tug, a traffic 'recorder' (allows you to create flights at your airport of choice, and have them played back to create activity at your airport, outside of the AI controlled planes).
For my money the global scenery package is on a par with MSFS, it's very good indeed. X-plane's aircraft were originally limited by the built in planemaker. The more inventive modders have created some truly stunning aircraft, but now Planemaker supports the obj8 format, so it is possible to have high-detail, animated models that are aliased to the planemaker theoretical model (necessary for X-Plane to calculate the flight dynamics).
The fact that the instruments are silky smooth is a huge plus if you're into IFR. There's a demo if anyone wishes to try it.


Edit: Weather simulation is also excellent.

Magarnagle

In some ways MSFS is completely unrealistic. The flight models are probably fine on paper, but the aircraft do not fly as they do in real life. The feel is all wrong. The vision from the cockpit can be a limiting factor, and it can be quite difficult to get a sense of spatial orientation (for example when in the circuit) due to the fact that you can't really swing your head around as you can in real life. Something like TrackIR might be helpful there. The ATC I find to be an annoyance, rather than adding to the realism. I guess it's based on US procedures, and not really helpful to me, being based in Australia, with very different procedures.

After saying that though, I have used FS2002 and FS2004 for some of the procedural stuff, and it generally works fine (with limitations). In fact it has probably saved me quite a few bucks, as I have been able to practise a few things at home, rather than having silly mistakes or lack of adequate preparation cost me hundreds of dollars an hour to refly and get right. If it helps me learn a procedure through practise and repetition, without costing me a bucketload, I'm all for it.

Cross country flights can be quite useful too, although for VFR, you want to make sure you have some decent scenery downloaded or purchased for your region. Preferably with reporting points and local landmarks clearly visible.

From what I understand about X-Plane (without actually having tried it), the flight model is more realistic than in MSFS. Supposedly the flight models are calculated based on airflow over the aircraft, rather than from plugging in a mathematical model that "emulates" an aircraft. This approach would seem to provide more fidelity to the aerodynamic properties of the aircraft model, and would allow a potentially truer simulation of lift, drag, aircraft handling at various speeds, stall characteristics (which MSFS handles pretty woefully), spins etc. Dunno. I'll have to give X-Plane a spin to see if it is any better than MSFS.

I'd say that if you want the bells and whistles, and all the pretty stuff, then go MSFS.
If you are after a more realistic simulator, try X-Plane.
If you want a much higher level of realism, try some of the professional simulator packages.

JamesT73J

It's a different approach really. X-Plane uses something called 'Blade Element Theory'. A shape (a rectangle with an aerofoil cross-section, for example) is divided up into a finite number of sections, the velocity vector for each section is then calculated, using stipulated aerofoil data (if the object has a defined aerofoil) and from this the program can calculate the behaviour of the object.

It works for pretty much anything - wings, propellers, rotor blades etc, and as far as I know is unique in a desktop home simulation. Clearly there are limitations for things like the behaviour of the fuselage and other objects that aren't designed to provide lift (like pylons, struts etc) but short of a full CFD package that is always going to be compromised.

MS uses 'lookup tables', for instance if you were to extract an .air file you would find entries which define strictly how an aerodynamic surface responds to certain parameters, for instance a table that defines Coefficient of Lift Vs Angle of attack.

The advantage of such an approach is that you can 'cook' some very accurate behaviour, such as fuel consumption and lift/drag ratios etc. X-Plane tries to model these things dynamically. It's most definitely worth a look if you're interested.

James

high-hopes

FS2004 is good fun.

As a VMC pilot only I can do things that I couldn't do for real, like try an IMC approach and landing.

For the hands on handling (no pun intended) I can go out and hire a spam can.
But everybody will agree that handling alone is not the hardest part. Multitasking and high workload are the difficult aspects of flying for me, and some of it is reproduced quite well in MSFS.

A 29 quid software won't be able to give you the same handling of a multi million full motion sim, will it ?
But then again you wouldn't expect to learn to drive a car on one of those Daytona arcade things ?

Still - they can be more fun than sitting on the M25 in a REAL car !

born2fly_au

It all depend on your computer specs. you need a high end computer for flightsim to run smoothly. The specs on the box are only minimums and it will not run at it's best. Checkout a few forums for more advice such as www.avsim.com www.simviation.com www.flightsim.com and if you are into helicopters i would highly recommend www.hovercontrol.com

I have been flightsimming now for many years and would recommend Microsoft's flightsim 2004 & also their latest version FSX. They are a great fun to fly and are close to the real thing but of course cannot compare to the sensation of the real thing but they are the next best thing.

There are also a wide range of add-ons such as aircraft, scenery & real weather generation as well as being able to fly online with other users. Along with a lot of add-on software you can also add hardware such as rudder pedals, a Flight yolk. It all depends on how much you enjoy it and how deep you wallet is. I have a basic system on todays standard with a joystick and have hours of fun. It is up to you as to what you make of it.

If you want true flight realism as far as aircraft dynamics goes i would suggest giving X-Plane a try. you can download a demo copy at www.x-plane.com The scenery is not up to the standard of Microsoft's flightsim but i think the aircraft are more realistic to fly. There is also a version of X-Plane certified by the FAA.

To me flightsimming is some of the best fun you can have with your pants on. Hope you enjoy the experience.
Born2fly

1DC

Daughter bought me a flying lesson for my birthday last year.During the flight the instructor asked how i enjoyed my flightsim, i asked how he knew that i used a flight simulator. He replied that i hadn't looked outside or taken my eyes off the instruments since he gave me the controls..

high-hopes

Yeah you'll get that a lot.

The thing is that after the second lesson you'll start to become a VFR pilot and you'll learn how to do it (if your instructor is competent enough).
They always like to give stick to the flightsimmers but 2 hour into your training you'll be well aware of whats real and what's a game.

On the other hand you'll save 200 quid of lessons on instrument flying (at PPL level) and VOR tracking when you realise that it's actually easier to do it in the real airplane than on microsoft !

PS you'll still need your minimum instrument flying requirements, but knowing how the gauges and knobs operate in advance will save you expensive time in the air

reverserunlocked

My first instructor used to yell at me for being 'heads down' all the time as I'd spent a long time fiddling with Flight Simulator before embarking on my PPL in 1999. I quickly learned to look outside and start using the horizon to keep things level. My obsession with the instruments was probably exacerbated by the huge 2D panels of the earlier FS versions which severely limited the outside view to the extent that you really just 'flew' the panel.

The latest incarnations of FS are much better in that the 3D 'virtual cockpits' give you much better spatial awareness and a more commanding view of the outside world. I know at least one EZY F/O who bought the PMDG 737NG add-on to get a head start come type rating time, and the level of immersion particularly with the likes of the Level D 767 and the PMDG 747-400 is quite amazing.

P.Pilcher

I spent many years messing around with computer flight simulators from the wire graphics days of the Apple ][, the "microsoft flight simulator" and right up to the more recent offerings which provide much more realism.
As a flying instructor, I have noted how much they have helped my IMC students attain much higher standards much more quickly than students without their own computers. I have posted here before of the computer literate colleague I had in the mid 1980's who knew nothing about flying but found himself teaching computer studies in a foreign flying academy.
I loaned him a disc (yes a 5.25" floppy - remember those?) containing microsoft's flight simulator and he played with it every lunchtime for fun. After three months of this when we were back on leave in the U.K. I took him for a trial lesson. The first session we had he flew the aircraft as though he had had about 3 or 4 hours of flying experience. Then I put him in our full airways four seater where he tracked a VOR successfully, then proceded to accept radar vectors to the local ILS and successfully flew it down to a decision height of 200 feet! This was because he had got himself on his computer generated ILS at about 15 miles, saved his position and then tried to fly it. When he came off, he merely restored his saved position and tried again until he achieved success. Try and do that in a real aeroplane!
IMHO, computer based flight simulator programmes are an excellent adjunct to flight training, but cannot replace entirely actual air experience. This is now becoming a possibility with real full motion flight sims - but they are a little more expensive to operate!

The other thing I have had much fun doing was to develop the the trial lesson for "computer geeks": When a such a person has come along for one, I have established in the pre-flight brief whether he has ever tried a flight simulator programme. The answer has invariably been "yes" as they have wanted to try out flying for real hence the trial lesson. Thus I have taxied out and backtracked right to the end of the runway instead of the usual intersection takeoff. Imagine the squeals of delight when out of the windscreen they see exactly the same scene as they are used to on their monitor prior to getting airborne! Then the takeoff commences. I point to the lever which, when pressed fully in equates (in some simulators) to "F10". We tank off down the runway with me keeping it straight. Rotation speed arrives, and with a little hesitation, they pull nervously back on the control column. Assistance usually needed at this point, but they soon get the hang of it and lo - the (real) horison behaves exactly as it does on their computer. Confidence building now takes place rapidly over the ensuing 20 minutes after which, unless the weather is fairly nasty, they can have a go at landing it, often with a modicum of success.

P.P.

G-BOY

I've got 2002...was thinking about upgrading to X for my birthday in a few weeks, but I'm gonna get a new camera instead.

I've only just started to land 747's - I started to use the speeds that were written just above the gear - but they were a bit slow - so you gotta watch it as you come into land, as you'll drop like a bloody stone if you're too slow.

Enjoyable. I only wish that add-on a/c had the full 360 flight deck like the ones which came with the game itself - and that they were the right ones...they use a 737 cockpit for an MD11...highly doubtful in real life, I'm guessing.

I was also told by somebody who's only ever piloted a glider that the control matrix was different to that of the real thing...but that might be because he's used to non-powered flight.