PDA

View Full Version : Reccomend a PC Simulator....


October 6th 03, 04:50 AM
I am just starting my Instrument rating,
and I believe that a good PC based flight simulator would
help shorten the learning curve.

What simulators would this group reccomend?

I hava older versions of X-plane (V6) and MSFS2002.
I have a high performance PC so I should be able to run whatever is
availible.
I've tried the C172 in both sims.

MSFS2002 the VSI is way too fast and the plane is way too stable.

XPlane, the plane feels about right, the only complaint is the turn
gyro is way too twitchy.

Anyone have comments on later version of either of these sims?


Paul

(Yes I know that a PC based simulator time can not be logged)

Donald Ramsey
October 6th 03, 05:07 AM
I haven't used some of the more modern software, but I did
use MSFS-98 to train on procedure and situational awareness.

Having achieved my instrument rating, I feel that the most important
part of my simulated training involved commiting the scan and situational
awareness to "muscle memory". This frees up a great deal of cycles for
looking at charts, pacifying the toddler in my lap, answer questions
from my wife in the next room, etc. without interfering with my ability
to conduct an approach down to minimums.

Additionally, achieving the ability to inject the appropriate control
input to the airplane as an automatic response to what I saw on the
instruments (even on partial panel) was also easily accomplished on
neanderthal technology given enough hours spent in front of the screen.

As such, I wouldn't get too hung-up on what you use as a "simulator".
I bought some other software (which has more accurate flight models
and better lateral/vertical recording capabilities, and cost more than
MSFS) and that software really didn't augment my basic abilities. The
critical skills, in my opinion, boiled down to using the minimal amount
of cycles to control the airplane and use the remaining cycles to talk on
the radio, read charts, change the baby's diaper, etc. (yes, I did that
while configured for a stabilized approach on the sim.) Not realistic,
as I used the entire room which is substantially larger than the cockpit
of a C172.

My $0.02 ...

--Don


wrote:
> I am just starting my Instrument rating,
> and I believe that a good PC based flight simulator would
> help shorten the learning curve.
>
> What simulators would this group reccomend?
>
> I hava older versions of X-plane (V6) and MSFS2002.
> I have a high performance PC so I should be able to run whatever is
> availible.
> I've tried the C172 in both sims.
>
> MSFS2002 the VSI is way too fast and the plane is way too stable.
>
> XPlane, the plane feels about right, the only complaint is the turn
> gyro is way too twitchy.
>
> Anyone have comments on later version of either of these sims?
>
>
> Paul
>
> (Yes I know that a PC based simulator time can not be logged)

Kobra
October 6th 03, 05:34 AM
I have MSFS2002 and I'll ask you a question. You say the plane is too
stable and your next line says the VSI is too sensitive and fast? This
means the plane is NOT stable. Stability means the plane oscillates gently
in pitch and after a few oscillations stabilizes on it's own and returns to
level flight.

On my computer I can't keep the damn thing on heading or altitude. I don't
care how I trim it or adjust my joystick (and once owned the CH Products
Yoke and Pro Pedals), it always wants to turn left or right. You are
correct that the pitch is WAY too sensitive and the VSI make wild
fluctuations. I tried adjusting the sensitivities and no joy on
improvement.

Anyone else have other experiences.

Kobra




> wrote in message
...
> I am just starting my Instrument rating,
> and I believe that a good PC based flight simulator would
> help shorten the learning curve.
>
> What simulators would this group reccomend?
>
> I hava older versions of X-plane (V6) and MSFS2002.
> I have a high performance PC so I should be able to run whatever is
> availible.
> I've tried the C172 in both sims.
>
> MSFS2002 the VSI is way too fast and the plane is way too stable.
>
> XPlane, the plane feels about right, the only complaint is the turn
> gyro is way too twitchy.
>
> Anyone have comments on later version of either of these sims?
>
>
> Paul
>
> (Yes I know that a PC based simulator time can not be logged)

Jerry Kurata
October 6th 03, 06:27 AM
On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 20:50:35 -0700, Pau wrote:

> I am just starting my Instrument rating,
> and I believe that a good PC based flight simulator would
> help shorten the learning curve.
>
> What simulators would this group reccomend?
>
>

I have been pretty happy with Flight Simulator. I requires a much
faster scan than in most planes, but that is a good thing.

jerry

Bill Padley
October 6th 03, 07:22 AM
Hi there

FS2004 (as all previous incarnations) have been a good BASE for
working..2004 is a great improvement on previous , particularly weather and
graphics....as for flight models
It is the addons that make it....

For flight models , try Dreamfleets Archer , http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/
and Kangan's real air 172. http://www.realairsimulations.com/ ..both VERY
accurate models and panels
For IFR work , try Enrico Schirattis IFR panel...which can also be run on a
second machine....SUPERB..
http://www.projectmagenta.com/products/ifrpanel.html
I use this all the time to practice currency for IFR

Hope that helps..

Bill Padley
London

The good stuff IS there....you just need to find it
"Jerry Kurata" > wrote in message
ldomain...
> On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 20:50:35 -0700, Pau wrote:
>
> > I am just starting my Instrument rating,
> > and I believe that a good PC based flight simulator would
> > help shorten the learning curve.
> >
> > What simulators would this group reccomend?
> >
> >
>
> I have been pretty happy with Flight Simulator. I requires a much
> faster scan than in most planes, but that is a good thing.
>
> jerry
>

Fred E. Pate
October 6th 03, 08:15 AM
So how important is the input device, then? Did you use yoke/pedals or a joystick or the dreaded keyboard/mouse?

Donald Ramsey wrote:

>
>I haven't used some of the more modern software, but I did
>use MSFS-98 to train on procedure and situational awareness.
>
>Having achieved my instrument rating, I feel that the most important
>part of my simulated training involved commiting the scan and situational
>awareness to "muscle memory". This frees up a great deal of cycles for
>looking at charts, pacifying the toddler in my lap, answer questions
>from my wife in the next room, etc. without interfering with my ability
>to conduct an approach down to minimums.
>
>Additionally, achieving the ability to inject the appropriate control
>input to the airplane as an automatic response to what I saw on the
>instruments (even on partial panel) was also easily accomplished on
>neanderthal technology given enough hours spent in front of the screen.
>
>As such, I wouldn't get too hung-up on what you use as a "simulator".
>I bought some other software (which has more accurate flight models
>and better lateral/vertical recording capabilities, and cost more than
>MSFS) and that software really didn't augment my basic abilities. The
>critical skills, in my opinion, boiled down to using the minimal amount
>of cycles to control the airplane and use the remaining cycles to talk on
>the radio, read charts, change the baby's diaper, etc. (yes, I did that
>while configured for a stabilized approach on the sim.) Not realistic,
>as I used the entire room which is substantially larger than the cockpit
>of a C172.
>
>My $0.02 ...
>
>--Don
>

Marco Leon
October 6th 03, 03:43 PM
It depends what you want to practice. If it's instrument scan and aircraft
control, then you'll want two things in a PC simulator: 1) good flight model
and 2) good instrument frame rates. For this, the X-Plane series is great.
ASA's OnTop and Intrument Trainer are good too. They also all have realistic
turbulence effects. Most people who've flown in IMC can atest that bumps in
the clouds are more of a rule than an exception. I have tried Jeppesen's sim
as well as Elite and I like ASA's for their simplicity, frame rates, price
and turbulence effect. Jepp's turbulence is unusable.

Flight Simulator 2004 is good for the ATC practice. It also gives you a good
idea of what an approach to minimums actually looks like. X-Plane does too.

None of the PC sims let you practice radio operations while bumping around
in turbulence while barreling down an approach which (for me) creates a
challenge in my own plane. You can spend a few (OK a lot) extra dollars on
the PCATD hardware to get that practice but that's up to you. Most models in
ASA's sims require you to click on a button to get the radio stack up and
that makes the drawback even worse. They do have a good playback feature
that let's you review your track with a convenient view of what your
instruments looked like during the approach.

Lotsa good stuff out there. I would download the available demos and take a
look-see for yourself. YMMV

Marco




> wrote in message
...
> I am just starting my Instrument rating,
> and I believe that a good PC based flight simulator would
> help shorten the learning curve.
>
> What simulators would this group reccomend?
>
> I hava older versions of X-plane (V6) and MSFS2002.
> I have a high performance PC so I should be able to run whatever is
> availible.
> I've tried the C172 in both sims.
>
> MSFS2002 the VSI is way too fast and the plane is way too stable.
>
> XPlane, the plane feels about right, the only complaint is the turn
> gyro is way too twitchy.
>
> Anyone have comments on later version of either of these sims?
>
>
> Paul
>
> (Yes I know that a PC based simulator time can not be logged)



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Donald Ramsey
October 6th 03, 06:32 PM
I did use a CH yoke and pedals -- the yoke was pretty important IMO
as it helped ingrain the proper muscle action.

For IFR stuff, I didn't find the pedals all that important.

--Don

Fred E. Pate wrote:
> So how important is the input device, then? Did you use yoke/pedals or a joystick or the dreaded keyboard/mouse?
>
> Donald Ramsey wrote:
>
>
>>I haven't used some of the more modern software, but I did
>>use MSFS-98 to train on procedure and situational awareness.
>>
>>Having achieved my instrument rating, I feel that the most important
>>part of my simulated training involved commiting the scan and situational
>>awareness to "muscle memory". This frees up a great deal of cycles for
>>looking at charts, pacifying the toddler in my lap, answer questions
>
>>from my wife in the next room, etc. without interfering with my ability
>
>>to conduct an approach down to minimums.
>>
>>Additionally, achieving the ability to inject the appropriate control
>>input to the airplane as an automatic response to what I saw on the
>>instruments (even on partial panel) was also easily accomplished on
>>neanderthal technology given enough hours spent in front of the screen.
>>
>>As such, I wouldn't get too hung-up on what you use as a "simulator".
>>I bought some other software (which has more accurate flight models
>>and better lateral/vertical recording capabilities, and cost more than
>>MSFS) and that software really didn't augment my basic abilities. The
>>critical skills, in my opinion, boiled down to using the minimal amount
>>of cycles to control the airplane and use the remaining cycles to talk on
>>the radio, read charts, change the baby's diaper, etc. (yes, I did that
>>while configured for a stabilized approach on the sim.) Not realistic,
>>as I used the entire room which is substantially larger than the cockpit
>>of a C172.
>>
>>My $0.02 ...
>>
>>--Don
>>
>
>
>

Tim J
October 7th 03, 03:51 AM
Any simulator that allows you to practice your procedures is good - I
wouldn't expect any of the pc based sims to be anything like a plane or a
device that you can count toward flight sim time.

I just got FS2004 and borrowed a yoke - it seems to be ok - the bells and
whistles are more than I need for practicing and ingraining the procedures I
have been taught. However, either there are problems with the software or I
haven't figured out how to use it the way I want.

For example, I try to file from an airport to another using VOR/airways, but
when I start flying, the program always tries to give me direct. I can use
the VORs, but it is unclear to me how to see the desired route as airways.

I also have to keep telling the controllers that I want to fly the entire
procedures - they always try to give me vectors to an approach.

Also, and this is definitely a defect in the software, but I caught the
problem and it reinforced good habits of what I was taught...

I was given ILS 24 to KISP. I did not have that approach in front of me so
I asked for ILS 6 (or vice versa). I was cleared for the full approach that
I asked for. however, when I tuned in the ILS (both are the same freq) I
got the identifier for the one that I refused and the color sector/needle
was all wrong. Seems to me a problem with the software, but maybe not -
maybe they wanted it that way.


> wrote in message
...
> I am just starting my Instrument rating,
> and I believe that a good PC based flight simulator would
> help shorten the learning curve.
>
> What simulators would this group reccomend?
>
> I hava older versions of X-plane (V6) and MSFS2002.
> I have a high performance PC so I should be able to run whatever is
> availible.
> I've tried the C172 in both sims.
>
> MSFS2002 the VSI is way too fast and the plane is way too stable.
>
> XPlane, the plane feels about right, the only complaint is the turn
> gyro is way too twitchy.
>
> Anyone have comments on later version of either of these sims?
>
>
> Paul
>
> (Yes I know that a PC based simulator time can not be logged)

Ray Andraka
October 7th 03, 05:07 AM
FWIW, if the airport is using ILS24, then you can't get ILS6. If you look at
the charts, you'll note that the frequencies for both approaches are the same
but the identifier is different to match the antenna in use. I doubt Islip is
going to switch the localizers for you just because you don't have a chart
handy, unless you declare an emergency that is.

Tim J wrote:

> Any simulator that allows you to practice your procedures is good - I
> wouldn't expect any of the pc based sims to be anything like a plane or a
> device that you can count toward flight sim time.
>
> I just got FS2004 and borrowed a yoke - it seems to be ok - the bells and
> whistles are more than I need for practicing and ingraining the procedures I
> have been taught. However, either there are problems with the software or I
> haven't figured out how to use it the way I want.
>
> For example, I try to file from an airport to another using VOR/airways, but
> when I start flying, the program always tries to give me direct. I can use
> the VORs, but it is unclear to me how to see the desired route as airways.
>
> I also have to keep telling the controllers that I want to fly the entire
> procedures - they always try to give me vectors to an approach.
>
> Also, and this is definitely a defect in the software, but I caught the
> problem and it reinforced good habits of what I was taught...
>
> I was given ILS 24 to KISP. I did not have that approach in front of me so
> I asked for ILS 6 (or vice versa). I was cleared for the full approach that
> I asked for. however, when I tuned in the ILS (both are the same freq) I
> got the identifier for the one that I refused and the color sector/needle
> was all wrong. Seems to me a problem with the software, but maybe not -
> maybe they wanted it that way.
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > I am just starting my Instrument rating,
> > and I believe that a good PC based flight simulator would
> > help shorten the learning curve.
> >
> > What simulators would this group reccomend?
> >
> > I hava older versions of X-plane (V6) and MSFS2002.
> > I have a high performance PC so I should be able to run whatever is
> > availible.
> > I've tried the C172 in both sims.
> >
> > MSFS2002 the VSI is way too fast and the plane is way too stable.
> >
> > XPlane, the plane feels about right, the only complaint is the turn
> > gyro is way too twitchy.
> >
> > Anyone have comments on later version of either of these sims?
> >
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > (Yes I know that a PC based simulator time can not be logged)

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

John Clonts
October 7th 03, 03:18 PM
Tim J > wrote in message
. net...
> Any simulator that allows you to practice your procedures is good - I
> wouldn't expect any of the pc based sims to be anything like a plane or a
> device that you can count toward flight sim time.
>
> I just got FS2004 and borrowed a yoke - it seems to be ok - the bells and
> whistles are more than I need for practicing and ingraining the procedures
I
> have been taught. However, either there are problems with the software or
I
> haven't figured out how to use it the way I want.
>
> For example, I try to file from an airport to another using VOR/airways,
but
> when I start flying, the program always tries to give me direct. I can
use
> the VORs, but it is unclear to me how to see the desired route as airways.
>
> I also have to keep telling the controllers that I want to fly the entire
> procedures - they always try to give me vectors to an approach.
>
> Also, and this is definitely a defect in the software, but I caught the
> problem and it reinforced good habits of what I was taught...
>
> I was given ILS 24 to KISP. I did not have that approach in front of me
so
> I asked for ILS 6 (or vice versa). I was cleared for the full approach
that
> I asked for. however, when I tuned in the ILS (both are the same freq) I
> got the identifier for the one that I refused and the color sector/needle
> was all wrong. Seems to me a problem with the software, but maybe not -
> maybe they wanted it that way.
>

These are not defects in the software--they are all accurate simulations of
occasional defects in the universe. :)

I recently got FS2004. I have been pleased to find that FS2004's turbulence
model is much better than FS2002's. Fly your procedures with turbulence on
max and it will exercise your scan quite well...

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

Tim J
October 8th 03, 01:19 AM
I understand that; please don't misunderstand that I would expect that for
the real world. I figured if the software let me do it and CLEARED me for
the approach then I would be able to receive the signal. Either they want
to throw some crazy situation at you, or there is a problem with the
software and the clearance for the approach should be consistent with the
localizer that is active. In my opinion it is a defect in the software.


"Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
...
> FWIW, if the airport is using ILS24, then you can't get ILS6. If you
look at
> the charts, you'll note that the frequencies for both approaches are the
same
> but the identifier is different to match the antenna in use. I doubt
Islip is
> going to switch the localizers for you just because you don't have a chart
> handy, unless you declare an emergency that is.
>
> Tim J wrote:
>
> > Any simulator that allows you to practice your procedures is good - I
> > wouldn't expect any of the pc based sims to be anything like a plane or
a
> > device that you can count toward flight sim time.
> >
> > I just got FS2004 and borrowed a yoke - it seems to be ok - the bells
and
> > whistles are more than I need for practicing and ingraining the
procedures I
> > have been taught. However, either there are problems with the software
or I
> > haven't figured out how to use it the way I want.
> >
> > For example, I try to file from an airport to another using VOR/airways,
but
> > when I start flying, the program always tries to give me direct. I can
use
> > the VORs, but it is unclear to me how to see the desired route as
airways.
> >
> > I also have to keep telling the controllers that I want to fly the
entire
> > procedures - they always try to give me vectors to an approach.
> >
> > Also, and this is definitely a defect in the software, but I caught the
> > problem and it reinforced good habits of what I was taught...
> >
> > I was given ILS 24 to KISP. I did not have that approach in front of me
so
> > I asked for ILS 6 (or vice versa). I was cleared for the full approach
that
> > I asked for. however, when I tuned in the ILS (both are the same freq)
I
> > got the identifier for the one that I refused and the color
sector/needle
> > was all wrong. Seems to me a problem with the software, but maybe not -
> > maybe they wanted it that way.
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I am just starting my Instrument rating,
> > > and I believe that a good PC based flight simulator would
> > > help shorten the learning curve.
> > >
> > > What simulators would this group reccomend?
> > >
> > > I hava older versions of X-plane (V6) and MSFS2002.
> > > I have a high performance PC so I should be able to run whatever is
> > > availible.
> > > I've tried the C172 in both sims.
> > >
> > > MSFS2002 the VSI is way too fast and the plane is way too stable.
> > >
> > > XPlane, the plane feels about right, the only complaint is the turn
> > > gyro is way too twitchy.
> > >
> > > Anyone have comments on later version of either of these sims?
> > >
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > (Yes I know that a PC based simulator time can not be logged)
>
> --
> --Ray Andraka, P.E.
> President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
> 401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
> email
> http://www.andraka.com
>
> "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
> temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> -Benjamin Franklin, 1759
>
>

Ray Andraka
October 8th 03, 01:53 AM
It can happen in real life too. Twice that I recall I was cleared for an ILS
and upon tuning and identifying it found out it was set up for the opposing
approach. One was at Providence for ILS5, and the id was for the ILS23
localizer. In that case, I was apparently the first one in after a runway
change.

Tim J wrote:

> I understand that; please don't misunderstand that I would expect that for
> the real world. I figured if the software let me do it and CLEARED me for
> the approach then I would be able to receive the signal. Either they want
> to throw some crazy situation at you, or there is a problem with the
> software and the clearance for the approach should be consistent with the
> localizer that is active. In my opinion it is a defect in the software.
>
> "Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
> ...
> > FWIW, if the airport is using ILS24, then you can't get ILS6. If you
> look at
> > the charts, you'll note that the frequencies for both approaches are the
> same
> > but the identifier is different to match the antenna in use. I doubt
> Islip is
> > going to switch the localizers for you just because you don't have a chart
> > handy, unless you declare an emergency that is.
> >
> > Tim J wrote:
> >
> > > Any simulator that allows you to practice your procedures is good - I
> > > wouldn't expect any of the pc based sims to be anything like a plane or
> a
> > > device that you can count toward flight sim time.
> > >
> > > I just got FS2004 and borrowed a yoke - it seems to be ok - the bells
> and
> > > whistles are more than I need for practicing and ingraining the
> procedures I
> > > have been taught. However, either there are problems with the software
> or I
> > > haven't figured out how to use it the way I want.
> > >
> > > For example, I try to file from an airport to another using VOR/airways,
> but
> > > when I start flying, the program always tries to give me direct. I can
> use
> > > the VORs, but it is unclear to me how to see the desired route as
> airways.
> > >
> > > I also have to keep telling the controllers that I want to fly the
> entire
> > > procedures - they always try to give me vectors to an approach.
> > >
> > > Also, and this is definitely a defect in the software, but I caught the
> > > problem and it reinforced good habits of what I was taught...
> > >
> > > I was given ILS 24 to KISP. I did not have that approach in front of me
> so
> > > I asked for ILS 6 (or vice versa). I was cleared for the full approach
> that
> > > I asked for. however, when I tuned in the ILS (both are the same freq)
> I
> > > got the identifier for the one that I refused and the color
> sector/needle
> > > was all wrong. Seems to me a problem with the software, but maybe not -
> > > maybe they wanted it that way.
> > >
> > > > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > I am just starting my Instrument rating,
> > > > and I believe that a good PC based flight simulator would
> > > > help shorten the learning curve.
> > > >
> > > > What simulators would this group reccomend?
> > > >
> > > > I hava older versions of X-plane (V6) and MSFS2002.
> > > > I have a high performance PC so I should be able to run whatever is
> > > > availible.
> > > > I've tried the C172 in both sims.
> > > >
> > > > MSFS2002 the VSI is way too fast and the plane is way too stable.
> > > >
> > > > XPlane, the plane feels about right, the only complaint is the turn
> > > > gyro is way too twitchy.
> > > >
> > > > Anyone have comments on later version of either of these sims?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > (Yes I know that a PC based simulator time can not be logged)
> >
> > --
> > --Ray Andraka, P.E.
> > President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
> > 401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
> > email
> > http://www.andraka.com
> >
> > "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
> > temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> > -Benjamin Franklin, 1759
> >
> >

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Scott Lowrey
October 8th 03, 03:25 AM
"Kobra" said:
> I have MSFS2002 and I'll ask you a question. You say the plane is too
> stable and your next line says the VSI is too sensitive and fast?

The VSI needle in FS04 is much more responsive than the real thing - too
responsive. It seems to translate pitch changes instantly into vertical
speed. A real 172 VSI lags for about 5-7 seconds before stabilizing on
vertical speed indication. Not a huge deal if you pay due attention to the
altimeter, but it can be distracting.

I don't think the original poster was connecting the stability of the model
with the overly sensitive VSI. Two separate issues.

> On my computer I can't keep the damn thing on heading or altitude. I
don't
> care how I trim it or adjust my joystick (and once owned the CH Products
> Yoke and Pro Pedals), it always wants to turn left or right. You are
> correct that the pitch is WAY too sensitive and the VSI make wild
> fluctuations. I tried adjusting the sensitivities and no joy on
> improvement.
>

I agree. Occasionally, I've ben able to get into a groove and stabilize
nicely but not very often. I use the CH pedals and rudder and have played
with the sensitivity and null zone settings to no avail. Can't find
anything that satisfies me. The other night I tried flying the Baron and
all surfaces - elevator especially - seemed ridiculously sensitive to
control input.

-Scott

Bomber Joe
October 10th 03, 07:57 AM
For practical IFR training, on a simulator that doesn't go out of
date, I like On Top, from aerotraining.com; it's made by ASA, but sold
by aerotraining.com and they're really helpful.

On Top has nice large, stable instruments and an airports/navaids
editor that lets you keep your geographical database up-to-date. It's
designed for IFR training and practice and it never flakes out like
FS2002 does when doing an ILS approach. It also allows for
instrument/system failures, etc. and has big radios with STBY
frequencies.

Google