Microsoft Flight Simulator X

[Aussie]

Gday guys, anyone know when the next flight sim is due out?

I remember 2004 being released late July 2003, so im thought 2006 wuld be released by now.

Any word?

[Conan the Librarian]

My own guess, but I expect it at about the same time that we get the new 64 bit MS Op System.

That way, it will remain current for another two to three years. FS has always wanted a fairly good machine to run on and the new machines will provide that nicely, one would have thought.

Conan

[BoeingBoy]

There are no plans to release a new FS in the near future. MS want to get things right and introduce some innovative features next time round.

Keep an eye on the simulator main site on www.avsim.com

[hafez]

Aussie,

Was in contact with Microsoft and this is what they said about a month back :ok:

Dear Mr. Hafez,

Thank you for your mail about Microsoft® Flight Simulator.

The 2006 version is still in development and we expect it to be released within the first quarter of next year. This will be confirmed on this site:

Hope that can help you :)

[Jhieminga]

Interesting tidbits on this page: http://www.calclassic.com/avsim2005.htm

[smythy]

I am enquiring about the new Flight Simulator 2006 asking if anyone know's any details regarding the new game. I would like to see the installation of new air bridges and Airbus aircraft on the game.

[hb-het]

Does anyone knows anything about a possible FS 2006 version ? Thank you very much

[Byrna]

There has not been any official announcement from Microsoft yet but it is in the works and POSSIBLY (not certain yet) released next summer but we'll see.

Microsoft DID conduct an extensive survey of many Flight Simulator 2004 users to get an idea of their usage habits so they are planning on doing a next version; I even heard they were hiring staff to work on FS2006.


John
FS2004 user

[hb-het]

ok, thank you for the information !! And do you know what they are going to change in the software ?

[Conan the Librarian]

A guess would be about forty quid, plus the £800 for the min spec machine for it to run on.

Cynical? Moi?

Conan

[timmcat]

Cynical? Moi?
Naah, but yer need glasses mate, he said change not charge !!! :)

[Conan the Librarian]

Dear Spimcatt,

there is nothing wrong wrong with my eyesight...

I guess that MS are up to their old tricks with 2006. It has always been a b*stard for minimum specs and they let us off last time. For the next edition, I will bet you need a new machine, unless it is very punchy right now.


Cnoon

[timmcat]

A little bit about MSFS 2006 here (http://www.flightsimaviation.com/_fs2006/announcement.html). Plenty of screenshots too. Will be interesting to see if the thing will run on anything less than a 3 GHZ processor and an all singing and dancing graphic card.

[Conan the Librarian]

From what I have heard, it will stagger along on a fastish machine, but I always suspected that it would need Vista and a Cray to run well.

Mind you there are a lot of flight simmers for whom a previous "new" release of FS meant a new machine anyway.


Conan

[markymojo]

Hello all,

Grateful if anyone out there could point me towards somewhere on the web that i could download a Seminole add-on for MS Flight Sim 2004.

Thanks,

Mark

[Oxeagle]

Hi there,
Try www.simviation.com (http://www.simviation.com) they tend to have a really good range of FS2004 downloads. Also, www.flightsim.com (http://www.flightsim.com) which has even more but you need an account.
Hope this helps! :)

[planecrazy.eu]

I'm downloading it right now, cant wait to see what they have done. I have read, heard and seen that the missions look good, and the graphics are far more advanced, i am just hopeing that they have spent some time on the physics and not the graphics only. Will let you know if it installs, i hope the demo has the RedBull Race mission on it...

[planecrazy.eu]

Its installed fine for me, Grpahics are looking better, but i think thats more of a texture thing, its looking more brighter and viberant and textures more realistic and better blended. Realistic looking glare on cockpit window in virtual panel. I am getting 45-50 fps on Ultra High, seems really smoth.

[bfisk]

DLing now - can't wait :O

[planecrazy.eu]

Hey, it looks like you are missing a Windows componant that FSX runs on/with or borrows information of. I would say it was a comonant in XP SP2? I am running XP Home, Always Install Updates and NvIDEA GO 256 Graphics Card, 1 Gig Ram, so by no means top spec.

[bfisk]

DLing now - can't wait :O

Was very disappointed. Same old cons like in every version - not really a whole lot of airliners to choose from, and ATC is still same old, same old. It also runs significantly poorer than FS2004 on my computer (1733 centrino, 1024 ram, ati mobility 9700/128ram video).

[Gonzo]

Mercenary Pilot,

Reading through the MSFS DevBlogs, the team took a decision that far more realistic ATC was available online through organisations such as VATSIM and IVAO, for those that wanted 'realism'. For those that didn't, the FS2004 system was deemed adequate.

[Kluseau]

Good news and bad news after a trip round whatever island it is in the Beech Baron.

Part of the bad news is the frame rates. I found the frame rates slowed to 14-18FPS in some views when a lot of scenery was in the frame. But that was with everything in the display settings set to "Ultra High" and at full screen on 1280x1024x32. That may sound good news, but the machine I got that on is powered by an Athlon 64 X2 4800+ dual core processor, with 2GB of DDR RAM and a Radeon X1900 XTX video card. If I've got to go back to compromising on display settings then FSX really is a frame hungry beast!

One major change is that there is no "aircraft" folder, but it is possible to add new aircraft. Instead of putting the main parts of the aircraft into the "aircraft" directory, you put it into SimObjects/airplanes/ Everything else seems to go where you'd have put it in FS9.

The good news is that this brave new world does look pretty, as far as the jerk-o-vision of sub 20FPS will allow me to judge. The Caribbean island has a slightly "Tin Tin" cartoon feel to it, but there's lots of scenery, and the moving cars on the roads and boats floating around the place look really good. In fact, the scenery really does seem a step change for the better - give or take the fact that the airport fence makes stuff seem to float in the air on the other side of it.

The biggest change is the sea and lagoon textures, which made a real effort to convince they were actually water: though the "waves" seemed a bit over scale for my taste. Clouds looked good from a distance, but I didn't fly in any.

The Beech Baron looked and felt and sounded really good, too. Not the sort of aircraft I ever normally fly, but good nonetheless. I got a bit confused over the views. Pressing S cycles through a virtual cockpit, a spot, a tower and an "aircraft" view that I didn't quite get to the bottom of, but seems to hold at a point and in a direction related to the aircraft. There is also a 2D cockpit, but it didn't seem to be included in the normal cycle of views. Aircraft animation and accompanying noises - undercarriage and flaps etc - seemed very good.

Very much a quick first view, then, but given the power that is going to be needed to get the best out of FSX, I'm not sure that we should all start uninstalling FS2004 just yet...

Oh: and the best news of all is that Microsoft are using a faded Saltire as the desktop icon for the FSX demo!

Meanwhile, you can pre-order FSX at amazon.com and amazon.co.uk: the former with an early October release date, the latter with a later October release date. And widely different prices: $64.99 on amazon.com or £54.99 on amazon.co.uk, which at today's exchange rates equals $103.96. Even given the US price includes a $5 discount, it makes you wonder how that difference is justifiable!

[planecrazy.eu]

Try

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=3144b72b-b4f2-46da-b4b6-c5d7485f2b42&DisplayLang=en

might solve that FS Problem.

I am running CoreDuo 1.6, 256 nvidea go and 1 gig ram and i am getting great performance frame rate wise in the maximum settings, but it still doesnt look that good, it looks as some-one said like a cartoon, and i couldnt get those words out to describe the textures but thats what they look like, like an animated cartoon. Just its all to clean and bright and all that. I am getting about 45fps, goes upto just under 70fps dependant on if i am making the plane go through its paces.

I am looking at X-Plane, i have the demo and it seems better physics wise than FS, just not in a graphical way. But graphics are not all that, lets face it at 30.000 how much attention do you pay to the mountains on the ground or the sea.

[ultimatepro63]

ohhh man this sucks just about to take off and computer restarts for no reason does it on fs2002 as well it never used to do it

[bfisk]

over-vectoring

Ohyeah. I seriously hate it when I'm doing som basic flying in a 172, and they want to vector you 40-50 miles out, before turning you back in. And even when they do, they still can't manage to keep you away from other traffic.

[P.Pilcher]

That's because you are not doing about 160 kts to 4 miles. If you do you will have fewer problems!!!!

P.P.

[P.Pilcher]

Hence my four exclamation marks!

P.P.

[AWYRCYMRY]

Some of you may have tought about this allready and some of you may not have but i dont know.


I have got some sims (C-130 / 727 pro / 707 pro / 777 pro ETCETC) will they work on flight sim X or will i have to spend more $£$£$£$£ to have new library of sims......:{ :{ :{ :confused: :confused:

CHEERS
:ok:GUYS "n" GALLS:ok:

[Mercenary Pilot]

Most of those products you mentioned are published by JustFlight. If you check out their website, they have started a new webpage which will tell you what will be compatible, what needs patching and what won’t work.

[timmcat]

Here! (http://www.microsoft.com/games/pc/flightsimulatorx.aspx)

Only had chance to try it for half an hour or so, no massive changes compared to the 2004 version as far as I can tell.

Back to X-Plane, I think...

[krister]

Im surprised nobody has written an add-on ATC module, im guessing it’s because it’s not possible to disable the MSFS standard.:(


Radar Contact 4 is a wonderful thirdparty ATC add-on for MSFS. I still get over-vectoring with it but there is separation, holds and many other interesting qualities! Still doesn't compare to VATSIM, but you can have ATC anywhere in the world and a huuuge amount of traffic if you have Ultimate Traffic.

/Krister

[Mercenary Pilot]

Thanks krister, I've never heard of that product before. I'll give it a try.

:ok:

[potkettleblack]

And for free AI traffic you can't beat this website. Just be aware that if you install to many airlines that it can dramatically impact your frame rate at the busier airports like LHR etc. Still it makes it pretty impressive flying around and seeing/hearing the speedbirds, virgins, ryanair, shamrocks etc.

http://www.projectai.com/

[icemel_aratt]

Dont be fooled by the minimum specs given on the box. You need at least a 3.2Gig processor, a 512meg Graphics card and a couple of Gigs of RAM to get those lovely graphics or you'll be turning all the sliders down to minimum to get any sort of decent frame rate,

[UWE Karl]

I ran the Demo on A CoreDuo 2.0ghz with 1GIG Ram and it ran flawless with the sliders on top. I have a 256 Nvidea card too, so i guess that helps.

Cant wait to get it, but for me its totally different to FS2K4. I am going to treat FS X more like a game, as thats what i recon they have made it into.

X-Plane is where my serious stuff will take place, handling is so more realistic and the DVD scenery is not to bad either.

PC World looked at me like i was asking for an item that doesnt exist when i asked a few days ago if they had it, think i'll get it online...

[Dent Collector]

Haven't had time to comb through the whole thread, but can anyone tell me if they've managed to successfully install a Microsoft Sidewinder force feedback pro joystick with windows xp. Keep it simple if you can thanks.

[JediDude]

Haven't had time to comb through the whole thread, but can anyone tell me if they've managed to successfully install a Microsoft Sidewinder force feedback pro joystick with windows xp. Keep it simple if you can thanks.

Yes, Plugged in the stick, installed the software. Simple.

[Dent Collector]

Are you sure that you've got the older version of the joystick as in the 'Force feedback pro' not the 'Force feedback 2'. I have tried that, but I'm not the only one, the web is full of people with the same problem, I just thought that maybe someone here had overcome the same problem.

[MOSTAFA]

I am at a loss with the above software and any help would be greatly appreciated.

Although extremely familiar with the workings of a FMC and having read just about every word of the blurb that comes with the sim I am still at a complete loss as to how you update it's database. Sadly, I only bought the software in the Middle East two weeks ago but the database is already out of date. Because of it's expiry I do not even seem to be able to access anything.

Not being a computer expert could anybody please explain how it is done in real laymans terms.

Again many thanks in anticipation.

M

[Sensible]

http://www.precisionmanuals.com/html/downloads/servupd.htm

[MOSTAFA]

Thank you Sensible.

Perhaps I should have made it clearer "read all the blurb".

and done everything the Blurb says.

[potkettleblack]

If your asking how to update your FMC database then you just need to download the latest AIRAC to the relevant directory on your HDD per the following:

http://ops.precisionmanuals.com/wiki/PMDG_747-400_FAQ#How_do_I_update_my_NAVDATA.3F

[Superpilot]

What an absolute pile of junk this has turned out to be. I just last month built myself a PC to the tune of nearly 2k including a GeForce 7950GX2 graphics card. I put a lot of effort into it to make sure it could handle FSX. It is a true beast in terms of performance.

However, FSX at medium display settings produces abysmal frame rates, is clunky, slow and a real resource hog. In and around the London area FS9 would give 60-70fps, FSX? A measily 10-15. Further to that, no London City Airport! - Classic :\

[Felix Saddler]

How much RAM do you have?

[bobcox]

Enjoy....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcW3hbnR2EI

[Mercenary Pilot]

Heheh :D :D

[Superpilot]

2GB.

I'm hearing similar stories pretty much everywhere!

[planecrazy.eu]

A quote from that

"They are killing simulation"

How true, FS-X is no more than a game now, wouldn't shock me if they didnt release it for X-Box. Not the PS3 though, the physics in a basic game out do FS, PS3 has a dedicated physics engine, it works very true from what i have read...

That is such a true and funny short film. I agree, X-Plane has an annoying GUI and keyboard controls, but its out does FS-x in most ways now, even the scenery on X-Plane is great now, and the flight models are way infront of FS-X...

Its a game, and the demo has more or less put me of getting it. Still going to get it though, just for the missions, as i say, i will treat it like a game...

[planecrazy.eu]

not really related, but look at this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLV5ku0y_lw

[Mac the Knife]

Well, if Linux is good enough for real sims, just think what you could do on your desktop!

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/3368

:ok:

[potkettleblack]

What struck me looking at the various Youtube uploads is that the visuals appear just like before. In other words nothing like the screen shots that were released by MS before launch of FSX.

I think I will stick with FS2004 as I know that upgrading my current pc will vastly improve its performance whereas I am not sure that this could be said for the latest incarnation of FS without a serious cash outlay and having to tread down the Vista path which I refuse to be sucked into.

[scroggs]

However, FSX at medium display settings produces abysmal frame rates, is clunky, slow and a real resource hog. In and around the London area FS9 would give 60-70fps, FSX? A measily 10-15. Further to that, no London City Airport! - Classic :\

Hmm. My Dell Dimension 9150 (3.0 GHz Core Duo CPU, 1 Gb RAM, 256Mb GeForce 6800) runs FSX Deluxe at around 30fps with the sliders on 'High' - and London City is there, if a bit basic!

However, 4Gb RAM would help....:p ;)

[Kestrel_909]

Scroggs is a simmer:eek:

Isn't FSX designed to take advantage of Direct X 10 and Vista, which should yield better results?

[Mercenary Pilot]

I was chatting to a mate the other night, he reckons that the reason FSX runs so badly is that it has been optimised for use with windows Vista and more importantly...DirectX 10.

I have seen some footage of FSX running in DX10, it looks very impressive. (However the footage was produced by MS themselves so could have been pre-rendered.)

[potkettleblack]

If you go into Youtube there are various uploads which don't appear to be anything like the demos that MS came out with.

[Felix Saddler]

Is it worth me getting FSX when i have a radeon 9800 pro 128 graphics card, 1G RAM and a 2.8ghz pentium 4 proccessor? Or should i just stick with century of flight?

[scroggs]

Scroggs is a simmer:eek:


Yes, occasionally. I've been into computers for about 25 years and MSFS for nearly as long, but only once in a while. I'm fortunate in that I can afford to indulge a casual interest by buying new versions whenever they turn up. If nothing else, MSFS has always been a good test of just exactly how good one's computer setup really is! FSX is very demanding, but I can't see anything about it that needs DX10 or Vista - but I am running it on a computer that is more than ready for Vista.

Incidentally, I've also tried it on my Vaio SX5P laptop (2.0Ghz Intel Pentium M, 1 Gb RAM, 256Mb NVIDIA GeForce 6400 Go, 100 Gb HDD), and it works acceptably on Medium. It's a bit slow to load (more RAM here as well, I think!!), but it runs fine. I did try it with everything on Max, but you could have gone on holiday waiting for everything to load up!

[Felix Saddler]

Whats the cheapest you can expect to pay for 2X1GB RAM?

[Mercenary Pilot]

Whats the cheapest you can expect to pay for 2X1GB RAM?Dont go for cheapest, go for fastest. google crucial. :ok:

FSX on Dx9 (http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/13/0,1425,sz=1&i=133376,00.jpg)

And here is a screenshot of FSX, in the same place running on Dx10. BIG DIFFERENCE!

http://www.nvnews.net/images/screenshots/flight_simulator_x/flight_simulator_x_1.jpg

[Felix Saddler]

What system were both the photos taken? and What about settings?

[Felix Saddler]

Also when is DX10 available?

[Mercenary Pilot]

Not sure what the spec was, it was released by MS so I think it’s safe to say it’s a high end system. I think it looks pre-rendered but they say its not.

I think Dx10 will be shipped with Vista.

[Felix Saddler]

Those graphics are amazing, however to get them like that as we all know must cost a fair bit of money.

[Kestrel_909]

The hills, clouds, trees and rays of light I can believe, but the water looks superb.

What they aren't showing you though is the frame rates:sad:

[kleefarr]

Haven't had time to comb through the whole thread, but can anyone tell me if they've managed to successfully install a Microsoft Sidewinder force feedback pro joystick with windows xp. Keep it simple if you can thanks.

"Racks brain"

I seem to remember having a similar problem a few years ago. Although it was the Force Feed Back Pro and Windows 2000. As Win XP was based on Win 2K I would guess the problems would be much the same. I did get it going though.

It has been a while since I cranked up the old flight sim but I will have a dig around and get back to you if I remember anything.

[kleefarr]

Actually, following on from my last post and just to add an extra dimension to the subject..

After reading through the thread I wondered what controlling peripherals you might have used while running your flight sims?

I vaguely remember, after many years of pining for some flight action, starting off with a mouse and a keyboard around '96 - '98 followed by the wonderful force feedback pro joystick circa '00.

[kleefarr]

Haven't had time to comb through the whole thread, but can anyone tell me if they've managed to successfully install a Microsoft Sidewinder force feedback pro joystick with windows xp. Keep it simple if you can thanks.

Just a thought, have you got any USB devices plugged in while you try to set up the FFB pro? If so, try unplugging them all and install again.
Head is still recovering from a couple of heavy nights, but if I can think of anything else I'll get back to you.

Kevin

[Dent Collector]

Thanks Kevin
Don't worry about me now because I gave up trying and bought a Sidewinder 2, and it's working fine. But I really appreciate you taking the time.

[scroggs]

Also when is DX10 available?

DX10 is an integral part of Vista and, I believe, will not be issued in an XP-compatible format. It is also not backwards-compatible with DX9, so many DX9 (and older) games will not run on DX10. A version of DX9 will be included in Vista to allow older games to run.

There is a short technical explanation of DX10 here (http://www.driverheaven.net/articles/dx10/) which helps to explain why MSFSX is so much better in DX10 than in DX9 - and the CPU overhead should be lower! At least I now know I'll be getting Vista when it comes out!

[Felix Saddler]

Thanks Scroggs, i am on the verge of buying a new pc because i feel an upgrade is neccessary to keep up to date with things. I think i will wait until windows vista comes out to buy a pc, that way i wont have to pay for it. Well kinda not pay!

[scroggs]

Most PC manufacturers are now giving vouchers to allow a free upgrade to Vista when it's released (January?), so you wouldn't miss out if you bought now. That said, what you'll get in January will almost certainly be higher-specced than if you bought it now.

[5711N0205W]

A Vista patch for FSX will be issued at some point, currently as coded the sim is not designed to take advantage of Vista and DX10. You will also need a DX10 capable video card and they are not currently available either.

[born2fly_au]

From all the reviews i have been reading it seem to me no matter what current system i was to buy it would not be able to handle FSX set to run full steam ahead. Some of the systems in these reviews were what i would consider top of the line. Even some of these were having trouble getting anywhere near decent framerates with the sliders close to maximum. One of these computers was luck to be getting 2-3 fps with the sliders maxed out in high density areas. is
MIcrosoft trying to tell us something?
Allen

[kleefarr]

Thanks Kevin
Don't worry about me now because I gave up trying and bought a Sidewinder 2, and it's working fine. But I really appreciate you taking the time.

Your welcome.


I was just about to post a couple of links for you.

I will do anyway in case anyone else needs them...

Revised (6-10-06) Win2k and WinXp Microsoft trouble shootings tips HERE (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/294672)
Also a few ideas HERE (http://boards.msn.com/Gamesboards/thread.aspx?ThreadID=33268&BoardsParam=Page%3d19%26HIPDelay%3d1%26PostID%3d2344461)

I've been thinking about reinstalling my FS2000 and FFB Pro, it's been a while now. Anyone know the best place for using FS2000 online?

I had a good read up on the Flight Gear site last night. Looks very interesting, especally if you don't like forking out for a new copy of Microsoft Flight Sim every couple of years.

[Felix Saddler]

From all the reviews i have been reading it seem to me no matter what current system i was to buy it would not be able to handle FSX set to run full steam ahead. Some of the systems in these reviews were what i would consider top of the line. Even some of these were having trouble getting anywhere near decent framerates with the sliders close to maximum. One of these computers was luck to be getting 2-3 fps with the sliders maxed out in high density areas. is
MIcrosoft trying to tell us something?
Allen

Not entirely, http://www.pcspecialist.co.uk/index.php?page=results this would handle just about everything.

[born2fly_au]

Sorry to disappoint you but even computers with those specs could not get decent double digit constant framerates when flying in high density areas, Especially when running on Ultra High Settings. All i know is i would like to hope vista and directx 10 will have a good effect when it comes to getting better framerates in FSX.

Maybe it is another Microsoft ploy to force you to buy the latest directx 10 hardware and of course the vista operating system in order to get this program to perform at it's optimum

[tom775257]

I think it is very good for getting to grips with instrument flying and things like Jet handling. It is detrimental to training as a private pilot flying visually. I passed a sim ride on the 737-800 (sim) as a fATPL after playing MS flight sim with a 737-800 add-on and a yoke....I think everyone else hired a level D sim prior to the check for lotsa cash.

Just a thought you learn no airmanship on MSFS I think. And it teaches you VERY bad habits without further training; I used to teach PPLs, you could tell the flight sim dudes because they would spend all their time looking at the instrument panel and never out of the window.

[CapCon]

I'm about two thirds through my IMC ground theory and the last lecture was on NDB holding and approches. Never flown one and thought I'd give it a go on FlightSim X with great results. The sim was very accurate in terms of radio nav position on the airfield and everything seemed to work well. As tom says, it's useful in terms of instrument practice rather than general handling skills.

Cheers,

CapCon

[corsair]

I'd echo all that. The handling bears only a limited resemblence to the real thing and that depends on the yoke or joystick you have. It does give an insight into what real flying is all about and is useful for practising instrument flying. Which after all is what simulators are for. I used it practice instrument approaches which I had recently flown for real. Sometimes, particularly when set at night in cloud and you darken the room, it can be quite compelling. But I found I had to scale back the so called 'realistic' handling to stop even a 172twitching like a Pitts Special. You can get add ons which replicate every switch switch and button on specific aircraft. I saw an ATR add on which looked amazing but I doubt you could really fly an ATR after playing with it for a while.

I think it's only really useful for a PPL student where an instructor can demonstrate something he or she has being describing. I think it does teach you very bad habits as Tom says. Plus there is the one essential thing missing, it can't kill you. That extra frisson of excitement or fear is highly motivating to do things properly.

[StudentInDebt]

I could never stand the trial lessons I flew with whose first line was "I've got x thousand hours on FS2000/2/4" (indicates how long I instructed full time for). They would sit and stare at the instruments for the whole of an hour long detail whilst I was trying to point out the beautiful Kent countryside (Dartford, Gravesend, Chatham etc) and give headings to avoid the traffic I was hoping they would be looking for.

Similarly those students who used FS2000/2/4 to practice showed a marked deterioration in their visual nav but could track a VOR to within 8/10ths of an angstrom, of course they couldn't do that and hold an altitude because the FS2000/2/4 autopilot can't either.

[Cypherus]

Flight Sims are great fun and have a huge worldwide following and has been mentioned can be a useful tool to aid in instrument flight practice, but other than that I believe they have little to offer a full time pilot as a number of omissions have had to be made in the construction of the sim to make it ‘flyable for all’.

The one thing that has always bugged me with them is the lack of detail in cockpit procedure manuals an aspect which until late have been totally overlooked, even today’s high end add-on aircraft like PDGM’s 747 series and the mentioned ATR who’s manuals are very concise lack the totality of full scale cockpit procedures through all phases of flight, the FMC provided is only partially operational and can be quirky at times and a lot of the required information for it’s use has to be either guessed or trawled up from various windows in the sim with little to aid in this.

Other than that, try a full flight hands on into the former Kai Tak in some dodgy weather and get it right makes you slightly overlook the short comings of the game.

[Keef]

MSFS is OK-ish for IFR practice (X-Plane is better), but as others have said, it's lethal for safe VFR flight.

I believe the primary purpose of the instructor's chart is to cover all the instruments to force the student to look out of the window.

[n5296s]

My opinion is that the handling of a plane in MSFS bears absolutely no resemblence to the real thing. MSFS seems FAR more sensitive than the real thing. I can never come anywhere near landing successfully - even getting lined up with the runway is generally beyond me. In real life you have much better all round visibility and much better feedback from the controls. I'd much rather land the Pitts in real life than a 172 on MSFS (assuming of course that success in the latter mattered, which it doesn't).

n5296s

[blackace]

Once you have become a pilot by practising on MSFS, this could be your next project.

http://newsbiscuit.com/images/527.jpg

I can never come anywhere near landing successfully - even getting lined up with the runway is generally beyond me.

Why does this scare me ?

[Bob Lenahan]

uhh, six munths ago i coudn't even spell "pilot" and now I are one.

[Two's in]

Procedural Trainer = Top Tool

Flight Trainer = Spend the money on lessons

[Buster Hyman]

Just be greatful you don't have to buy an endorsement with the software!

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!]

I've got On Top and Instrument Trainer in a drawer somewhere AND I got the USB yoke too. Lesson 1 was ridiculously difficult and the stupid thing kept saying "Altitude Altitude" followed by "You failed, start again".

Maybe it was me, but I found it impossible to control. Shame really as I need an ICOMP :(



...and I can't line up with the runway either :hmm:

[TheGorrilla]

Blackace, I did that when I was 5 years old. I must be overqualified. Cooooool..... ??:{

[pulse1]

The only aircraft on MSFS that I have real experience of is the C172 and the Baron (a little).

To be honest, I have to say that, provided they are correctly trimmed, they seem remarkably similar to the real thing. The problem is that there is less incentive to trim on FS because you don't get stick loads (maybe you can if you have a good force-feed back stick). If you don't trim, then landing can be difficult, just like the real thing.

I used MSFS to help sort out my crosswind landings using the C172 and it was extremely helpful for wing down technique. Perhaps not so good for crabbing as it is quite difficult to judge the flare without the peripheral vision one normally gets.

[Micky]

Flight simulators are great to practise your scanning technics....

But as far as realisem goes...

Flying an inverted low pass over the field with the canadeir jet, half roll, pull up completed by a turn and lowering the gear and flaps all at once and still landing safly, well I don't thing I try that at work.....:}

All Simulators should have a warning like Cigaretts

ONLY TRY THIS AT HOME

:E

Micky

[Polikarpov]

I've found it very useful over the years for practicing instrument procedure - it's certainly saved me a lot more money in air time than it's cost, even with hardware upgrades!

I've never found its actual flight modeling convincing - edge-of-envelope stuff like stalls, spins, asymmetric thrust and other such useful things seem to fall foul of fairly simplistic modeling (X-plane supposedly scores better here, although I've never actually used it).

Re: finding the runway, general situation awareness and so on, I'd recommend to FS users a little gizmo called a TrackIR (http://www.naturalpoint.com/trackir/). It uses natural head movement to control view and makes things like flying a visual circuit a lot more "natural". There's a good video of this in operation on another forum (http://www.simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=54&Number=1411632&Searchpage=1&Main=162545&Words=TrackIR+BeachAV8R&topic=0&Search=true#Post1411632) (first post, link at the bottom, right-click Save-As).
Save-As).

[Cypherus]

TRACK-IR works well within the limits of the graphics card to keep up, i.e. a quick glance can often leave you way off the beam by the time the graphics catch up, running the sim in lower resolutions helps some for those with mid range cards, other than that the redering limitations in the sims leave a lot to be desired at times with distictive veiws of runways often not becoming visible untill five or six miles out and less for unlit grass strips.

I found that locating a distinctive 'Always visible' feature helped you home in on the target during visual's as for Instrument approaches, you gotta trust the machine is all and resist the temptation to look outside at all untill the last few feet, worked every time once I got the idea.