Consumer sims - any use?

[double_barrel]

When I first started flying I tried reinforcing lessons with X-plane and found it worse than useless. I think it actually damaged my learning because its behaviour was so different from reality, so I binned it. It was running on a not ideal system and was sluggish and unrealistic.

Now that I (sort of) know how to handle an aircraft, I wondered about revisiting a sim to work on instrument flying, use of VORs, NDBs, ILS etc.

Does anyone have any experience or comments on this ?

[TheOddOne]

For a PC, RANT is very good as an instrument procedures trainer. Otherwise, more upmarket and more expensive is Elite. Also available are apps for your tablet. I have one just devoted to VOR tracking for not much money, which I use for showing the basics, definitely good value for money. Visit your favourite app store for details.

Whichever you choose, you need to have an instructor with you to show you what to do. That's more important than the choice of sim package.

We have an aged Frasca 142 sim which is no longer certified but those doing IR(R) or IMC courses find it very useful (and a fraction of the cost). It simulates vacuum instruments rather than a modern 'glass' EFIS but then so do the majority of training aircraft today.

TOO

[ETOPS]

Take a look at the publicity for the all new FlightSim 2020 - a step change in realism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUu_g7A6VpA

[Jan Olieslagers]

https://www.chickenwingscomics.com/comics/call-my-lawyer/ says it all :)

The one thing no PC simulator will teach is the feel in the seat of your pants. Recently I flew my little bird on our severely limited runway, and the ASI gave out. Only the feel of my seat helped me in coming in safely yet as slowly as possible, and touch down even before the numbers.

I have read many times they do have some use in training instrument procedures but I have no experience there, as a strictly VFR-only pilot.

[Fl1ingfrog]

Jan

Flying by the "seat of your pants" in IMC should not be attempted. "Feel" as with all the natural senses is unreliable and deceptive. Students of instrument flying will have such ideas removed very early on in the training.

Go back to the basics; Power + Attitude = performance and therefore it must follow Attitude + Performance = Power and to conclude Power + Performance = Attitude. So, if you lose the ASI then the job is to set the normal RPM required plus the correct attitude and the speed will be correct.

Know well the characteristics and the performance of your aeroplane especially on the approach. If the response to the control inputs is sloppy and the aeroplane is slow to respond then you are too slow. .

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I used RANT to practice each IR(R) lesson beforehand. I'm pretty sure this saved me several hours in the air and a significant amount of money.

Doesn't give a realistic flying experience, but does give you lots of practice at things like flying beacon outbound from an NDB, which can be very time consuming (and expensive) if you screw it up and have to go round the procedure for another attempt.

[double_barrel]

Jan

Flying by the "seat of your pants" in IMC should not be attempted. "Feel" as with all the natural senses is unreliable and deceptive. Students of instrument flying will have such ideas removed very early on in the training.. .

A significant fraction of the human factors theory was focussed on just that message. Ignore your senses, they are out to deceive you, trust your instruments. In this case, I am looking for a means of practicing use of instruments, with a realistic enough simulation to emulate real world instruments and external navaids, but no need to expend vast compute resources on a complete realistic environment.

I had a look at RANT - looks interesting, perhaps a bit too barebones? But no mention of hardware requirements which I take to mean that it is not very demanding.

[Less Hair]

The actual flying and feel cannot be simulated using some tiny PC. However basic IFR skills, scan patterns and such can. Just look how simple the very capable Link trainer had been in and after WW2. So doing VOR patterns at night against the wind for practice might be more useful than not flying at all during the winter or similar. That goes for not too complex singles and maybe light twins.

It's still important to stay aware what needs to be trained in real life with some instructor.

[S-Works]

At PPL VFR level a simulator is a waste of time. At IFR level they are excellent for learning procedures. I use X Plane at home and even these days I will often practice a new Instrument approach on it before I visit for work.

[Less Hair]

I'd agree x-plane is good enough for some basic IFR training. MSFS might be more entertainment minded and in the old days required enormous hardware.
(Fun fact: Had Sublogic's original FS II myself back then and could train USAF IFR procedures on my Atari ST back then - and that was a VERY basic sim)

[BigEndBob]

My sim using FSX, still a work in progress, bit further on now from this video, but when bored i can shoot off a few ILS's.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvXLrWy_LG0
Good for positional awareness.

[India Four Two]

Back in the 80s, even MS Flight Simulator V1 was quite good for IFR procedures!

Chicago Meigs Field:

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/640x400/msfs1_00_0004_30cbc3aaf9e1bf0a18a981ad5a4c4ecaa261ae91.png

From this fascinating web site:
Flight Simulator History Website - History of Microsoft Flight Simulator (http://josef.havlik.sweb.cz/historyenglish.htm)

[First_Principal]

More than ten years ago now I made a full-size FTD that was a facsimile of a 172 cockpit (since this was the most common training a/c, and we had one or more on line). It utilised M$ FS2004 as the engine, and Opencockpits interfaces to the instruments that I designed and built myself.

We used this for instrument training, and corrective training for some VFR procedures (for example explaining and practising crosswind landing techniques). It was also used in a cockpit familiarisation role.

It was found to be quite effective and successful in assisting a number of pilots through to completion of their various licenses.

A better software engine would have been good, I did try X-plane but (as much as I dislike M$) FS2004 seemed to fit the bill better. FS-X was no real improvement for our purposes but, having just been alerted to it by ETOPS post I will be interested to see what FS2020 offers. Although the flying school I made this for is, sadly, long gone I'm still more interested in accuracy of flight characteristics than how wizzy the scenery looks...

Just to finish, coming back to the OP's question, I had peripheral involvement in simulator research at Varsity (loosely for NASA IIRC), and significantly more later on. In my view, if you use it wisely, a simple version on a PC or whatever would be of some benefit to you in augmenting your instrument training, it would not and should not take the place of 'real' cockpit work!

FP.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I'm still more interested in accuracy of flight characteristics than how wizzy the scenery looks...
I did try a VFR flight simulator once upon a time. It was back in the days when scenery was generic, so the field shapes etc didn't match reality, and in particular the main navigational aids that week - which of the fields were bright yellow rape - were completely missing. I didn't bother trying it again.

[Less Hair]

Better do some glider flying if you want to learn the physics of flight. No PC sim can teach you the feel and forces of flying. However systems, navigation and procedures can be way better modeled.

[First_Principal]

I did try a VFR flight simulator once upon a time. It was back in the days when scenery was generic, so the field shapes etc didn't match reality, and in particular the main navigational aids that week - which of the fields were bright yellow rape - were completely missing. I didn't bother trying it again.

Mind you, the pilots of yesteryear had it worse in their Link trainers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_Trainer) - not even an attempt at scenery :}

[MacLaren1]

Technology is moving fast.

As a PPL with night and IMC ratings, plus many years gliding/ motor gliding, I can highly recommend a VR headset and force feedback yoke. The experience is staggeringly immersive, placing you right "in" the cockpit.

I use a Rift with a Brunner yoke. The yoke vibrates when taxying across grass, and truly comes alive in flight, providing servo-driven feedback during all stages. Forces are adaptable to suit your particular needs. Aerobatics are particularly fun, as is the ability to "fly" any aircraft from any airport.

Boys and toys... :-)

[double_barrel]

Technology is moving fast.

As a PPL with night and IMC ratings, plus many years gliding/ motor gliding, I can highly recommend a VR headset and force feedback yoke. The experience is staggeringly immersive, placing you right "in" the cockpit.

I use a Rift with a Brunner yoke. The yoke vibrates when taxying across grass, and truly comes alive in flight, providing servo-driven feedback during all stages. Forces are adaptable to suit your particular needs. Aerobatics are particularly fun, as is the ability to "fly" any aircraft from any airport.

Boys and toys... :-)

With what sim? What sort of cost for a system like that?

[MacLaren1]

Broadly, you need:

- A beefy gaming PC (you can build one for half the price of a commercial one - if I can do it, anyone can - all parts from Overclockers and build demonstrations on Youtube). This cost me around £2.5k around two years ago (probably MUCH cheaper now (maybe even half the price), with a greater choice of off-the-shelf models, and bear in mind you don't need two graphics cards (Flyinside, below, uses only one))
- A Rift with hand controls - cost around £500 (again cheaper now - I think around £400)
- Brunner yoke - around 1100 Euros (plus VAT - just when you think you have got away with it, the bill will arrive in the post from the VAT man around a month later!!!)
- Foot pedals (from cheap to expensive - not so important)
- Software - Microsoft FSX (cheaper if bought through Steam) or XPlane (I have both - they are very different); Flyinside (which make both work in 3D); plus any scenery ad-ons (strictly not essential, but I have for Shoreham and Goodwood on FSX - beautifully rendered); pls any special aircraft (I have a TB10/20 for FSX - it's spookily real), but can switch to anything from Cubs to 747s (built in to the existing software packages)

Yes, expensive, but mind-blowingly fun.

Much more info on the flight sim forums, or PM me if you want detailed specs :-)