Microsoft Flight Simulator - How Similar to real thing?

[rexmundi]

Am quite chuffed with myself doing 737 ILS landings on the FSX without crashing! But have a question for real pilots who may have tried it on FSX and a real 737-800 how does it compare? Would I be able to land the real thing now? :eek:

[99jolegg]

No, you wouldn't. Although for educational purposes, it can be useful, the three dimensional feeling, and completely different power and handling scenarios as well as the way the feel of speed is programmed in the sim amongst a host of other things, means you'd find it impossible. Interestingly, it seems that professional pilots find it difficult to fly the sim without crashing which suggests it's more to do with a separate skill to real world aviation.

Read this, interesting thread:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/professional-pilot-training-includes-ground-studies/307410-microsoft-flight-simulator-x.html

[Founder]

I've tried the A320 on FSX and X-Plane and the flaps and power settings are all wrong... the flaps generate way too much lift and the nose position is not correct compared to the real thing.

The side-stick does not work in the correct way either...

I'd say it's about 20% realistic in terms of how the aircraft feels like when flying...

[diddy1234]

I would imagine that all pc based flight sims would come no where near the real thing.

I am not a pilot so I can't be sure, however taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture you wouldn't want it that realistic so that the next 9/11 attack could be planned through FS2004 on a home pc.

maybe I am over worried but I wouldn't want a simulator (for home use) that realistic so that sick people could practice and do something terrible.

just my 2 cents worth ....

RD

[rexmundi]

The first version flew of flight sim was FS3 as a kid in the early 90s! The flight model does not seem to have changed much since then 7 versions later,just the graphics. Am halfway through PPL, bad habits of staring at instruments and keeping incorrect attitude, I blame on too much flight sim gaming!

[G SXTY]

Would I be able to land the real thing now?

Nope.

Flightsim is pretty poor at modelling a Cessna 172's dynamics, never mind something big and fast. At the end of the day it's a £50 pc simulator.

Real-world weather, pitch-power couples, stabilised approaches, trimming, sensitive power levers - there's a big long list of things you need to be very familiar with to successfully land an airliner, and you won't learn much about these from flightsim.

[GeorgEGNT]

I've been told by my PPL instructor to cut down with using flight simulator as you pick up bad habits for example. When I first got taught how to land, and in my first few circuits, I was flaring far too high as my mind had trained my brain to do this automatically from flying 747's on flight simulator. My instructor could actually tell and asked me after a landing "Do you use flight sim?" etc etc

I personally dont think its very realistic flight wise, you cant feel a thing for a start lol. I use it to practise checklists now, when I'm trying to memorise them etc, but thats about it. Flight sim still is very fun tho!

[oversteer]

^^ I have one of those twisty-rudder joysticks and every now and then play about on FS with PMDG's 747 (an excellent bit of software).

I've recently started glider flying and - despite being 8-10 hours in - the other day I found myself attempting to twist the stick of a K13 in order to move the rudder, wondering why the aircraft was refusing to turn! :O

[SNS3Guppy]

I don't know that the computer games (they're not simulators) really compare. I haven't much to do with them. My son has been having a ball with one of the PC based flight computer games, and today I had a go with it. I've got a fair amount of experience in similiar aircraft to what was on the game, but I managed to crash the airplane on the game three times in a row and gave back to my son. He thoroughly enjoyed watching me crash and laughed his head off.

You may find the same thing applies going the other way. Flying the "simulator" games doesn't particularly prepare you for the real thing, either. The difference is that one can reset the game any time one likes. After crashing in the airplane, this is definitely not the case.

[P.Pilcher]

P.C. flight sims are excellent proceedural trainers, i.e. they enable you to practice some of the basics of instrument flying very effectively which enables very rapid progress to be made in the aircraft. It is also therefore very cost effective. With larger aircraft a well written sim program can be a useful aid in learning procedures with the aircraft systems.
Using such sims for visual flying, particularly the landing phase is not to be advised as the sim does not provide sufficient visual cues, and as has been pointed out, encourages pilots to keep their eyes in the cockpit - not a good idea in a busy circuit!

P.P.

[cats_five]

I have one of those twisty-rudder joysticks and every now and then play about on FS with PMDG's 747 (an excellent bit of software).

I've recently started glider flying and - despite being 8-10 hours in - the other day I found myself attempting to twist the stick of a K13 in order to move the rudder, wondering why the aircraft was refusing to turn! :O

Hope you aren't relying on the rudder to turn your glider....

[HuntandFish]

I suspects not many readers of this thread are interested in RC model aircraft but Ill ignore that !
Simulators are great for practising model flying fixed or rotary wing . As models are flown almost entirely on one sense ie vision they are pretty realistic . There is an exellent free one called FMS . So providing the characteristics of your simulator model are a reasonable match to your physical model you can practice tricky manouvers without expensive repair bills .
Im currently trying to perfect whats called nose in hovering with a Heli . I guess its a bit like trying to fly a full sized heli sitting backwards looking at the tail .

[One9iner]

I have to agree that MFS is good to familiarise yourself with the basic instruments and procedures but in terms of handling, especially during landing it isn't a big help...

Has anyone seen the new sim on google earth ? Its useless as a sim tool however in terms of graphics it's unbelievable.. If you download the most current version of google earth.. zoom in on an area i.e. over your house and then press 'Ctrl' 'Alt' 'A' at the same time, you're presented with a menu screen. Options are to fly a light aircraft or a militatry jet, either from a limited number of airfiled around the world or to begin flying from your current position..

As I say it's useless as a sim tool but very realistic graphics when flying around terrain such as snowdonia and quite strange being able to fly around your own home...:D

[oversteer]

Hope you aren't relying on the rudder to turn your glider....

Of course not, the rudder turns that little bit of string on the top of the canopy! ;)

[HeathrowAirport]

By no means- You want Realism in a flightsim

Level D 767
PMDG 747
SSTSIM Concorde

By Far the most realistic and best add-ons going.

[BigEndBob]

Have a student who has used pc flight sims a lot. He's done about seven hours now actual flying and would be quite happy to send him solo if only he needs a little more exposure to reality. Had no problem landing aircraft from the first attempt.

Having used flight sims myself they tend to be twitchy and lack the inertia of a real aircraft. Certainly the VSI's tend to be very optomistic.

[Captain_djaffar]

Using flight simulators for pc,even pro software like msf9\x or x-plane can only enhance your navigational skills to a certain limit.

dynamics in reality and in desktop sims are different,and are difficult to reproduce.

Microsoft flight simulators alone isnt really interesting.If you want some good experience and nice realism,you should buy some add-on aircrafts such as level-d 767 ( with 98% full working system,fmc,hydraulics exactly as on the real aircraft,iris,electrics,nav,AP).

Or even the ATR-72 (i recommend this one)from flight one,developed in collaboration with the real ATR company in toulouse.

they arent that expensive if you consider having nice moments;););)

[E.Z. Flyer]

I think the (free download (http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulatorx/flash/default.htm)) demo of FSX is quite fun and informational. It does well to simulate avionics to the extent that you can learn for example the Garmin 500 system or any other system that FSX supports. I had always wanted to become familiar with GPS and FSX enabled that interest.

Procedural matters or that you can focus on the flight path and learn to plan routes out is a good start. I'm able to fly hands free because I figured out how to preset the GPS, cruise speed, and altitude settings in a way that lets the plane simply fly the prescribed heading or GPS track. Just activate the auto-pilot(s) in sequence, with the VSI set for climb out and you’re off (alt/on). Landing with the auto-pilot enabled is hit or miss as far as the centerline goes but never the less I doubt many pilots landing Princess Juliana Intl have ever rolled the wheels off the water before rolling onto runway 9 and that's the kind of experience you just can't touch with the real thing.

The most remarkable aspect of Flight Simulator is the world wide following of enthusiast. Absolutely amazing, from the point of view of how hobbyist and programmers have joined forces and created models of most everything that has ever flown. What's more is the real time flight environment where some play the role of air traffic control and others have formed the makings of their own virtual airline. Each year there is the race around the world. With FSX one can fly with real time weather updates via Jepson. No turbines unless they're props and limited to two engines. Otherwise, you can use any multi-engine non-turbo prop aircraft.

At this point the interface again allows for the use of real time flight planning and now I would say you're on to something. Flying is one discipline, and flight planning is as much the same skill level if not more so when reviewing weather patterns and how to best hold a course through such conditions.

Of all the simulation programs out there then generally speaking flight simulator has been around the longest for over 25 years. That in itself speaks volumes for the program. What's more is today the full version of Flight Simulator is so resource intense for most computers it also serves as a great gauge to measure how well your computer system is operating.

The downfall is you can spend more time flying the simulator than many other aspects of life that genuinely demand more attention. But then again, not everyone understands the rigors of circumnavigating the earth.

:sad:

[Shunter]

Have a friend who's big into simming. Spends weeks designing various add-on aircraft for it, and regularly takes off from LHR in a 747, puts A/P on, goes to bed, then gets up and lands it whilst eating his corn flakes at LAX. He's very good at it.

Will he come up flying in the real thing? Will he chuff!

Only thing I've found PC sims useful for is instrument work. Especially setting the weather to "atrocious" and remembering how to work out drift components in your head etc..

[boofhead]

Was doing a multi rating flight with a student in a crappy old PA23, one engine throttled back, turbulent and he is on the hood, chatting to me and flying the ILS. I actually tapped the OBS because it was locked rock solid both needles centred all the way down the glideslope. I can hardly do this VFR with two engines.
I asked him how he managed it and he seemed to think it was not unusual, since it was something he was doing for years on MSFS.

[P.Pilcher]

Although not being a "fly on the wall" during that flight, it is difficult to comment, but the results obtained by students who have had a lot of computer flight simulator practice can be startling, so what you say doesn't suprise me.

P.P.

[Saab Dastard]

I gave up spending any time on FS because I found during training that I was too much "head-in" and relying on the AI rather than the horizon! I think that it is very easy to fall into some bad habits for VFR, although I agree 100% that FS is a very useful aid indeed for instrument training / currency.

SD

[Blues&twos]

I have found as a MSFS player that I try to "chase" the instruments when I fly for real (student).

Look out of the window - smooth(ish) level flight, watch the dials - it all goes wobbly and sine-wavey.

[P.Pilcher]

Sounds like one of the standard problems associated with learning to fly on intruments to me!

P.P.

[Keef]

I use X-Plane regularly for IFR practice. It's pretty good for that, with all the Navaids etc installed and doing the right thing, and with the option to fail bits.
I can't land it off an ILS, though - I can get to decision height with the needles close to the right place, but there it ends. It seems to require quite different handling to the "real" thing for the landing bit.

For VFR, I would say it's a definite liability - it teaches you to fly "head-in" and is hopeless for the important bits (such as landing).

I've not tried the latest MS offerings, but when I tried the "demo" of X-Plane after some time using MSFS, it was a different world. MS came off the PC and hasn't been used since.

[rick0]

It can be very 'similar' to the real thing.. you just need a lot of very expensive addons!

the default stuff is absolute crap. The addons are where the real 'realism' is.

http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/8224/56321082wk4.jpg

screen of a 737NG i've got coming into Kai Tak.. a far cry of what most people percieve MSFS is like, perhaps?

[Jimmy Macintosh]

I find it looks good and in the middle of the envelope it flies ok, edges of the envelope you can forget about any level of realism.

But the biggest thing, it's boring, I have a great system with lots of add-ons, it looks great flies smoothly, but anything above a 15 minute flight to another airport or circuits etc. it gets tedious. I always end up low flying, performing aeros, or some ridiculous manoeuvre to land.

Stick me in a cessna/piper and I can fly for four hours cross country and love every minute of it. Same thing on the sim and I'll be bored beyond belief.

As it has been said before, for any real use procedural training and familarisation is the best you can use it for to reinforce actual flight.

[Blues&twos]

So on a slight thread drift, but still related to pretend flying....is it worth spending out to have a go on a full motion flight simulator for an hour, just as a one off (I'm never going to get to fly an Airbus/Boeing for real...unless someting really bad happens) or better for me to spend the cash on more time in the humble PA28?

My feeling is that I'd love to try out the sim, but I also love "proper" flying...for the cash spent on the sim, I could go up several times in the genuine plane, have some fun and get more experience.

I'm not a millionaire either, otherwise I'd have done the sim thing already.

[Keef]

I find X-Plane (and any sim) incredibly boring compared with flying the real thing. But I can sharpen up my IFR on the sim for a lot less money (read, zero cost) and that has a lot going for it when you're a pensioner like me ;)

My X-Plane config doesn't have the peripherals to qualify as a valid sim for logging purposes (something X-Plane can do, and MSFS cannot), but I don't need the hours or the log - I just need to keep sharp. I keep the ratings valid the hard way, in the sky.

[Jimmy Macintosh]

Blues & Twos,

A level D full motion sim is an excellent idea, if you have the money and inclination. A long time ago (when the Tornado TTTE was based at Cottesmore) I had a go in the full motion sim without visuals, it was excellent. I believe that the experience would be one that you would enjoy a lot. As you said it doesn't hold much value for the future you mention but it'll be a lot of fun.
If I had the money I would shout for a trip in a good sim. It'll only knock a dent of a couple of hours out of your real flying but as you say, you'll never get a shot in the heavy metal otherwise.

[Blues&twos]

Thanks JM, you're right, experiences are worth it (you're a long time dead and all that). I am considering going to Virtual Aviation.....once I've finished paying my car off in a couple of months.

[OLNEY2d]

This thread reminds me of a very amusing exchange relayed to me by a good friend; once a hoary old captain on 1-11s and now a part-time flying instructor.

2000ft up, somewhere over north bucks and he's taking a low hours student through some basic manouevres. He makes some helpful technique suggestions to the student following some sloppy flying. This had little effect on the quality of airmanship and the student seemed to be becoming increasingly agitated.

Eventually the student blurted out:

"Look, I know what I'm doing !"

followed by a brief pause, he then went on to assert:

"Last night, I cross-winded a BMI Fokker 70 into Kai-tak, at night, with a cloud base of 500ft...on my sim"

My friend, with the patience and timing that only age and experience can afford said:

"That's great, it really is... Now, if you could just manage a balanced left turn in this Tomahawk..."


Nice.