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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

Why does this scare me ?

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

Procedural Trainer = Top Tool

Flight Trainer = Spend the money on lessons

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

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:

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

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.

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

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. 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 (first post, link at the bottom, right-click Save-As).
Save-As).

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.