Home 'simulators'
Thread Starter
Home 'simulators'
Hello fellow aviators.
I am after some advise, please.
I have been exploring the merits of buying a small home flight sim. Nothing fancy, just yoke, thrust levers and pedals (plus x-plane software). It would mean a small investment below $600 that I am happy to pay.
My reasons for considering this is to improve my scan rate, practice non-normals and generally improve my preparation for the ever looming sim checks that seem to come around all too soon.
Has anyone else gone down this path or have any recommendations?
I am after some advise, please.
I have been exploring the merits of buying a small home flight sim. Nothing fancy, just yoke, thrust levers and pedals (plus x-plane software). It would mean a small investment below $600 that I am happy to pay.
My reasons for considering this is to improve my scan rate, practice non-normals and generally improve my preparation for the ever looming sim checks that seem to come around all too soon.
Has anyone else gone down this path or have any recommendations?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been simming since long before I got my PPL, and that was many years ago (but not as many as many others.)
Between FSX or X-plane, it's a toss up. X-plane has fewer issues with weird aircraft handling. FSX has a larger library of good, complex 3-rd party add-ons. X-plane has better aircraft handling, and much better performance on the same hardware. The X-plane's top-of-the-line 3rd party add ons are just as good as the FSX ones, but there's not as many of them.
Both are crap for actually feeling a light aircraft. They're really best for practising procedures, approaches, nav, etc, with the autopilot on.
Prepar3d (yes, with the stupid 3 in it) replaces FSX and the performance is much better and is compatible with most (but not all) FSX add ons, but version 2 is still new and kinda buggy.
Personally, I use X-plane, but never to really fly a light aircraft, just for chasing nav and shooting approaches with the A/P on, and often in aircraft much larger than I'll ever really fly.
As for hardware, I recently switched from joystick + throttle (fighter HOTAS style) to a yoke, throttle, and rudder. The yoke definitely makes stable flying easier. The rudder makes cross-wind landings easier, but, again, don't think that's how a real airplane will fly. (In particular, there's some weird bug in me or in FSX, I can never sustain a slip properly in it.)
Between FSX or X-plane, it's a toss up. X-plane has fewer issues with weird aircraft handling. FSX has a larger library of good, complex 3-rd party add-ons. X-plane has better aircraft handling, and much better performance on the same hardware. The X-plane's top-of-the-line 3rd party add ons are just as good as the FSX ones, but there's not as many of them.
Both are crap for actually feeling a light aircraft. They're really best for practising procedures, approaches, nav, etc, with the autopilot on.
Prepar3d (yes, with the stupid 3 in it) replaces FSX and the performance is much better and is compatible with most (but not all) FSX add ons, but version 2 is still new and kinda buggy.
Personally, I use X-plane, but never to really fly a light aircraft, just for chasing nav and shooting approaches with the A/P on, and often in aircraft much larger than I'll ever really fly.
As for hardware, I recently switched from joystick + throttle (fighter HOTAS style) to a yoke, throttle, and rudder. The yoke definitely makes stable flying easier. The rudder makes cross-wind landings easier, but, again, don't think that's how a real airplane will fly. (In particular, there's some weird bug in me or in FSX, I can never sustain a slip properly in it.)
Thread Starter
Thanks for the replies so far.
I have a mac, so thought x-plane might be the easier (and the E190 add on looks pretty good).
I was hoping that practicing flying at the desk would help my general handling as I have a pretty patchy roster and seem to be getting rusty as a result.
Does anyone think this could be a good path to take?
I have a mac, so thought x-plane might be the easier (and the E190 add on looks pretty good).
I was hoping that practicing flying at the desk would help my general handling as I have a pretty patchy roster and seem to be getting rusty as a result.
Does anyone think this could be a good path to take?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hamburg
Age: 46
Posts: 432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my view, PC based "flight simulators" offer very little value for money, especially when compared to chair flying in front of a cockpit poster. I would even go so far as to say memorising procedures is easier without the help of MS flight sim and the like.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have found flying a planned cross country exercise the day before on a PC simulator is an amazing preparation when I did it one time, but I only did it once ai was sure I knew how to navigate for real.
Also, excellent practice for such old fashioned but challenging IFR training such as NDB tracking and approaches.
However, you are a much more advanced professional pilot, given your sim checks etc, so I can't comment on how much it would help you.
Also, excellent practice for such old fashioned but challenging IFR training such as NDB tracking and approaches.
However, you are a much more advanced professional pilot, given your sim checks etc, so I can't comment on how much it would help you.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vienna
Age: 50
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can pretty much second what slam525i and rjtjrt have written: useless for training airplane handling, but quite useful and fun for practicing procedures if used appropriately. FSX/Fs9/Prepar3d or X-Plane (both with good addons preferably) matters little to nil. For home-based IFR training, it appears that there is an even better PC software named Rant, but I have never tried it so cannot comment.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Northern Europe
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am using X-plane for procedural IFR training. I am in the process of renewing an IR that lapsed many years ago, and I've found even a PC simulator to be a tremendous help. In fact, I find X-plane to be about as good for training as the approved FNPT I simulator that my flight school uses. The major practical difference being that I don't have a physical panel with knobs to twist and buttons to push. And of course that the FNPT I comes with an instructor. The 180° visuals on the FNPT I are nice, but for IFR training, they really don't contribute much.
Whether you use a yoke or joystick is a matter of taste, although you will need reasonable quality stuff. A proper throttle lever is also a must -- you don't want to fiddle with the mouse or keyboard for power changes. Also you will need to configure the simulator to put the most important controls (like pitch trim) on the buttons provided with the yoke or throttle.
Some posters have commented that you could just as well use the sim on autopilot or use RANT XL. This is simply not true. To learn how procedures work -- sure. In that case RANT XL is probably the best choice. But actually flying them is a different matter altogether.
In actual flight you have to have a proper scan to keep the aircraft right side up and at the right speed, altitude (or descent rate) and heading (or turn rate). This at the same time as you need to figure out intercepts, read the CDI/HSI, figure out QDR/QDM etc. The cognitive load needed to do this is properly is much higher that just telling the autopilot what do to.
It is true that a simulator such as X-plane doesn't handle exactly like the real thing, but I've found that it is close enough. (I'm talking light aircraft here.) Certainly, it doesn't handle worse then the approved FNPT I mentioned above (which is -- incidentally -- based on Microsoft FS).
The major difference I've noticed is that the simulator is much less stable in pitch that the real thing. It has a tendency to get into pitch oscillations -- particularly after trim changes -- that are reasonably hard to break.
Speaking of trim changes -- since the yoke you get on a PC sim is spring-loaded to a particular position and does not have any feedback, changing the pitch trim does not actually change the neutral point of the yoke. The position of the simulated elevator is determined by the sum of the yoke and trim positions.
Thus to trim up -- e.g. for a power reduction -- in a real aircraft you would keep the yoke at the same position and trim until you don't need to use any force to hold it. In a simulator, you will have to move the yoke in the opposite direction and simultaneously as you change the trim. This is a real pain which can lead to major pitch excursions. Of course, you learn eventually, but this is a skill which is of zero use in a real aircraft.
A final comment: you'll need to check the instrument setup carefully. I started out using the standard Cessna 172 which comes with X-plane. I noticed quickly that the DG was slaved, which I didn't want (as most aircraft I fly don't have slaved DG's). Fortunately I found that you could change this, but then I noticed that the separate RMI was still slaved although the DG was not! Again, fortunately, you can replace the RMI with an unslaved RBI. I also did various other small changes to the avionics.
Whether you use a yoke or joystick is a matter of taste, although you will need reasonable quality stuff. A proper throttle lever is also a must -- you don't want to fiddle with the mouse or keyboard for power changes. Also you will need to configure the simulator to put the most important controls (like pitch trim) on the buttons provided with the yoke or throttle.
Some posters have commented that you could just as well use the sim on autopilot or use RANT XL. This is simply not true. To learn how procedures work -- sure. In that case RANT XL is probably the best choice. But actually flying them is a different matter altogether.
In actual flight you have to have a proper scan to keep the aircraft right side up and at the right speed, altitude (or descent rate) and heading (or turn rate). This at the same time as you need to figure out intercepts, read the CDI/HSI, figure out QDR/QDM etc. The cognitive load needed to do this is properly is much higher that just telling the autopilot what do to.
It is true that a simulator such as X-plane doesn't handle exactly like the real thing, but I've found that it is close enough. (I'm talking light aircraft here.) Certainly, it doesn't handle worse then the approved FNPT I mentioned above (which is -- incidentally -- based on Microsoft FS).
The major difference I've noticed is that the simulator is much less stable in pitch that the real thing. It has a tendency to get into pitch oscillations -- particularly after trim changes -- that are reasonably hard to break.
Speaking of trim changes -- since the yoke you get on a PC sim is spring-loaded to a particular position and does not have any feedback, changing the pitch trim does not actually change the neutral point of the yoke. The position of the simulated elevator is determined by the sum of the yoke and trim positions.
Thus to trim up -- e.g. for a power reduction -- in a real aircraft you would keep the yoke at the same position and trim until you don't need to use any force to hold it. In a simulator, you will have to move the yoke in the opposite direction and simultaneously as you change the trim. This is a real pain which can lead to major pitch excursions. Of course, you learn eventually, but this is a skill which is of zero use in a real aircraft.
A final comment: you'll need to check the instrument setup carefully. I started out using the standard Cessna 172 which comes with X-plane. I noticed quickly that the DG was slaved, which I didn't want (as most aircraft I fly don't have slaved DG's). Fortunately I found that you could change this, but then I noticed that the separate RMI was still slaved although the DG was not! Again, fortunately, you can replace the RMI with an unslaved RBI. I also did various other small changes to the avionics.
