View Full Version : Virtual (FS) vs Real flight
Kyprianos Biris
2nd Dec 2003, 14:26
A forum post in AVSIM about Flight Simulators (Microsoft more specifically) and how close or not it gets to the real thing.
The forum thread (http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=121&topic_id=162172&mesg_id=162172&page=)
The server at that URL was down when I looked.
No PC based sim I have used, not even the expensive Elite, gets anywhere near the real plane especially in pitch behaviour. This could be due to lack of force feedback; the Micro$oft FF stick is no good either - much too crude.
Also wihtout a proper trim wheel it is hard to trim as precisely as one can trim the real thing (except a PA38!)
But sims are great for instrument flight, procedures, etc.
ratsarrse
3rd Dec 2003, 06:46
Things that FS is good for:
Practising basic IFR navigation.
Practising VFR navigation in Britain with the photo scenery add-ons.
Having fun doing things you'd never do in real life.
Things that it isn't good for:
R/T
Any general handling stuff, practising stalls, slow flight, aeros etc.
Practising landings.
Impressing your instructor.
I'm sure there's plenty more...
BigEndBob
3rd Dec 2003, 06:58
On trial lessons you could always tell those that had flight sims at home and those that haven't.
GrantT
3rd Dec 2003, 08:48
On trial lessons you could always tell those that had flight sims at home and those that haven't.
Is that in a good or bad way?
Deano777
3rd Dec 2003, 13:49
nothing more to elaborate on what ratsarrse said to be honest, pretty much spot on :D
Most instructors seem to dislike students who have used a PC flight simulator; they allege that the student looks at the instruments too much.
knobbygb
3rd Dec 2003, 18:46
Agree with waht IO540 says. I got slapped a couple of times for too much instrument-watching. I'd have to say though that I reckon being a sim addict saved me at least 5 or 6 hours real training, or perhaps £500 in all. Spending £110 per hour to track VOR radials and NDB's is pointless.
Don't use it as much since I got my license, BUT still use it on occasion to do 'dry-runs' of places I plan to fly and haven't been before. The basic UK scenery is crap (at my home airport, the runways are in the wrong place), but for many places in the states, it's VERY good. Can be a good tool to spot erorrs in your VFR flightplan (wrong VOR radials, mis-calculation of mag variation, leg times etc.) and forces you to think through the logic of the flightplan. The actual 'flying' isn't that useful though, but just 'thinking' aviation HAS to help.
Algirdas
3rd Dec 2003, 22:06
I find the add-on UK VFR Photographic scenery and British Airports for FS2002 is very useful for doing dry-runs to new places - as long as you have a fast PC, and keep the 'plane' pretty steady, otherwise the scenery tends to blur a lot. Also the original photos that the add-ons use, were taken at 5000 ft, so if you 'fly' too low, you lose too much detail to make it meaningful.
Also, in general I find the limited views out of the cockpit make it like trying to fly with tunnel vision.
The plane dynamics are not very realistic - probably due to poor feedback (MS's FF stick is pretty crude), no 'seat of the pant' etc.
So my take is these things are good for navigation practice, but not much else.