My $.02-- FS2004 is good enough for procedures and scan. Don't bother
buying a yoke or pedals. Use a cheap "gamepad" type controller with
thumb-joystick (instead of a grip/wrist joystick). Go to "user
controlled weather, advanced" and turn turbulence to max, both on the
clouds panel and the winds panel. Give yourself a 30 knot crosswind
while you're at it.

I also used X-plane and On Top, but settled on FS2004... no experience
with Elite though.

--
Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

John Clonts wrote:
> My $.02-- FS2004 is good enough for procedures and scan. Don't bother
> buying a yoke or pedals. Use a cheap "gamepad" type controller with
> thumb-joystick (instead of a grip/wrist joystick). Go to "user
> controlled weather, advanced" and turn turbulence to max, both on the
> clouds panel and the winds panel. Give yourself a 30 knot crosswind
> while you're at it.

agreed. If you already have MSFS, just stick with it. No need
to spend any more. I got a cheap joystick that I could
use with my left hand. Most are made fighter-pilot style using
your righthand. As for the turbulence and winds, save those
for later on. First get you scan going. My CFII had me
doing a clover leaf pattern (name?) at set airspeeds and
vertical speeds. This is what simulators are good for. The
one thing that MSFS is bad for is true power settings for a performance.
Generally, learn what power settings give you a performance and
then use it on the flight sim but not in the actual airplane. Doesn't
really matter in reality though on the simulator.

Gerald

Bruno,
We started with MS FS 2002/2004 then gave Xplane a try. After trying
out the Elite program when checking out a Flight school, we bought the
program along with the IFR training manual It was worth every penny and
more. We got our instrument ratings two weeks ago but still plan to
continue using it for practices before every instrument flight.
You can download the demo program (fully functional but with 5 minute
time limit) to give it a try. Aside from the IFR training syllabus,
Elite also offer Instrument approach scenarios which are also quite
helpful.
Regarding hardware, we started with a joystick and rudder pedals then
replaced the joystick with the CH flight yoke. The joystick worked OK
but the yoke seemed to be closer to flying our plane.
Hai Longworth

Bruno wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I'm following an airline pilot course in Belgium, and I'm to begin with the
> IFR training next week in a FNPT2 simulator.

Don't waste your money on On Top or IP Trainer like I did. The
products don't work on any of the PC's I've tried them on and ASA
tech support is non-existant.

What about the fact that Elite uses an old GPS box that is clunky,
difficult to use, and not even on the market any longer?

Also, as I recall, all user waypoints are lost when exiting the program.

Sure, I realize they have a Garmin interface if you have all their
expensive hardware, but no one at home would have that stuff.

I find Elite, at least for home use, stuck in the VOR/ILS/DME daze.

" wrote:

> Bruno,
> We started with MS FS 2002/2004 then gave Xplane a try. After trying
> out the Elite program when checking out a Flight school, we bought the
> program along with the IFR training manual It was worth every penny and
> more. We got our instrument ratings two weeks ago but still plan to
> continue using it for practices before every instrument flight.
> You can download the demo program (fully functional but with 5 minute
> time limit) to give it a try. Aside from the IFR training syllabus,
> Elite also offer Instrument approach scenarios which are also quite
> helpful.
> Regarding hardware, we started with a joystick and rudder pedals then
> replaced the joystick with the CH flight yoke. The joystick worked OK
> but the yoke seemed to be closer to flying our plane.
> Hai Longworth

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Bruno wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I'm following an airline pilot course in Belgium, and I'm to begin
>> with the IFR training next week in a FNPT2 simulator.
>
>
> Don't waste your money on On Top or IP Trainer like I did. The
> products don't work on any of the PC's I've tried them on and ASA
> tech support is non-existant.
I continue to use IPTrainer and have bought several upgrades. Version
6.0c is more stable than earlier versions, especially the older ones
that actually used a DOS memory manager.

Flying the lessons with IPT is challenging because it doesn't allow even
momentary errors. If you slip up on a minor detail right at the end of
the lesson, you must redo the entire lesson from the beginning. That
leads to boredom and little training. I have never made it through
flying "Plan A". Has anyone gotten all the way through?

"Bruno" > wrote in message
...
> Dear All,
>
> I'm following an airline pilot course in Belgium, and I'm to begin with
the
> IFR training next week in a FNPT2 simulator. Therefore, I would like to
use
> a computer based simulator to train the procedures at home, but I don't
> really know what's the best of Flight Simulator 2004 that I own, On Top
8.0
> that costs about 100 US dollars or Elite 8.0 that cost much more (about
250
> dollars).
>
> Could those of you who know those pc based simulators tell me if it's
worst
> paying for it, or if the Flight Simulator 2004 will be enough?
>
> Thank you for your help,
>
> Bruno,
> Brussels

I bought Elite many years ago. It works very well, I've never had any
complaints with it. It flies exactly like the airplanes I've flown. The
one complaint I remember someone else making is that it didn't model the
effect of fuel load on aircraft performance. Whether that is still true in
version 8, I don't know. I never noticed the lack of fuel load modeling in
my sim flying.

When I bought ELITE, it was far more expensive. I have always thought it
was worth every penny. I have no prospect of flying jets, but I'm tempted
to buy the Jet version to get closer to that sort of challenge.

I can't speak to the question if you need it or if you can get sufficient
training benefit from Flight Sim or the other programs. I was able to use
Flight Sim to visualize certain radio navigation elements. At the time I
was able to get some benefit without being able to competently hand fly the
flight sim by yoke. I thought watching the flight sim panel was invaluable
in learning my scan. Perhaps that's the primary benefit and nothing more
than flight sim is necessary for that.

One thing that I liked about ELITE was that while flying it I never found
myself blaming my clumsy technique as a student on the sim and thinking "if
only I had that better program." At the time, ELITE was the most accurate
flight model, perhaps with the fuel load exception, and there didn't seem to
be a clear better choice. I probably would have bought the Jepp product but
remember it seemed to be a bit more generic and less specific to the 172 in
some ways I can't now remember. I think it's since been bought or sold and
maybe vanished in the market.

--
Scott

Tim,
I do not believe that having a more modern GPS is essential for
IFR training. My husband started IFR training a year before me. He
used MS FS in conjunction with a traditional training program. In
witnessing his slow progress, I decided to spend time with a good
simulator program like Elite before starting mine. The structured
training syllabus was of tremendous help for me to get a feel of
instrument flying. After spending two weeks finishing up all the
lessons on the simulator, I resumed my book learning for the written
test. We then doing some hoodtime serving as each other's safety
pilot. When we took the accelerated IFR training course with Bill
Zaleski, very little time was spend on his PCATD. After 5 days, he
talked us into trying for the checkride. I believe that our practices
on the Elite, the many great books that we read (Gardner's, Dogan's,
Sollman's, Butcher's etc.) along with our own practices in our plane
had prepared us well for the actual training.
Our plane currently does not have a certified GPS, we plan to add
it in the near future. In the meantime, the basic VOR/ILS/localizer
etc. serve us well in our instrument flying.

Hai Longworth

I use On Top to do refresher work and find it helpful, but there are
some things I definitely don't like about it.
1. The Arrow power model has no relation to actual power settings in a
real Arrow.
2. The GPS is nearly useless. You have to put your own approach fixes
into the database, though it does remember them when you shut down.
3. The avionics panel has to be switched on and off. When it's on, it
covers the CDI. I rationalize this extra workload to compensate for
the fact that I'm not talking to ATC.

I do like the ability to "re-fly" the flight to review how well I did
holds and approaches.

Stubby wrote:

> Flying the lessons with IPT is challenging because it doesn't allow even
> momentary errors. If you slip up on a minor detail right at the end of
> the lesson, you must redo the entire lesson from the beginning. That
> leads to boredom and little training. I have never made it through
> flying "Plan A". Has anyone gotten all the way through?

I wouldn't know. It has never operated long enough for me to get
through more than the first few lessons. It's a piece of crap and
a waste of over $300 for the pair.

Gotta wonder how the many thousands of purchasers of On Top have swallowed
their dismay and neglected to write letters to the editor, to ASA, to the
Better Business Bureau, to Aviation Consumer, et al, complaining about being
ripped off? Seems to me that a product so deeply flawed would have been
bad-mouthed so widely that ASA would have pulled it off the market. You seem
to be the only person unhappy with the product.

Bob Gardner

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> Bruno wrote:
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I'm following an airline pilot course in Belgium, and I'm to begin with
>> the IFR training next week in a FNPT2 simulator.
>
> Don't waste your money on On Top or IP Trainer like I did. The products
> don't work on any of the PC's I've tried them on and ASA
> tech support is non-existant.

Bruno wrote:

> Thank you very much for your answers.
> I think I'll try on FS2004 for the moment.
>
> Bruno
>
>
But what about the quality of the lessons? I like IFT because the
"CFI" speaks so that I don't have to read instructions while I'm
concentrating on the instruments.

Bob Gardner wrote:
> Gotta wonder how the many thousands of purchasers of On Top have swallowed
> their dismay and neglected to write letters to the editor, to ASA, to the
> Better Business Bureau, to Aviation Consumer, et al, complaining about being
> ripped off? Seems to me that a product so deeply flawed would have been
> bad-mouthed so widely that ASA would have pulled it off the market. You seem
> to be the only person unhappy with the product.
>
Nope, others have complained as well. Many just take their lumps and
deal with the fact that the thing was designed for Windows 95 with
a specific card in mind and doesn't work well with modern machines.
I will continue to complain until ASA either delivers me an updated
product that works or returns the money they stole from me for this
disaster product. While ASA occasionally sends mem an email in
response to my repeated complaints, they have yet to do either
one of the above mentioned remedies.

So far I've managed to pay in excess of $300 for Trevor Thom's book
(the only useful part of the whole package, but not really worth
more than about $50).

In article >,
>> Flying the lessons with IPT is challenging because it doesn't allow even
>> momentary errors. If you slip up on a minor detail right at the end of
>> the lesson, you must redo the entire lesson from the beginning. That
>> leads to boredom and little training. I have never made it through
>> flying "Plan A". Has anyone gotten all the way through?
>
>I wouldn't know. It has never operated long enough for me to get
>through more than the first few lessons. It's a piece of crap and
>a waste of over $300 for the pair.

I've got On Top and IP Trainier (old old verisons, got them when winME
was new forget verison). I basically can't run them on my new system.
However, I have an old win98 system that I use for genlocking and they
both work fine on it.
Both programs really need to be updated to work with win32s, but they
can run under winXP/win2k. It just takes a lot of playing with the
settings.

Bob's irony aside, Jackie (the product manager at ASA) is well aware that the
application needs a rip-up and re-do. I have been a computer designer and
programmer since each computer occupied a big room of its own and IPT is
probably the buggiest piece of production software I have ever seen. ... and I
have seen a lot of software.

I participated in the IPT Version 7.0 beta and exchanged several emails with
Jackie on the subject of the bugs. Instead of fixing bugs, the version upgrade
was more to add a few features. I don't know their economics but it may be that
they can't justify the cost of the rip-up and re-do or possibly they are working
on it but can't say so for fear of killing the sales of the current version.

That being said, the training concept of the IPT software is absolutely
outstanding and I finally decided that it was worth it to me to get the benefits
-- so I would put up with the considerable number warts. YMMV.

Now in the case of On Top, which I have not used, I wouldn't see any reason to
tolerate bugginess because there are many alternatives. Including Elite.

I have Elite and run both IPT and Elite on a PCATD setup. I have never bothered
to try On Top as the Elite is a a legal PCATD and it runs properly with the PFC
console, radio stack, etc. I am not a real demanding user, just flying
approaches, etc. and am very pleased with it. The documentation is weak, but
when have you ever seen good documentation? If you want to learn to use the
latest GPSs etc. IMHO there are plenty of stand-alone trainers for those. If
you want to practice basic instrument skills, ELITE does a good job.

Regarding MSFS, I am one who does not willingly do business with a vendor whose
objective is to screw its customers. Some products, because of the de jure
monopoly, you can't avoid. But this one you can.

HTH

On 6/18/2005 8:29 AM, Ron Natalie wrote the following:
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>
>> Gotta wonder how the many thousands of purchasers of On Top have
>> swallowed their dismay and neglected to write letters to the editor,
>> to ASA, to the Better Business Bureau, to Aviation Consumer, et al,
>> complaining about being ripped off? Seems to me that a product so
>> deeply flawed would have been bad-mouthed so widely that ASA would
>> have pulled it off the market. You seem to be the only person unhappy
>> with the product.
>>
> Nope, others have complained as well. Many just take their lumps and
> deal with the fact that the thing was designed for Windows 95 with
> a specific card in mind and doesn't work well with modern machines.
> I will continue to complain until ASA either delivers me an updated
> product that works or returns the money they stole from me for this
> disaster product. While ASA occasionally sends mem an email in
> response to my repeated complaints, they have yet to do either
> one of the above mentioned remedies.
>
> So far I've managed to pay in excess of $300 for Trevor Thom's book
> (the only useful part of the whole package, but not really worth
> more than about $50).

Bruno wrote:
> "Stubby" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Bruno wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Thank you very much for your answers.
>>>I think I'll try on FS2004 for the moment.
>>>
>>>Bruno
>>
>>But what about the quality of the lessons? I like IFT because the "CFI"
>>speaks so that I don't have to read instructions while I'm concentrating
>>on the instruments.
>
>
> The quality of the lesson will be provided in an FNPT2 simulator, for about
> 45h, with an instructor.
> I'll use flight simulator only to train before having my lesson in the fnpt2
> simulator, or to practice in case of problem during the fnpt2 training.

What is "fnpt2"?

I wonder why there is no third-party lesson package for MSFS? The Rod
Machado lessons are helpful, but limited in scope.

Amore complete package of pre-configured flights would be a useful IFR
training accessory. Such a package would be like the Machado lessons in
MSFS, only much more extensive, say 40 hours worth. It would follow a
logical sequence to step you through all the various types and
configurations of procedures, with instructor voice over and some sort of
graphics in the flight analysis view. The package would come with all
required graphics, charts, and plates in printable form. The entire thing
could be sold or distributed as an internet download, and could probably be
done quite cheaply, say $30.

I know MSFS isn't the best flight model, but there are some big economic
advantages to using it. Everyone and their brother owns MSFS already, so
most folks would only have to buy the preconfigured flight package. The
developer would be free to concentrate on the lessons and documentation.
MSFS is relatively bug free, has extensive documentation and support, is
updated and upgraded every year, and interoperability with new versions of
Windows will never be an issue. There's a huge community of add-on planes
and panels out there, so it would be easy to match your mount. The
integrated ATC is well done.

Speaking as a new IFR student just starting out, I don't really want to use
a computer to learn to fly by reference to instruments. I'd rather do that
in an airplane. What I want help with is learning all the procedural stuff
and developing my situational awareness, so I'm not trying to learn how to
interpret a pair of VORs and NDB at $130 an hour. I don't think the lower
flight model quality is an issue there. The integrated Garmin GPS is
another plus.

Anyone familiar with the MSFS SDK? How hard would this be?

"'Vejita' S. Cousin" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
>>> Flying the lessons with IPT is challenging because it doesn't allow even
>>> momentary errors. If you slip up on a minor detail right at the end of
>>> the lesson, you must redo the entire lesson from the beginning. That
>>> leads to boredom and little training. I have never made it through
>>> flying "Plan A". Has anyone gotten all the way through?
>>
>>I wouldn't know. It has never operated long enough for me to get
>>through more than the first few lessons. It's a piece of crap and
>>a waste of over $300 for the pair.
>
> I've got On Top and IP Trainier (old old verisons, got them when winME
> was new forget verison). I basically can't run them on my new system.
> However, I have an old win98 system that I use for genlocking and they
> both work fine on it.
> Both programs really need to be updated to work with win32s, but they
> can run under winXP/win2k. It just takes a lot of playing with the
> settings.

On 6/25/2005 8:26 AM, Ed H wrote the following:

> Amore complete package of pre-configured flights would be a useful IFR
> training accessory. Such a package would be like the Machado lessons in
> MSFS, only much more extensive, say 40 hours worth. It would follow a
> logical sequence to step you through all the various types and
> configurations of procedures, with instructor voice over and some sort of
> graphics in the flight analysis view. The package would come with all
> required graphics, charts, and plates in printable form. The entire thing
> could be sold or distributed as an internet download, and could probably be
> done quite cheaply, say $30.
>

This is exactly what IP Trainer does, except for the $30 part. At least they
don't charge extra for all the bugs that are included!

>
> Speaking as a new IFR student just starting out, I don't really want to use
> a computer to learn to fly by reference to instruments.

Don't underestimate the value of learning to fly patterns ("Alpha pattern",
etc.) on a sim. It is cheaper and more difficult than in an airplane. If you can
do it well on the sim with no physical or audio feedback you will find it fairly
easy in an airplane. My instructor just skipped me over the pattern flying
after he saw that I could already do it easily. YMMV

> Speaking as a new IFR student just starting out, I don't really want to use
> a computer to learn to fly by reference to instruments. I'd rather do that
> in an airplane. What I want help with is learning all the procedural stuff
> and developing my situational awareness, so I'm not trying to learn how to
> interpret a pair of VORs and NDB at $130 an hour. I don't think the lower
> flight model quality is an issue there.

You have it backwards actually. Doing it in the real airplane is
a LOT more expensive and you have a LOT more to deal with. Doing it
on the simulator, you can focus on only the basic attitude isntrument
flying and nothing else. Doing the situational awareness in the plane
is a waste. Just about anyone (well almost) can navigate from a point
to a point. Do you really want to be flying along an airway picking
out the cross-radials every 20 miles and spending $35 for each
intersection? Do that on a computer where you can jump from point
to point in a matter of seconds. In fact, online there are many
models that do this. When you get into the plane you want to
be proficient at all the very basic stuff and semi-proficient at
the more than basic stuff. The simulator is more difficult in some
ways but early on when you screw up more than other times, the simulator
makes it very convenient and far cheaper to restart. In the
airplane getting back into position to re-start a maneuver can cost
a lot of money quickly.

Gerald

G. Sylvester wrote:

>
>> Speaking as a new IFR student just starting out, I don't really want
>> to use a computer to learn to fly by reference to instruments. I'd
>> rather do that in an airplane. What I want help with is learning all
>> the procedural stuff
>> and developing my situational awareness, so I'm not trying to learn
>> how to interpret a pair of VORs and NDB at $130 an hour. I don't
>> think the lower flight model quality is an issue there.
>
>
> You have it backwards actually. Doing it in the real airplane is
> a LOT more expensive and you have a LOT more to deal with. Doing it
> on the simulator, you can focus on only the basic attitude isntrument
> flying and nothing else. Doing the situational awareness in the plane
> is a waste. Just about anyone (well almost) can navigate from a point
> to a point. Do you really want to be flying along an airway picking
> out the cross-radials every 20 miles and spending $35 for each
> intersection? Do that on a computer where you can jump from point
> to point in a matter of seconds. In fact, online there are many
> models that do this. When you get into the plane you want to
> be proficient at all the very basic stuff and semi-proficient at
> the more than basic stuff. The simulator is more difficult in some
> ways but early on when you screw up more than other times, the simulator
> makes it very convenient and far cheaper to restart. In the
> airplane getting back into position to re-start a maneuver can cost
> a lot of money quickly.

The idea is that a simulator controls the number of decisions per minute
that you, the pilot, have to make. This allows effective learning. In
a real airplane just about anything can start happening at anytime,
complicating the learning.

IPT allows the student to crank up the weather effects when he/she is
ready. I like that but I believe IPT is still too demanind on things
like when you begin the roll-out from a turn.

> The idea is that a simulator controls the number of decisions per minute
> that you, the pilot, have to make. This allows effective learning. In
> a real airplane just about anything can start happening at anytime,
> complicating the learning.

exactly. Especially with ATC calling out traffic or an approach is
down for MX or the winds don't agree with the VOR approach you want
to do.

The other thing to keep in mind is when you fly IFR, you fly IFR.
You don't 'practice IFR.' Ok, you can do VFR practice approaches
but you still have to do them as ATC expects you to do them the
published way. The first time I went up with my CFII out of SQL,
our clearance was 'maintain VFR at 1100 or below.' I didn't have
the skills to do that, checklists, call departure, etc. and I busted
altitude by no less than 50 feet. ATC was on my ass immediately.
You 'do' and not 'practice' in the system. The simulator helps
that.

Gerald

G. Sylvester wrote:

> The other thing to keep in mind is when you fly IFR, you fly IFR.
> You don't 'practice IFR.' Ok, you can do VFR practice approaches
> but you still have to do them as ATC expects you to do them the
> published way. The first time I went up with my CFII out of SQL,
> our clearance was 'maintain VFR at 1100 or below.' I didn't have
> the skills to do that, checklists, call departure, etc. and I busted
> altitude by no less than 50 feet. ATC was on my ass immediately.
> You 'do' and not 'practice' in the system. The simulator helps
> that.

While this may have happened to you, I'd say that kind of experience is
exceptional. Sorry it happened to you.

Where I live, I can fly VFR with few altitude restrictions, but then I don't fly
out of SQL.

When flying VFR practice approaches I've never had ATC care whether or not they
were done "in the published way". VFR is VFR.

In 16 years and 1500+ hours of flying, I've never heard of anyone busted by ATC
for a 50 foot altitude deviation (well, I guess now I have).

Regardless, I agree a PC-based flight simulator can save you time and money on
IFR training.

Dave

One of my most memorable early lessons during my instrument training was
with a simulator. The instructor set it up, and said that the game plan was
that I was to fly to an intersection, intercept a radial to a VOR, and hold
at the VOR. I was "flying" along holding the CDI pretty good. Whoops a
little bank, level out. Still a bank, level out. OK "seems" to be coming
back now. PAUSE (nice that these simulators have that). "OK, What's wrong
with this picture?". Ummm, spiral dive? Sneaky instructor had failed the
vacuum system. It's a lesson I won't forget.
Now, if I use a simulator, and I know that whatever I plan on doing is
going to take say "twenty" minutes, I set a "random failure" to happen
between five and "sixty" minutes. That way I don't know if it's going to
happen or not.

> While this may have happened to you, I'd say that kind of experience is
> exceptional. Sorry it happened to you.

no big deal. I learned and no one got hurt and no one had to
deviate.

> In 16 years and 1500+ hours of flying, I've never heard of anyone busted
> by ATC for a 50 foot altitude deviation (well, I guess now I have).

it was not the 50 feet, it was that you basically fly the pattern which
is right underneath the approach into SFO. The big iron passes at
around 1800 and maybe a mile or two east of the pattern. I was not
only 50 feet high but I was also climbing. Remember the transponder
encoder shows in hundreds of feet and is not as accurate as the
altimeter in the plane. Add it all up and it could have shown me at
150 feet high and still climbing.

> Regardless, I agree a PC-based flight simulator can save you time and
> money on IFR training.

definitely. It can also more realistically teach you about
failures without risking your life.

Gerald