As MS Flight Sim X is fixin to be released, I am wondering if I couldn't
get a better IFR simulator for similar money? I am currently using MS
Flight Sim for help on keeping procedures fresh -- but there are a lot
of things that aren't very realistic about IFR on MSFS. I imagine since
it's so visually oriented but I don't really care about the graphics.

Any of y'all use a PC sim that you recommend?

Thanks,
Nick Kliewer PPASEL-IA

Nick Kliewer wrote:
> As MS Flight Sim X is fixin to be released, I am wondering if I couldn't
> get a better IFR simulator for similar money? I am currently using MS
> Flight Sim for help on keeping procedures fresh -- but there are a lot
> of things that aren't very realistic about IFR on MSFS. I imagine since
> it's so visually oriented but I don't really care about the graphics.
>
> Any of y'all use a PC sim that you recommend?
>
> Thanks,
> Nick Kliewer PPASEL-IA
>
I can only say that I blew a lot of money on ASA's On Top and IPTrainer
and never got them to work. ASA's software efforts seem to be a lot
lacking.

In article >,
Nick Kliewer > wrote:

> As MS Flight Sim X is fixin to be released, I am wondering if I couldn't
> get a better IFR simulator for similar money? I am currently using MS
> Flight Sim for help on keeping procedures fresh -- but there are a lot
> of things that aren't very realistic about IFR on MSFS. I imagine since
> it's so visually oriented but I don't really care about the graphics.
>
> Any of y'all use a PC sim that you recommend?

x-plane

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

In article >,
Ron Natalie > wrote:

> Nick Kliewer wrote:
> > As MS Flight Sim X is fixin to be released, I am wondering if I couldn't
> > get a better IFR simulator for similar money? I am currently using MS
> > Flight Sim for help on keeping procedures fresh -- but there are a lot
> > of things that aren't very realistic about IFR on MSFS. I imagine since
> > it's so visually oriented but I don't really care about the graphics.
> >
> > Any of y'all use a PC sim that you recommend?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nick Kliewer PPASEL-IA
> >
> I can only say that I blew a lot of money on ASA's On Top and IPTrainer
> and never got them to work. ASA's software efforts seem to be a lot
> lacking.

They (or at least On Top) worked fine for me, even on my pathetic little
laptop. There was a little initial irritation with the yoke control
sensitivity, but after working out which button to hit when, it's all
worked nicely for me for a long while. Wouldn't have done my IFR
training without it.

Now if only I had a decent Windows box to run something better on... :-)

Hamish

Look at the list of FAA training devices, they require
realistic controls. They also cost more money, start a
club.



"Nick Kliewer" > wrote in message
...
| As MS Flight Sim X is fixin to be released, I am wondering
if I couldn't
| get a better IFR simulator for similar money? I am
currently using MS
| Flight Sim for help on keeping procedures fresh -- but
there are a lot
| of things that aren't very realistic about IFR on MSFS. I
imagine since
| it's so visually oriented but I don't really care about
the graphics.
|
| Any of y'all use a PC sim that you recommend?
|
| Thanks,
| Nick Kliewer PPASEL-IA
|

I've been teaching IFR with Elite since version 1.0. No fancy visuals
but good fidelity. They seem to have lowered their price recently to
become more cost-competitive. ($99 fore core package.)

Ed

Nick Kliewer wrote:
> As MS Flight Sim X is fixin to be released, I am wondering if I couldn't
> get a better IFR simulator for similar money? I am currently using MS
> Flight Sim for help on keeping procedures fresh -- but there are a lot
> of things that aren't very realistic about IFR on MSFS. I imagine since
> it's so visually oriented but I don't really care about the graphics.
>
> Any of y'all use a PC sim that you recommend?
>
> Thanks,
> Nick Kliewer PPASEL-IA

I wholeheartedly recommend ELITE. A while back I foresaw that I would
likely stop flying but I wanted to keep sharp. I bought Elite because it
was the most accurate representation of a C-172 for IFR I've seen. I have
twice passed IPCs, as if they are just formalities, after not having flown
for two years. I would recommend the IFR syllabus if it's still available.

My last employer was a flight school with a Frasca 142, Elite was as
faithful to the real airplane as the Frasca and about $49K cheaper, IIRC.

Elite was easily the best money I ever spent in aviation.

--

Scott

"tscottme" > wrote in message
. ..
>I wholeheartedly recommend ELITE. A while back I foresaw that I would
>likely stop flying but I wanted to keep sharp. I bought Elite because it
>was the most accurate representation of a C-172 for IFR I've seen. I have
>twice passed IPCs, as if they are just formalities, after not having flown
>for two years. I would recommend the IFR syllabus if it's still available.
>
> My last employer was a flight school with a Frasca 142, Elite was as
> faithful to the real airplane as the Frasca and about $49K cheaper, IIRC.
>
> Elite was easily the best money I ever spent in aviation.
>
> --
>
> Scott

Scott,

Which model or level of ELITE were you using?

Is the basic core product adequate for learning IFR procedures and/or
staying sharp or do you think one needs to go further up the ELITE food
chain?

TIA,

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL (Maybe IA Student later this year...Maybe...)
Chandler, AZ

At home I use MS FS and X-plane...
Elite http://www.flyelite.com products are very good, but a little more
expansive...

Rocco Caruso

AEROMARKET
www.market.aero

The core package is fine. The premium version just has more
airplanes - including a twin.

Ed


Jay Beckman wrote:
> "tscottme" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >I wholeheartedly recommend ELITE. A while back I foresaw that I would
> >likely stop flying but I wanted to keep sharp. I bought Elite because it
> >was the most accurate representation of a C-172 for IFR I've seen. I have
> >twice passed IPCs, as if they are just formalities, after not having flown
> >for two years. I would recommend the IFR syllabus if it's still available.
> >
> > My last employer was a flight school with a Frasca 142, Elite was as
> > faithful to the real airplane as the Frasca and about $49K cheaper, IIRC.
> >
> > Elite was easily the best money I ever spent in aviation.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Scott
>
> Scott,
>
> Which model or level of ELITE were you using?
>
> Is the basic core product adequate for learning IFR procedures and/or
> staying sharp or do you think one needs to go further up the ELITE food
> chain?
>
> TIA,
>
> Jay Beckman
> PP-ASEL (Maybe IA Student later this year...Maybe...)
> Chandler, AZ

On Oct 11, 4:53 am, "Jay Beckman" > wrote:
> Is the basic core product adequate for learning IFR procedures and/or
> staying sharp or do you think one needs to go further up the ELITE food
> chain?
Jay,
The core product is all you need to learn IFR procedures. I found
the $25 book IFR training syllabus a great addition. I also purchased
two packages of ATC scenarios but did not have the time to use them
much. I'd think that they are quite useful for IFR students who don't
have a lot of exposure to real ATC.
You can download the Elite core program to try it out. I think
the program free program only run for few minutes but with full
functions.

Hai Longworth

wrote:
> I've been teaching IFR with Elite since version 1.0. No fancy visuals
> but good fidelity. They seem to have lowered their price recently to
> become more cost-competitive. ($99 fore core package.)
>
> Ed
>

The last time I used Elite they had that horrible (was in Morrow)
discontinued GPS navigator, that would lose all user waypoints and
flight plans when you exited the program.

Have they got a better GPS navigator now?

It seems that GPS training is now core along with ILS and VOR.

Unfortunately not. They support a 430/530 if you buy the real
hardware!

Ed
Sam Spade wrote:
> wrote:
> > I've been teaching IFR with Elite since version 1.0. No fancy visuals
> > but good fidelity. They seem to have lowered their price recently to
> > become more cost-competitive. ($99 fore core package.)
> >
> > Ed
> >
>
> The last time I used Elite they had that horrible (was in Morrow)
> discontinued GPS navigator, that would lose all user waypoints and
> flight plans when you exited the program.
>
> Have they got a better GPS navigator now?
>
> It seems that GPS training is now core along with ILS and VOR.

On 11 Oct 2006 00:11:19 -0700, wrote:

>I've been teaching IFR with Elite since version 1.0. No fancy visuals
>but good fidelity. They seem to have lowered their price recently to
>become more cost-competitive. ($99 fore core package.)

I think Elite is a pretty good way to practice procedures, but I've
been disturbed that the aerodynamic modeling was unrealistic.
Specifically, in a real airplane, I fly the ILS by trimming to my
approach speed in the procedure turn and when I intercept the GS I
just start down by reducing power. Elite doesn't work that way. If you
reduce power, instead of descending like a real airplane, the airspeed
just bleeds off until you stall. To descend, you have to force the
nose down, regardless of power setting. Annoying. I've also been
annoyed that they've continually omitted the LOM on the ILS at my home
airport. In an earlier version, you could add things like that
manually. Now you just have to live with flying an ILS without an LOM.
Like I said though, it is good for brushing up on procedures before
going to the airplane.

RK Henry

Nobody has a PC sim with proper feedback on the trim. You have to
deliberately fly the attitude-power combinations yourself - which are
reasonably accurate. To descend down a glideslope for instance you
reduce power ~500 RPM and lower the nose three degrees.

In a real C172 the nose will drop more than 3 degrees when you reduce
power of its own accord if you let it, but the required attitude and
power change is the same. What's different is the stick force.


RK Henry wrote:
> On 11 Oct 2006 00:11:19 -0700, wrote:
>
> >I've been teaching IFR with Elite since version 1.0. No fancy visuals
> >but good fidelity. They seem to have lowered their price recently to
> >become more cost-competitive. ($99 fore core package.)
>
> I think Elite is a pretty good way to practice procedures, but I've
> been disturbed that the aerodynamic modeling was unrealistic.
> Specifically, in a real airplane, I fly the ILS by trimming to my
> approach speed in the procedure turn and when I intercept the GS I
> just start down by reducing power. Elite doesn't work that way. If you
> reduce power, instead of descending like a real airplane, the airspeed
> just bleeds off until you stall. To descend, you have to force the
> nose down, regardless of power setting. Annoying. I've also been
> annoyed that they've continually omitted the LOM on the ILS at my home
> airport. In an earlier version, you could add things like that
> manually. Now you just have to live with flying an ILS without an LOM.
> Like I said though, it is good for brushing up on procedures before
> going to the airplane.
>
> RK Henry

My real life flying was mostly C-172, which is the airplane included in the
core package. 95% of my Elite flying is with the C-172. I fly the other
airplanes in Elite just for variety.

I think I have Elite 5 or 6, pretty old. The major improvement since my
antique version is better landscape graphics. It didn't seem necessary for
me to spend the bucks to upgrade so I could look for grandma's house, when
the point was to be "blind" until 200 feet AGL.

--

Scott

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:qi2Xg.3532$V6.111@fed1read06...
>
> "tscottme" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>I wholeheartedly recommend ELITE. A while back I foresaw that I would
>>likely stop flying but I wanted to keep sharp. I bought Elite because it
>>was the most accurate representation of a C-172 for IFR I've seen. I have
>>twice passed IPCs, as if they are just formalities, after not having flown
>>for two years. I would recommend the IFR syllabus if it's still
>>available.
>>
>> My last employer was a flight school with a Frasca 142, Elite was as
>> faithful to the real airplane as the Frasca and about $49K cheaper, IIRC.
>>
>> Elite was easily the best money I ever spent in aviation.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Scott
>
> Scott,
>
> Which model or level of ELITE were you using?
>
> Is the basic core product adequate for learning IFR procedures and/or
> staying sharp or do you think one needs to go further up the ELITE food
> chain?
>
> TIA,
>
> Jay Beckman
> PP-ASEL (Maybe IA Student later this year...Maybe...)
> Chandler, AZ
>

> Have they got a better GPS navigator now?
>
> It seems that GPS training is now core along with ILS and VOR.

Actually, you can now plug your real handheld into a USB port and Elite
will send the data to the GPS. You can probably do this with MS FS
too. I bought Elite a year ago and the scenarios are really good
practice, but they (at minimum) double the cost of the sim. Elite
seems to be painfully slow at new features like an integrated, modern
GPS.

I think for the money, MS gives you the most options. If you are
computer savvy, there are tons of add-ons, and modifications available
to you. There are companies that make add-on GPS (RealityXP) like the
Garmin 5 series that's very accurate and fully implemented.

I can't comment on On Top. I had a copy way back and back then it
wasn't good and didn't have the huge following of add-ons that FS did.
... Akiley

And for IFR training, there's no reason to have all the out-the-window
visuals turned on. Set cloud ceilings to 500 ft. AGL and that's
great for practice approaches.

On 30 Oct 2006 03:40:46 GMT, Blanche > wrote:

>And for IFR training, there's no reason to have all the out-the-window
>visuals turned on. Set cloud ceilings to 500 ft. AGL and that's
>great for practice approaches.

I typically set them to MDA or DH in On-Top or just a tad above.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:51:37 -0400, Ron Natalie >
wrote:

>Nick Kliewer wrote:
>> As MS Flight Sim X is fixin to be released, I am wondering if I couldn't
>> get a better IFR simulator for similar money? I am currently using MS
>> Flight Sim for help on keeping procedures fresh -- but there are a lot
>> of things that aren't very realistic about IFR on MSFS. I imagine since
>> it's so visually oriented but I don't really care about the graphics.
>>
>> Any of y'all use a PC sim that you recommend?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Nick Kliewer PPASEL-IA
>>
>I can only say that I blew a lot of money on ASA's On Top and IPTrainer
>and never got them to work. ASA's software efforts seem to be a lot
>lacking.

One quick call to them and I had it working. You are probably running
into the same problem I had. Getting the joystick and rudder pedals
to work properly. I has to do with the sequence of assigning and
calibrating. I'd have to do some searching though to find what I did.
(I did type it into a doc though)

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:50:23 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Nick Kliewer > wrote:
>
>> As MS Flight Sim X is fixin to be released, I am wondering if I couldn't
>> get a better IFR simulator for similar money? I am currently using MS
>> Flight Sim for help on keeping procedures fresh -- but there are a lot
>> of things that aren't very realistic about IFR on MSFS. I imagine since
>> it's so visually oriented but I don't really care about the graphics.
>>
>> Any of y'all use a PC sim that you recommend?

I like On-Top, but it was a bit cantankerous to get running. The fix
was simple, but I had to call them. Two minutes and they'd talked me
through it and stayed on the line until I confirmed it was working.


>
>x-plane
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com