Flightsimmers, how many of you here and how do you interact it with real flying?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Loughborough Uni
Age: 37
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: up North
Posts: 661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..
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..
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...
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
'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
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Loughborough Uni
Age: 37
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Real pilots were awful when you put them down in front of the PC to fly the simulator
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.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: U.K.
Posts: 805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Edge of the fens
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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... 
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...
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.
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... 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...
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My house
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern England
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
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
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.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: U.K.
Posts: 805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
P.P.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: RSA and Surrey, UK
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: N England
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 :-)
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 :-)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Walthamstow
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Don't have much time for real flying at the moment so a few hours on the "sim" keep me happy for now.
Adam
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
Don't have much time for real flying at the moment so a few hours on the "sim" keep me happy for now.
Adam
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Loughborough Uni
Age: 37
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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
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
"Trust Me"
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Egham, UK
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: May 2001
Location: up North
Posts: 661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
"Trust Me"
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Egham, UK
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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
Absolutely agree!!
It's easier to land the real thing than FS anyway, for all the reasons you state, Jabberwok!!
DOC
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Northampton UK
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ...
).
Anyone know of a better R22 simulator?
RC
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 ...
).Anyone know of a better R22 simulator?
RC