Flightsimmers, how many of you here and how do you interact it with real flying?

[BRL]

Ok flightsimmers. I know you are out there, just wondered how many of you use MS flight sim or X-Plane or whatever, and does it help you with your flying, lessons etc?.

Also, if you have a sim, what add-ons do you have for it, what kind of stick, pedals etc?

Did you have a flight sim then go and do the real thing, or, do the real thing first then got hold of a flight sim?

Your thoughts please regarding "As good as it gets" V's the real thing..........

[distaff_beancounter]

I know its off topic ...... BUT
I just have to ask BRL --- how come your number of postings only reads 9 :confused:

Has someone stolen your identity?

I think we should be told - or is this something that I should report to the moderator? ;)

[FingersR]

Hi BRL,

I a a PPL student (have 10 hours) and use Microsoft Flight Sim 2002. I find FS a very useful tool to my training and a lot of fun. I have purchased an excellent model of the C152, my training mount, and it is a very good representation of the real thing from the handling point of view. I find it very useful to be able to practice running through checklists both on the ground and the air using FS and the plane I use repsonds as Id expect! Furthermore the wealth of excellent add on scenery makes it possible to simulate very accurately the airfields, local scenery and terrain you regularly fly around in for real. Products like Just Flight's VFR Scenery, VFR Terrain and British Airports series all greatly enhance the FS experience and make it much more fun and realistic for me from a learning and practice point of view. There is also many free addons from sites like www.avsim.com that enhance the realism and fun of FS.

I personally have not used X Flight but i hear the flight dynamics are excellent but the "overall" package from user friendliness, scenery, graphics etc ae not the same as FS.Both xplane and FS have strong supporters and it all depends on what you want from your flight sim and personal preference to what you prefer.

Overall, I find FS really good fun to play with and use and personally find it a useful tool to aid my real world learning. Its also a great fall back when you are desparate to fly but the weather and/or money get in the way but obviously is not a patch on the real thing!:D

Hope this helps!

Fingers

[BRL]

DB, I made the fatal mistake of posting on the Post Count thread in JetBlast. Everyone who posts on that gets zeroed......:uhoh:

[c-bert]

*Stands up gingerly*

"My name is C-Bert and I am a flight simmer."

*Applause from assembled*

I fly FS2004 in a Piper Warrior. I have 39 hours TT (in real life) and I have to admit that FS is severly lacking. Great for instruments but it just doesn't cut it in terms of 'feel'.

I have an X45 joystick/throttle (not very warrior-like I know but its great for combat sims) and rudder pedals. I have downloaded the UK2000 scenery for pretty much every airfield in the UK which is very good and thoroughly recommended.

X Plane is very good in terms of flight dynamics (we used it at Uni to model our final year project albeit unofficially) but I prefer the friendly menus and such like provided my Micro$oft.

There, that's better. I feel a great weight has been lifted from my shoulders. Admitting you are a simmer really is the first step....

:)

[FingersR]

and i for those who fancy some combat, my personal favourite is Il2 Sturmovik and its addones like Forgotten Battles!

[Pilotage]

I fly FS2004 in a Piper Warrior.

Would it not be better, on several levels, to fly FS2004 on a PC?

P

[Hampshire Hog]

Those contributing to Mazzy's diary will know that I have already 'acknowledged openly' that I am a flight simmer.

It was a very old version of MS Flight Sim that started my interest in flying. Then I did a trial lesson and it scared the life out of me! Then got some jump-seat rides in airliners, when you could still do that.

More flight simming and finally plucked up the courage to do more lessons. That got me hooked on the real thing. Thing is, it doesn't hurt if you crash the sim (or the computer):E

I agree with much of what has been said. Flight dynamics on FS 2004 smaller planes is poor. Useful for instruments and practising checklists though. Scenery add-ons - especially British Airports help (Airports are good for learning taxiways etc!). I've flown a real 737 simulator, but never tried the real thing so can't really comment on the airliner accuracy (although the add-ons are getting more and more complex). I use the keyboard for rudder (because I'd rather spend my money on real flying than expensive bits for the PC) and a Logitech joystick - not the best, but does the job.

I also use 'Fly ll' on the Apple Mac. Better flight dynamics, but difficult to use and the scenery/maps are abysmal. Weather generation is quite good though.

I'm interested in X-Plane - because it works on the Mac and there are scenery add-ons available.

C-Bert, where did you get the Warrior for FS?

HH

[c-bert]

Australian Simulation. Its £14 (through official channels ;) ) and quite good really.

[tmmorris]

Use FS2004 regularly for (a) practising instrument routes; (b) pretending to be an airline pilot...

Tim

[High Wing Drifter]

I took a different tack. I could not get X-plane and FS work properly to help me with my IMC and now for my IR. I found them just too...quirky. I also resented having to spend hours constantly fliddling, downloadig, etc, etc. Basically they have now been shelved in favour of ELITE which I am very pleased with.

[Hampshire Hog]

c-bert

Thanks for that. I've sent you a personal message for more info:D

HH

[jezbowman]

Has anyone used VATSIM for realtime on-line flying with 'virtual' on-line controllers?

I've tried a couple of times. Makes for a very realistic flying experience, especially if you're flying airways. My first attempt was EMA - LHR at night and was quite scary.

You have to be careful that you set the right aircraft 'type' into the controller software (NavBox). I decided to do some VFR tootling around in a 172. So headed down to Andrewsfield from EMA. After skirting around the (active) Standsted zone I made my approach to Andrewfield and landed quite successfully. There was another guy on the ground who watched my approach. He send a text message to the guy in stansted tower telling him that he'd just seen a 737 land at Andrewsfield! (Yes it was me.... forgot to change the a/c type in NavBox - so I saw and flew a 172 and the rest of the world saw a 737 going very slowly!).

I gave up after that... :uhoh:

[gingernut]

Definately stimulated an interest for the "real thing."

Was told in the vey ealy stages of PPL training that they would "get me into bad habits."

Initially, I didn't listen, and I did find that my flying suffered when I'd been "simming" so eventually sacked it. It just didn't have the same feel as real flying.

Did revert back to it for basic instrument training- good for learning how to use the VOR and thinking out of the box whilst "flying". (Intersecting radials etc).

Can't be bovered anymore

[whitingiom]

Stopped simming, my instructor commented it was affecting my lookout in the real thing.

I must admit I was instrument flying on the sim and sometimes I still find I'm looking inside when I should be looking at horizon.

Trying to sort out the flare at the moment, still loving every minute of it.

[magpienja]

Hi all I am not a pilot but a have and have had a very keen interest in GA going back many years also a keen airband user, I would have loved to take ppl lessons but it is out of my league money wise, I noticed in some of the flying mags some years back articles about flt sims and they got my interest, but I did not have a pc and that dont help, anyway got around to getting a pc mainly to try out this flt sims stuff I had been reading about and I must admit it was indeed an up hill struggle, getting to grips with the pc but I got there with help from my friends, as for the flt sims I was thrilled with them, I could do all the stuff I had dreamed about over the years, took all the flt sim lessons and passed the checkride, sad I know but I was quite pleased with myself, I then got to know about VATSIM the online ATC flying group with full 2 way voice atc comms, and now I never fly off line, they are a very keen group of guys who take there simming very seriously manning lots of airfields online around the uk/world, all my flying is vfr with the help of vfr scenery and FS2002, I use the realair cessna 172 developed for a flying school in australia, which many folk say has quite very good flying characteristics and you can download it for free, since then I have got to know and become a good friend of a ppl and fly with him on a cost share basis about once a month, and even get to do some of the navigating for him, as for joysticks bog std one for me no peddles unfortunately, so all in all flt simming has opened up a whole new world for me.

Nick in cheshire.

[HelenD]

I stopped using FS when I was in the circuit part of my PPL as I felt it was causing my real landings to be bad and hampering me getting solo. I will probably start using it again once I start my IMC course but I will discuss the pros and cons with an instructor first.

[FingersR]

Hi Helen,

What was actually happening to your landings?

Cheers

Fingers

[omcaree]

I learnt all the basics on MS flight sim, but soon found navigation (visually) quite impossible as everything looked the same so once i got into the real thing i gave up on simming.

but before starting on the IMC course i tried some IMC stuff in flight sim and infact continued doing so during the course, i found it very useful for all the proceedural stuff, like holds and approaches, as well as little things like remembering morse code and remembering to start the stopwatch.

more recently i've been attempting aerobatics on flight sim (as i dont have the money to do much for real) but since its almost impossible to spin any of microsofts aircraft i've had to download a few, my favorite being the super decathalon which i would love to fly in reality now, if only i had money.

Owen

[jezbowman]

So there are actually some spinable aircraft for FS2004 then? I thought the limitation was in the way FS2004 calculated flight dynamics, rather that limitations in any particular aircraft.

I heard that X-Plane does the flight dynamics calcs in a different way, thus you can take the a/c out of the envelope.

I've been using Fs2004 for IMC practise. My default weather is set much lower than real life IMC minima, so I practise ILS approaches down to 100ft. That's fun! And quite sobering if you screw it up.

What's excellent fun is the way you can replay the approach with the weather lifted. Try flying an ILS in pea-soup and then replay in good vis. No - you really were not drunk!!!

My instructor is an 'old-skool' guy. He's realistic about using the sim. He understood how I used it to practise nav for the PPL and thought that was good, and now he thinks it good that I'm using it for my IMC rating.

The only thing he warned me about was the way that the ADF responds too accuraly, in real life things such as ground contour, hills, valleys, weather and other factors affect the direction of the ADF indicator. VOR's also suffer from errors in the real word that are not correctly modeled in flight sim. A radial is rarely straight is reality, more likely to bend and twist due to reflections, etc... This is called scalloping.

[omcaree]

I always thought it was my lack of flying skill that was responsable for not being able to spin FS aircraft, but there are spinnable aircraft availabe and it is quite interesting to watch a spin (with smoke on) from the ground. slew up to 15,000 then just let it spin, recovery can be tricky when watching from the ground though.

[jabberwok]

I started flying in the late 1960's and so, like many others, I've been fascinated with the development of flight simulation - right back to the crude graphics of the ZX81. After that it was FS4 and then every update on this program right up to FS2004. Others tried include Fly, Flight Unlimited, X Plane, MicroFlight and many more forgotten in the mists of time. I have also used my real world skills to built aircraft and scenery for FS but that's another story.

Does FS help with flying training? It does - but I say that guardedly because it depends on so many variables. on one side the quality of the PC system, the software and the hardware all make a big difference to the FS experience. On the other side it depends on what you are trying to learn from using the PC as an aide to your flying.

I introduced FS to the local flying club in the mid 1980's to use as an instructional tool. It was good for showing certain things that blackboard scribblings failed miserably at - like the relationship between AoA and speed or radio navigation - but it was useless for any serious FLYING work. Two main reasons were the poor graphics at the time and that keyboard flying was an alien environment to pupils. A stick added to the PC helped a bit.

One thing sticks strongly in my mind. Real pilots were awful when you put them down in front of the PC to fly the simulator. Robbed of all sensory input the immediate effect was that everyone (myself included) would severely overcontrol the aircraft. Lack of peripheral vision also became very frustrating. The opposite was the case with PC flyers. We got a few of these given trial lessons for birthdays/Christmas and they mostly proved very capable at handling the flying controls - but they ignored other aircraft systems and stayed glued to the instruments :)

FS today is much improved and you have lots of additional software and hardware to make it better. In the UK we probably have the best situation in the world because of the high number of first class designers making good airports and scenery. OTOH these tend to highlight the shortcomings of the program even more. An example is the very detailed airports in the UK2000 collection which are highly realistic in visual modelling but are not quite believable because of the fact that all FS airports are table top flat (they've not yet created runways with a gradient).

Aircraft in FS can be frustrating to use as a means of learning the real aircraft. Most just have basic panel displays and approximate handling characterics so don't trust them too much. Some designs go better in reproducing aircraft systems but these can only go so far if you are trying to cram them all on one monitor. The Dreamfleet Archer is a good system aircraft as you can access most aircraft controls with very few mouse clicks. Go up to FSD's Navajo and although they have reproduced all the real Navajo systems these have to be brought up as "pop up" panels with the result that it takes twice as long to run through the checklist than it does on the real aircraft!

I could write a lot more but I'll shut up pending feedback/bemusement.

For what it's worth I use FS2004 on a high end system with a 21" TFT monitor. I use a CH stick because I prefer sticks to yokes in real life (fly a LongEze and you'll be converted for life) and CH pedals. I have a bunch of GoFlight units for radios, electrics, autopilot, gear and flaps and I also have their throttle unit which is excellent for accurate throttle,prop and mixture control. For UK flying I use the UK2000 scenery and the VisualFlight photoscenery and high resolution mesh - and this tranforms the UK into a very believable landscape. I also plug my Garmin GPS III Pilot into the PC so that it follows the path of the FS aircraft - a neat touch that.

FS is getting very good these days but it is still worth using with caution if you are thinking of it as an aid to real flying training. Use it - but be aware of its limits.

As a final comment look at the Chipmunk screenshot at www.fsaviation.net and tell me if it could be mistaken for an actual air to air photo..

[c-bert]

I've used Vatsim once. I flew a few visual circuits at Bournemouth whilst being 'controlled'. I felt sorry for the poor controller as I was the only pilot playing with him. I just had visions of him sitting in his bedroom all alone talking to an imaginary a/c and I couldn't carry on...

[TheBeeKeeper]

Anyone remember the flight sim for the BBC Micro?

'Aviator'

Was supposed to be a Spitfire, I was hooked.... you got points by flying through Acornsville and under a bridge, oh and double points if you did it inverted!

Those were the days.... well until 'Elite' came along, then my Dad hogged the computer until about 3am every night trying to upgrade his status from Dangerous to Deadly.... he never did make it to Elite.

BK

[omcaree]

Real pilots were awful when you put them down in front of the PC to fly the simulator

I agree with that, even with FS2004 which is very realistic in places I cant do turns without the AI and VSI because i usually end up descending at an alarming rate, used to do it in reality as well but i'm over that now.

I've also never succeeded in landing a cessna 172 slowly on FS, slowest approach i can handle is 80kts, with moderate flap, anything else just looks wrong. rounding out over the numbers results in floating for a few 100m and then always followed by a bounce. this may be due to microsofts flight model though because i recently got a C152 add on and I can land that quite nicely (approach of about 55-65, touch down at stall).

In my opinion FS is very useful for discovering what things do (controls, instruments, etc..) but not much use for actually doing things.

[P.Pilcher]

In 1985 a teacher of computer science joined the foreign educational establishment where I was working and he asked me what "this flying thing" was all about - I had about 2000 instructional hours at the time. I gave him a disc (a 5.25 inch one - remember those!) with a copy of Microsoft's FS 2 on it so he could find out about flying. I gave him a bit of a brief as well. Every lunchtime he practiced as you would with a computer game until he could (with his keyboard) attain some semblence of control. Then I introduced him to radio nav - VOR's and the ILS.
At one point he saved his position on the glide slope, 10 miles away from the ILS runway at Meigs field and practiced trying to keep the ILS needles in the middle (on his keyboard). Eventually we both came back to the U.K. on leave. I asked him whether he would like to put into practice what he had learned to which he agreed.
Our first trip was in the Club C152 and part of the pre flight brief contained such expressions as "push that knob in all the way and you've got F10, pull it out and you've got F0" .
I rarely let a trial lesson student attempt a takeoff but I let him and he was understandably nervous, however within minutes he had learned the differences between a control column and a keyboard, a quick demo sorted out his trimming and he was handling the aircraft as though he had received about 5 hours of instruction. He certainly had sufficient ability to attempt the landing, but the poor visual cues on FS2 contributed to his understandable difficulty with this manoeuvre.

After coffee and a bun, we boarded our full airways Cherokee Warrior for some radio nav. He had no difficulty tracking a VOR radial, executed a proceedure turn at the beacon and achieved a new 'from' radial that I had given him. This was a suitable track to establish on the ILS at a neighbouring field. I have never, never seen a student with 40 minutes experience before establish on an ILS and follow it down to 200' maintining IR tolerances!!

This was in 1985 and computer flight simulators have become much more sophisticated since then. When teaching the IMC rating I always found that those with computer flight sim programs were way ahead of those without in their applied instrument flying skills.

Subsequently I developed a special trial lesson for "computer nerds": Instead of getting them airborne and letting them "have a go" when in level flight in the local area, I used to taxy right to the end of the runway so that they could see the piano keys and the runway number before them. Just the same as the picture on their computer! Then they had a go at the takeoff, climb and did most of the handling. Like my friend from years ago they had obtained enough experience in the 30 minutes they were airborne to attempt a landing and invariably had a very enjoyable trip.

I my opinion computer flight simulators are a very valuable training aid if used correctly, particularly for IMC and I.R. training.
I certainly wish that they had been available when I was training for those ratings back in the mists of time!

P.P.

[BeauMan]

In answer to the question "How do you interact it with real flying?" I have to say I don't. The main thing that I love about flying is the physical feeling that you get when you and your aeroplane are moving in three dimensions. Not necessarily chucking yourself around the sky, but you do feel yourself moving around your own three axes to an extent. I love that. No matter how good a flight sim's graphics and sounds are, there's no way you can replicate that feeling, that sense of actual movement, when you're sitting in front of a pc.

That said, I do think there's a lot to be gained from flight sims; I own a copy of Combat Flight Simulator, and there is something quite satisfying about waking up on a non-flyable winters morning, powering up the pc, and taking out my weather frustrations by using a Spit IX to give a bunch of Me109's the good news. :E And additionally, my seven year old son loves to have a go at being a Spitfire pilot too. Although I dread the day he challenges me to an interactive dogfight, he's getting a bit good... :ooh: The thing is though, it's a break from reality. Nobody in their right mind is going to hand me the keys to their Spitfire and say 'off you go old chap, just don't bend it...' so that's why I enjoy regressing back to being a kid again from time to time.

Just my twopenneth...

[justinmg]

I tried to get as realistic flight sim as possible at home, using a HTPC linked to a LCD projector witha 7 foot screen. I use CH yolk and pedals, and Track IR to simulate head movements in the cockpit (MS2004). Also have the VFR scenery. It all looks pretty impressive, and friends who have seen it have been blown away. I stopped using it half way through my PPL, as I felt it did not compare to the real thing closely enough to help with landings etc.
I am giving it another go this weekend after a 6 month break, as VATSIM are having a fly-in.
I will probably use it for practice when I start my IMC course later in the year.
I just don`t get the buzz from it that I used to. Just need to make sure I do the real thing each week, and I`m fine.

J

[down&out]

hmmm Flight sims!

Yes I guess I flew a sim first! I seem to remember it was back in my school days and called "Night Flight" for the Sinclair Spectrum. For those that don't remember, computing power wasn't up to making a daylight scene, so we had to make do with little dots at night:cool:

So, as others said, on my first flight (in the back of a chippy on an AEF) I was told off for flying on instruments - especially as the horizon was not aligned properly on the a/c.

Since then, wonders have happened in the PC world and like others I think they're great for IMC practice and now, with the modern scenery, even VFR nav - which blew me away the first time I saw it.

[HelenD]

My flare went to pot after using flight sim and as many people know flaring incorrectly results in bad landings, mine were usually heavy landings. Heavy landings still happen from time to time but then that is normal

[P.Pilcher]

I can assure HelenD that the same thing happens in commercial practice. The first thing a type rating instructor has to do with a pilot who has learned to operate the BAe Jetstream 31 on the simulator is to teach him (or her) how to land it correctly once they start actually flying the aircraft!

P.P.

[PretoriaSillyperson]

At home I use FS2002 and last weekend I bagged a projector from work - it's amazing! The boy (5yrs) can pretty much land straight in to LGW at night on a C172 (with minimal help). Only prob is the proj costs +/- GBP 1000 so it's just for fun. (Also tried it on Resident Evil and it's flipping scary when you've had a few!)

Flight Sims are also excellent for learning IT - all the d.loads from AVISIM et al and online ATC are splendid aids in learning IP etc.

TW
LGW

[IFHP]

oh the memories rekindled
all night sessions on a BBC Aviator AND Elite
Night Flight on the Spectrum
Flight Sim etc on a PC

Eventually a PPL

Just after getting my licence I went for an hours instrument instruction..It was a crappy day and spent most of it in cloud.After 20-30 mins of head in cockpit ( all grey outside ) I started to lose the plot and the worrying part ?...I did'nt care.. after all it was only a computer.. sudden realisation it was real life..sweaty brow..
Nowadays my only flying ( up front ) is into farm strips and small airfields.. oh the joy of no radios and minimal instruments.:ok:

[incubus]

I use flight sim 2004 fairly regularly but never regarded it as an aid to training. I am a meagre PPL(A) holder with no additional ratings (yet :-) )

Where simming has helped me greatly is with understanding the basics of radio navigation as well as giving me a much deeper appreciation of the way the big boys operate - I use VATSIM as well from both sides of the scope and strive to operate in as close a simulation of the real world as possible. Before VATSIM I wouldn't have known about SIDS, STARS, SLPs, airways and all that nonsense and I like to think I know my way around an RVA when I'm playing at being an approach controller :-)

[SQUAWKIDENT]

Been flying real aircraft as a PPL since I was 18 (1983).

Am a fan of FS2004 - the graphics (especially the weather engine) are impressive (and apparently it can simulate ice buildup - not sure about carb icing though).

I use it now for VFR (yes you heard correctly) "sightseeing" using the excellent Visual Flight/Get Mapping photographic scenery and mesh for the UK (see pic below)

http://www.visualflight.co.uk/

RealAir Simulation make some lovely looking (and handling) aircraft for FS2004. These include my favourite the SIAI-Marchetti SF.260 plus Decathlon and Scout. Coming next is a Spitfire! The flight dynamics on these aircraft are the best you can "realistically" get for FS2004. The ability to simulate side-slips and spins are their main claim to fame.

http://www.realairsimulations.com/

SIAI-Marchetti SF.260 over the River Ex in Devon
http://www.aromadome.com/FLIGHTPIX/images/fsscr224.jpg

Don't have much time for real flying at the moment so a few hours on the "sim" keep me happy for now.

Adam

[omcaree]

I attempted to stop the engine of the FlightOne C152 via carb ice, didn't work but only because i got bored. low power, high humidty and in cloud just to help it out, noticable drop in RPM after a few minutes, and even a rough(ish) engine note, RPM continued to drop for a few minutes but wouldn't stop, so i gave up.

but i agree the weather (and icing) is very impressive. I think microsoft should try a bit harder with the post-stall model for its aircraft though, they give you an extra 300 as standard and expect you to fly sensibly, any attempt at spinning it just messes up. admittedly i've never flown a real one but i have seen them do spins :ok:

there is nothing built in to the simulator to prevent this (as i've said, the add on aircraft i have are very realistic looking in stall/spins, can even spin the super decathalon inverted) so i think MS should just pay some more attention to that.

Owen

[DOC.400]

Over the 13 years I've been flying, I've found FS invaluable.

Firstly to keep current when I ran out of money during training....was 'away' nine months and my instructor said it was as if I hadn't stopped when I got back into it. I flew ccts and went thru all the checks as necessary, repetition, repetition....mostly from good old Meigs Field in Chicago!!

Then onto my IMC where it really scored. Could practice all the joins for NDB and practice approaches, holds etc., BEFORE the detail, and then also fly it on the sim after.

It got really sad for a while when I set up a Heathrow approach frequency (I'm only 8d from LHR), paused a B737 in the hold at BNN or LAM, whatever, and then flew the heights, headings and speeds given by ATC. Bit tricky coz I had to factor in the wind, but usually managed to get on the ILS.

And then I discovered Jeppesens Simcharts, so can now attempt the SID's and STAR's!! Would sit on the runway at LHR awaiting clearance and follow whatever SID the 'plane was put on. It would be over the North Sea sometimes before I lost ATC, so would then dig out Amsterdam approach plates and in we go!! Having just arrived back from hols which took in Austria, practiced the offset approach into Innsbruck which starts in the hold at 7500' -interesting!!

Also recomend Just Flights GB Airports for the detail. Flew a pal into East Midlands earlier this year, so I practiced taxiiing around before I went -frightenely realistic!!

Set up now is just a MS Sidewinder stick on a very ordinary pooter and flat screen.

I've also used TOCA 2 to find my way around racetracks on the Playstation to help another hobby.....but that's another story!!

DOC.400

[jabberwok]

HelenD makes an interesting observation. Using FS for landing practise isn't a good idea. For instrument and radio nav work it is excellent because you can fly instrument procedures in good VMC or awful IMC (as is your wont) but I would never suggest it be used for some of the PPL basics like getting your landings right.

There are two reasons for this. First is that the graphics quality of the runways isn't quite good enough. True that FS2004 is a lot better in this respect than previous versions but the texturing of the FS runways (and surrounding grass) still isn't detailed enough to give you the visual clues that you get in real life. As you approach the round out position in real life you have a fairly good idea how high the aircraft is off the runway. You don't get this with FS and so you alter your technique to get better FS landings. This isn't helpful for real world flying.

The other problem with FS is that the perspective it gives isn't right either. You can change this by using the zoom controls and it has been suggested that a zoom factor of 71% is more "lifelike" - but I don't agree that this is a rigid recommendation. To me there is quite a difference in looking at a runway on a 15" monitor than using a 21" monitor and I think the zoom has to be altered to suit. I do agree though that the "standard" setting of FS isn't right and this becomes very clear when on very short finals because the visual clues and perspective are wrong.

You can fiddle with these but I would prefer to suggest that you don't use FS as a means to improve your landing technique.

[DOC.400]

"You can fiddle with these but I would prefer to suggest that you don't use FS as a means to improve your landing technique"

Absolutely agree!!

It's easier to land the real thing than FS anyway, for all the reasons you state, Jabberwok!!

DOC

[rotorcraig]

I have FS2004 but don't use it much ... thought that the R22 was pretty realistic in flight (power/speed/ROC combinations are different to the real thing, but work the same once you've found a new balance).

With the VFR scenery add-ons installed , it's good for playing "sightseeing", but landing a real 22 is *much* easier than trying to do the same in FS!

Autos don't work at all ... lower the "lever" and the FS R22 goes all floppy and falls out of the sky (do your own jokes ... :rolleyes: ).

Anyone know of a better R22 simulator?

RC

[pilotwolf]

I ve got Flight Sim 2000... Xmas present from my parents.

Thought it would be great as it has the Bell 206 helicopter on it but... I can't fly it to save my life, (I got over 200 hrs - 20 odd in the 206), and can fly the real thing without any problems!

I hoped I would be able to use it for the IR too but seem to spend too much time fiddling with the computer to use it constructively - guess you need all the add ons like rudder pedals, etc. :(

PW

[MikeeB]

I've used it to play around with VOR's etc. but can't see much scope beyond that.

Strange how a few other people have tried spinning.... I can't get it to work, don't suppose it ever will compare to the real thing.

However, you can do strange things with the helicopters if you try. Basically get a bit of height, then start throwing the stick about. I ended up with it stuck in what I could only describe as having the helicopter tied onto the end of a 2 mile long rope and the person holding the other end was spinning me around. Even on closed throttle it continued.

[jabberwok]

The spinning issue in FS was only cleared up when RealAir brought out their lovely SF260 for FS2002 (shown in one of the threads above). They found that default FS aircraft couldn't spin properly because MS had applied flight dynamics to the whole wing as one unit - not as separate entities. The first true spinnable aircraft in FS were the SF260 and RealAir's Cessna 172 - the latter free of charge. In fact the RealAir C172 flies quite differently to the default C172 and is much more like the real aircraft.

In FS2004 things are better in that more aircraft can be spun correctly but only a few designers know how to implement this. As a result only a few of the default aircraft can be spun and very few add-on aircraft.

I agree with the other threads about helicopters - these are considerably more difficult to fly in FS than in real life.

Looking back at my postings on this topic shows a slightly negative attitude towards FS but that isn't the case - I really do enjoy using the product. If I hadn't I would not have spent the last decade building aircraft and scenery for it. Having said that I feel this had made me more aware of how much it can be used for emulating real world procedures.

As real as it gets? Almost - but it still has a fair way to go..

http://www.homepages.mcb.net/bones/04fs/aircraft/GBUMP.jpg

To PilotWolf..

May I recommend you dump your copy of FS2000 and try and get a cheap copy of FS2002 or treat yourself to FS2004. FS2000 was an AWFUL release and slow to load and run. FS2002 was actually faster with much better frame rates - essential for any helicopter flying.

[Barnstormer1982]

I have read all previous posts and cannot confirm all of them. Flight sims do not affect real-life flying in a negative way, at least not for me or other flying mates I personally know.

The MS FS series is indeed a killer in terms of providing the user with that "real feeling" of flying, but it's rather good for practising IR flights etc. The younger half of my gliding club in Germany used to "play" a gliding flight simulator quite intensively and some of these guys actually were able to improve their skills in getting their turns quickly centered in the thermals etc.

What I most liked simulator-wise were not the civil simulators, but the high-end military simulators like Jane's F-15 and Falcon 4.0. Can't say if they simulate the feeling of a F-15 or a F-16 correctly, but they in deed are a good trainer in terms of basic skills you need for flying - just think of data inflow your brain can manage etc (zooming thru a valley at 600kts, being shot at, evading SAMs, finding your way to the target, drop ordnance on the target at the planned time +- 30 sec, still being shot at, return to base, using the cannon for targets of opportunity you have to recognize first (gunning a truck at a speed of 600kts (you, not the truck:E ) is rather hard), eventually knocking out a Fulcrum, and landing again.)

I think all the hours of flying simulators, and that's more for the military sims and not for the civil sims, have improved my general flying skills. You are used to keeping an eye on everything, which might give you extra time if something up there is not working as it should be (and might help you to recognize that early). I've just had my flying aptitude at the Luftwaffe in early 04 and found these skills helpful there as well.

Of course a FS 172 cannot simulate the feeling of a real-life 172 accurately, meaning that you should not transfer your flight sim landing techniques that are successful in a sim a/c to 1:1 to the real life equivalent, but in a nutshell, there are huge similarities.

Could it be that low-hour student pilots think FS affects their landings because the FS plane which they accumulate more hours on is actually their second type of aircraft and they find it hard to switch between those?


Ok folks, enough talking about sims - it's a sunny Saturday and I am off for the real thing! :ok:

[Thief13x]

I run Microsoft Flight Simulator 2002 and it rocks! I have a microsoft force feedback joystick to go along with it, nothing fancy. In real life i fly a Pa-28-180, and unfortunatly the sim only came with a couple cessnas. However, after a bit of internet searching i found a 180 to download and now i fly the same airplane i do in real life. In times gone past, my instructor has often asked me how ive managed to remain so proficient, even after i hadn't flown for 1 or 2 months. Usually i just give him the 'not sure' anwser, but i know its that flight sim, i sincerly belive it has helped me alot. I'm ready for my checkride at 60 hours, which have beem spread out over the past 3 years, and 5 different airplanes. personally, i think thats pretty good and i give most of the credit to the flight sims.

Edit* Jabberwok is right, FS2002 does beat the hell out of FS2000, not only in graphics (BIG TIME) and performance, but also with the new ATC services. My god, if for no other reason, you should buy it for this incredible addition. The AI aircraft actually fly traffic patterns too

Tim:ok:

[piesupper]

Try FlightGear, it's an open source alternative to MSFS, runs on both Windows and Linux and is free to download (its about 80Mb). Check out www.flightgear.org

You need a half-way decent graphics card though anything older than 3-4 years prob just won't do.

The flight models are much more realistic than anything Ive found in MSFS, though to be honest I ve only ever flown a PA28 and C152 for real. I believe this is due to a) better flight models and b) higher frame rates, especially when it gets interesting like in the flare.
Being open-source its under active development (currently at ver 0.96) and there is an enthusiastic and very helpful community mailing list. Details on the website. There are AI aircraft and ATC though not yet at the sophistication of MSFS. The basic download has scenery for ~100miles around KSFO and the rest of the world is available for free download too. Moves are afoot to integrate MSFS scenery too.

I agree with other posters that simming in general detracts from real flying and I don't really think its a Good Thing for the 1-20 hr PPL student. Excellent for the 0 hr student cos it keeps them interested and for the more experienced its good for radio and nav procedures.

Check it out, all it will cost is the download and some disk space. All joysticks, pedals etc can be made to work with it. I use a Saitek Evo and the pedals from a MS Sidewinder racing wheel. Bit of a hassle cos I have to have the wheel connected too but worth it unless you have a tiny desk. I think it would be feasible to use the wheel as a nose-wheel tiller on the big boys but I haven't got round to setting that up yet. After all my priority is to get a PPL on a PA28-140. I'd love to move up to a yoke and 'proper' pedals but that represents about 90 mins real flying.