PC flight sim for training?

[ivo welch]

I have started on practical IFR training in the real world. (Vans
RV-9, hopefully RV-10 soon; mostly glass cockpit.) I do ok on
precision flying, but I would definitely like to practice patterns,
approaches, etc., at home before I go. just too few approaches per
training hour.

Fortunately, it is the year 2004 now, so hopefully, there are now
pretty decent flight sims to work on a reasonably hi-end home
computer. Right? choices seem to be "on top", "x-plane", "fs2004",
"jepp flitepro". I looked for a comparative review of these, but
could not find one. any opinions on what works well would be highly
appreciated. help, please.

sincerely, /iaw

[Dan Truesdell]

I used (and continue to use for recurrency practice) Jepp's FlightPro.
I would recommend it, but not necessarily over the rest. My
requirements were to have something that I could practice procedures
with. FlightPro has no terrain graphics, but I don't care about that.
There are three planes to fly (a 172, a bonanza, and one other I can't
think of right now). It has approaches to almost every airport in the
country (very handy to shoot the approach the night before a lesson). I
would recommend a yoke (I have CH Products and it works just fine). You
can get rudder pedals, but I'm not sure they are worth it. You can turn
the plane just fine without them, and, while I usually land at the end
of an approach (after going missed a few times), I don't care if the
plane lands a bit sideways due to a cross wind. FlightPro (as do the
others, I presume) has some nice features like random failures of
instruments, wind settings, etc. I think I spent about $220 on the
software and yoke, and can run it on my laptop as well as my workstation
(which is nice, as it has a 21" screen). Again, I'm not recommending
FlightPro over the others. It's just that I have experience with it,
and found it to be quite helpful. My instructor(s) indicated that the
training flights usually went smoothly (baring any stupid actions on my
part) because I prepared for the flight beforehand. (After my
checkride, the DE called my instructor and said I did quite well, but
said that I fly the plane like a simulator. My last instructor lamented
that, as well. So I'm less than subtle on the controls! Isn't that
what they're there fore?! :-))

Hope that helps.



ivo welch wrote:
> I have started on practical IFR training in the real world. (Vans
> RV-9, hopefully RV-10 soon; mostly glass cockpit.) I do ok on
> precision flying, but I would definitely like to practice patterns,
> approaches, etc., at home before I go. just too few approaches per
> training hour.
>
> Fortunately, it is the year 2004 now, so hopefully, there are now
> pretty decent flight sims to work on a reasonably hi-end home
> computer. Right? choices seem to be "on top", "x-plane", "fs2004",
> "jepp flitepro". I looked for a comparative review of these, but
> could not find one. any opinions on what works well would be highly
> appreciated. help, please.
>
> sincerely, /iaw


--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

[Don Fisher]

I just completed my Instrument checkride (successfully) this week. I
used the microsoft flight Sim 2002 and found it to be essential
preparation for real flights. I trained in a 2000 Cessna 172S, which
is including with microsoft flight sim. The power settings were off
just a bit from the real thing, but otherwise felt pretty true to
flying IFR. It also has virtually every public airport and most
NAVAIDS in the country. There are 3rd party addons available to add
or change NAVAIDS. You can also arm any instruments or instrument
systems to fail within a period of time to simulate partial panel
flight. Even using just a generic game joystick it ingrains various
IFR maneuvers in your mind. Iwounld just make sure the airplane your
flying is available in whichever simulator you get. Good Luck

Don



>I have started on practical Ia FR training in the real world. (Vans
>RV-9, hopefully RV-10 soon; mostly glass cockpit.) I do ok on
>precision flying, but I would definitely like to practice patterns,
>approaches, etc., at home before I go. just too few approaches per
>training hour.
>
>Fortunately, it is the year 2004 now, so hopefully, there are now
>pretty decent flight sims to work on a reasonably hi-end home
>computer. Right? choices seem to be "on top", "x-plane", "fs2004",
>"jepp flitepro". I looked for a comparative review of these, but
>could not find one. any opinions on what works well would be highly
>appreciated. help, please.
>
>sincerely, /iaw

[SeeAndAvoid]

I've only played around with MS FlightSimulator over the years and havent
spent the bigger bucks on the probably better software out there. My friend
uses X-Plane and rants on and on about it ( http://www.x-plane.com ).

The mapping of MsFs has gotten better every year, and most navaids and fixes
(every one I ever looked for or needed) are in it. When I'm going to an
unfamiliar area I like to take a look at the terrain with FS, it usually
doesnt look as bad on FS as it does looking at a sectional, and usually in
real life it looks pretty similar to FS. It helps with the visuals, what to
expect as you come in from a certain angle, lakes, rivers, etc.

For IFR I set the weather pretty close down to minimums, and sometimes throw
in seasonal weather. If you have a Garmin 530, it's great practice at using
that. It has a Garmin500 which is basically the same thing minus the COM.
I dont have ADF in my airplane, so I get to get in some practice on NDB
approaches. Overall, for the price, it aint bad.

Chris



"ivo welch" > wrote in message
om...
> I have started on practical IFR training in the real world. (Vans
> RV-9, hopefully RV-10 soon; mostly glass cockpit.) I do ok on
> precision flying, but I would definitely like to practice patterns,
> approaches, etc., at home before I go. just too few approaches per
> training hour.
>
> Fortunately, it is the year 2004 now, so hopefully, there are now
> pretty decent flight sims to work on a reasonably hi-end home
> computer. Right? choices seem to be "on top", "x-plane", "fs2004",
> "jepp flitepro". I looked for a comparative review of these, but
> could not find one. any opinions on what works well would be highly
> appreciated. help, please.
>
> sincerely, /iaw

[John Bishop]

Go to FSGenesis and Lago (there are probably others too) and for a small sum
you can download much better terrain for MSFS. Helps flying a lot. Some of
it is free also.

John

"SeeAndAvoid" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I've only played around with MS FlightSimulator over the years and havent
> spent the bigger bucks on the probably better software out there. My
friend
> uses X-Plane and rants on and on about it ( http://www.x-plane.com ).
>
> The mapping of MsFs has gotten better every year, and most navaids and
fixes
> (every one I ever looked for or needed) are in it. When I'm going to an
> unfamiliar area I like to take a look at the terrain with FS, it usually
> doesnt look as bad on FS as it does looking at a sectional, and usually in
> real life it looks pretty similar to FS. It helps with the visuals, what
to
> expect as you come in from a certain angle, lakes, rivers, etc.
>
> For IFR I set the weather pretty close down to minimums, and sometimes
throw
> in seasonal weather. If you have a Garmin 530, it's great practice at
using
> that. It has a Garmin500 which is basically the same thing minus the COM.
> I dont have ADF in my airplane, so I get to get in some practice on NDB
> approaches. Overall, for the price, it aint bad.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> "ivo welch" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I have started on practical IFR training in the real world. (Vans
> > RV-9, hopefully RV-10 soon; mostly glass cockpit.) I do ok on
> > precision flying, but I would definitely like to practice patterns,
> > approaches, etc., at home before I go. just too few approaches per
> > training hour.
> >
> > Fortunately, it is the year 2004 now, so hopefully, there are now
> > pretty decent flight sims to work on a reasonably hi-end home
> > computer. Right? choices seem to be "on top", "x-plane", "fs2004",
> > "jepp flitepro". I looked for a comparative review of these, but
> > could not find one. any opinions on what works well would be highly
> > appreciated. help, please.
> >
> > sincerely, /iaw
>
>

[ivo welch]

"John Bishop" > wrote in message >...
> Go to FSGenesis and Lago (there are probably others too) and for a small sum
> you can download much better terrain for MSFS. Helps flying a lot. Some of
> it is free also.
>
> John
>

remarkably, for such products, one would expect some sample scenery
images on their websites. alas, I could not find such.

can any of these addon products image buildings (that I want to avoid
flying into!)? there are satellite images one could use to guestimate
structures.

sincerely,

/iaw

this is getting off the IFR thread. indulge us, please.

[[email protected]]

FS2004 scenery is comprised of the following:

- terrain mesh - i.e., elevation data. FS2004's included mesh's
resolution varies depending on where you're flying, but in almost all or
all cases there are freeware or payware meshes that have superior
resolution - and therefore, more accurate hills and mountains.
(Downside: higher resolution mesh can affect framerate, since more
elevation points are being represented.) A good explanation of this and
also some links to freeware mesh for some areas (e.g. California) can be
found here: http://mesh64.home.att.net/
- landclass data: "this is a city, this is a rural area, this is a body
of water"... etc. etc. Landclass tells FS which texture to use to render
a given Patch of Land; it has a large library of textures (which change
from season to season - i.e. what you have the date set to) from which
to draw these from.
- custom building scenery - Las Vegas has a lot of this; LAX is another
example. Any well-known structure landmark that exists in FS falls under
this category. The more detailed airports also have a lot of custom
buildings. (Note to helicopter pilots - custom buildings cannot be
landed on.)
- semi-generic building scenery - to convey a downtown area, but not
particularly realistically. I believe that downtown San Jose is like
this; I live in SJ, but I don't think the downtown buildings correspond
to actual ones. (I could be wrong about this though.)
- AutoGen buildings - no relation to real structures, but they convey
"built-up" areas; I believe that the landclass data drives the AutoGen
engine. BTW AutoGen can have a very adverse affect on framerate if you
turn it up much.
- Photorealistic (i.e., aerial-photo-based) - I think there is a little
bit of this in FS2004, but this exists primarily in add-on "payware"
products; for instance http://www.megascenery.com provides some
photo-based regions of the US. However, this type of product consists of
only the photo-based image textures and higher-than-default terrain
mesh; no building data is included to my knowledge.

So the end result is that FS itself only models a (relatively) small
number of real structures in the virtual world, and add-on packages
typically focus on airport environs and their buildings. It's unlikely
that the ol' 1906 International Order Of Odd Fellows temple that sits at
the end of your local Runway 31 will be represented.

That is probably way more data than you expected, and I'm a little
embarrassed that I know about these things... But flight simming is
almost as much of a passion as real flying is for me.

In closing, I will note that if you're flying an airplane in FS and you
have to worry about flying into a building, you're too low to begin with
8^) .

Dave Blevins

On 26 Feb 2004 08:34:06 -0800, (ivo welch)
wrote:

>"John Bishop" > wrote in message >...
>> Go to FSGenesis and Lago (there are probably others too) and for a small sum
>> you can download much better terrain for MSFS. Helps flying a lot. Some of
>> it is free also.
>>
>> John
>>
>
>remarkably, for such products, one would expect some sample scenery
>images on their websites. alas, I could not find such.
>
>can any of these addon products image buildings (that I want to avoid
>flying into!)? there are satellite images one could use to guestimate
>structures.
>
>sincerely,
>
>/iaw
>
>this is getting off the IFR thread. indulge us, please.

[ivo welch]

<deleted>

thanks for all the info. has become a better thread to take to
simulators than IFR. I think I will buy megascenery, just for
pleasure, not for IFR training.

[txc2936]

Would you be willing to send me a copy of your Flite pro 2004. I have version 6.2 and Jeppesen does not support the software anymore.

email me at

[Denny]

This is an old thread I stumbled across... Wanted to mention ASA's, ON
TOP, IFR proficiency simulator... I also have FS2004Pro, but I prefer
the instrument panel that ON TOP has...
Besides, this is IFR practice, why are we rating sims on how realistic
the scenery is?

Anyway, I fly IFR in an old Apache, which is not on either sim, so I
simply dial up a Bonanza or a Baron and use that... And I do not have a
yoke, just use a joy stick... I do not notice the differences when
getting in the real airplane... My reflexes are geared to accomodate
the cockpit I'm in at themoment... It is procedures that need
repetition, not power settings, joy stick versus yoke, etc...

cheers ... denny

[Mark Hansen]

On 01/16/2006 12:10 PM, Denny wrote:
> This is an old thread I stumbled across... Wanted to mention ASA's, ON
> TOP, IFR proficiency simulator... I also have FS2004Pro, but I prefer
> the instrument panel that ON TOP has...
> Besides, this is IFR practice, why are we rating sims on how realistic
> the scenery is?
>
> Anyway, I fly IFR in an old Apache, which is not on either sim, so I
> simply dial up a Bonanza or a Baron and use that... And I do not have a
> yoke, just use a joy stick... I do not notice the differences when
> getting in the real airplane... My reflexes are geared to accomodate
> the cockpit I'm in at themoment... It is procedures that need
> repetition, not power settings, joy stick versus yoke, etc...
>
> cheers ... denny
>

The problem I have with the simulators (I use MS FS 2004) is that
the yoke doesn't really represent the trimmed-out speed of the airplane
(in that if you let go of the yoke/stick, the airplane will do what it
is trimmed to do).

As a result, I spend a lot of time getting the trim set to the point
where the attitude will remain relatively constant. This can be really
irritating when changing configuration (like when entering a holding
pattern after cruise flight).

I wonder if there is a way to tell the simulator to manage the trim
a little better? I've looked some ... need to look more.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

[Mitty]

On 1/16/2006 2:21 PM, Mark Hansen wrote the following:
>
> I wonder if there is a way to tell the simulator to manage the trim
> a little better? I've looked some ... need to look more.

ASA's IP Trainer does not do it. Elite doesn't do it. PFC yokes do feel pretty
reak-world, though, unlike the cheapies.

I have had some time in a Frasca and in it, too, pitch control was a PITA. I've
been told that pretty much all simulators are bad at this.

[Peter R.]

Denny > wrote:

> Besides, this is IFR practice, why are we rating sims on how realistic
> the scenery is?

Because at some point you pop below the layer and land visually? ;-)

--
Peter

[John R. Copeland]

"Mitty" > wrote in message ...
>
> On 1/16/2006 2:21 PM, Mark Hansen wrote the following:
>>
>> I wonder if there is a way to tell the simulator to manage the trim
>> a little better? I've looked some ... need to look more.
>
> ASA's IP Trainer does not do it. Elite doesn't do it. PFC yokes do feel pretty
> reak-world, though, unlike the cheapies.
>
> I have had some time in a Frasca and in it, too, pitch control was a PITA. I've
> been told that pretty much all simulators are bad at this.

Yes.
I've logged time in the old WW2-era, vacuum-driven Link Trainers.
They were easy to hate, too, for the same reason.

[Jim Macklin]

Simulators are designed to not fully trim to a stable
a/s-heading, the design parameter is to make the pilots fly.

If you can fly a simulator, whether it is a basic PC based
software job or a $10,000,000 full motion, full visual state
of the art jet, the airplane will be easy.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
| On 01/16/2006 12:10 PM, Denny wrote:
| > This is an old thread I stumbled across... Wanted to
mention ASA's, ON
| > TOP, IFR proficiency simulator... I also have
FS2004Pro, but I prefer
| > the instrument panel that ON TOP has...
| > Besides, this is IFR practice, why are we rating sims on
how realistic
| > the scenery is?
| >
| > Anyway, I fly IFR in an old Apache, which is not on
either sim, so I
| > simply dial up a Bonanza or a Baron and use that... And
I do not have a
| > yoke, just use a joy stick... I do not notice the
differences when
| > getting in the real airplane... My reflexes are geared
to accomodate
| > the cockpit I'm in at themoment... It is procedures that
need
| > repetition, not power settings, joy stick versus yoke,
etc...
| >
| > cheers ... denny
| >
|
| The problem I have with the simulators (I use MS FS 2004)
is that
| the yoke doesn't really represent the trimmed-out speed of
the airplane
| (in that if you let go of the yoke/stick, the airplane
will do what it
| is trimmed to do).
|
| As a result, I spend a lot of time getting the trim set to
the point
| where the attitude will remain relatively constant. This
can be really
| irritating when changing configuration (like when entering
a holding
| pattern after cruise flight).
|
| I wonder if there is a way to tell the simulator to manage
the trim
| a little better? I've looked some ... need to look more.
|
|
| --
| Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
| Sacramento, CA

[Jim Macklin]

That makes them better trainers, you have to scan and fly
all the time.


"Mitty" > wrote in message
...
|
|
| On 1/16/2006 2:21 PM, Mark Hansen wrote the following:
| >
| > I wonder if there is a way to tell the simulator to
manage the trim
| > a little better? I've looked some ... need to look more.
|
| ASA's IP Trainer does not do it. Elite doesn't do it.
PFC yokes do feel pretty
| reak-world, though, unlike the cheapies.
|
| I have had some time in a Frasca and in it, too, pitch
control was a PITA. I've
| been told that pretty much all simulators are bad at this.

[Tom McQuinn]

Mark Hansen wrote:
> On 01/16/2006 12:10 PM, Denny wrote:
>
>> This is an old thread I stumbled across... Wanted to mention ASA's, ON
>> TOP, IFR proficiency simulator... I also have FS2004Pro, but I prefer
>> the instrument panel that ON TOP has...
>> Besides, this is IFR practice, why are we rating sims on how realistic
>> the scenery is?
>>
>> Anyway, I fly IFR in an old Apache, which is not on either sim, so I
>> simply dial up a Bonanza or a Baron and use that... And I do not have a
>> yoke, just use a joy stick... I do not notice the differences when
>> getting in the real airplane... My reflexes are geared to accomodate
>> the cockpit I'm in at themoment... It is procedures that need
>> repetition, not power settings, joy stick versus yoke, etc...
>>
>> cheers ... denny
>>
>
> The problem I have with the simulators (I use MS FS 2004) is that
> the yoke doesn't really represent the trimmed-out speed of the airplane
> (in that if you let go of the yoke/stick, the airplane will do what it
> is trimmed to do).
>
> As a result, I spend a lot of time getting the trim set to the point
> where the attitude will remain relatively constant. This can be really
> irritating when changing configuration (like when entering a holding
> pattern after cruise flight).
>
> I wonder if there is a way to tell the simulator to manage the trim
> a little better? I've looked some ... need to look more.
>
>
It's been a while since I've used my copy of On Top but there is a
feature called 'auto trim' that I map to one of the buttons on the
joystick. (That's the way I remember it, anyway.) I put the nose where
I want it, press the button, and it's trimmed. Let's me focus on the
things that I need to practice.

Tom

[John Clonts]

>The problem I have with the simulators (I use MS FS 2004) is that
>the yoke doesn't really represent the trimmed-out speed of the airplane
>(in that if you let go of the yoke/stick, the airplane will do what it
>is trimmed to do).

>As a result, I spend a lot of time getting the trim set to the point
>where the attitude will remain relatively constant. This can be really
>irritating when changing configuration (like when entering a holding
>pattern after cruise flight).

I prefer a simple gamepad-style controller for my IFR sim. The left
thumb is the joystick for elevator and aileron. The right thumb uses
the four buttons which are set for throttle-increment,
throttle-decrement, elevator-trim-increment, and
elevator-trim-decrement.

This works well for me in MSFS and X-Plane. Doesn't work in OnTop or
IPTrainer because they use their idiotic non-standard drivers which are
not nearly as flexible nor reliable.

Turn turbulence way up to improve your scan. Add thunderstorms for
pretty visual effects.

--
Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[Blanche]

I've got over 30 hours in the Frasca and have never had problems
setting the trim. In fact one of the instructors (I've taken the
courses at the local college) used to chide me for flying entire
practice sequences (45 minutes) with nothing but the trim for
everything other than the takeoff.

We've got 4 ATPs (is that the right company?) but I haven't
had a chance to use those yet. They're for the multi students.

I've got FS2002 and have never been able to get trim to work
properly.

[john h]

"Mitty" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> On 1/16/2006 2:21 PM, Mark Hansen wrote the following:
> >
> > I wonder if there is a way to tell the simulator to manage the trim
> > a little better? I've looked some ... need to look more.
>
> ASA's IP Trainer does not do it. Elite doesn't do it. PFC yokes do feel
pretty
> reak-world, though, unlike the cheapies.
>
> I have had some time in a Frasca and in it, too, pitch control was a PITA.
I've
> been told that pretty much all simulators are bad at this.

f0r MS FS2004 take a look at the following from NG
alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim
It's not real but it seems to vastly improve the time it takes to trim.

> RealTrim 0.9
> <http://library.avsim.net/search.php?SearchTerm=realtrim-0-9.zip>
>
> RealTrim is a Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004(tm) Module. Activated via
> key-press it converts the current elevator deflection into trim as the
> sim-pilot moves the yoke forward or backwards. This maps closely to
> trimming an airplane in real-life where pressure on the elevator felt
> through the yoke is trimmed out by the pilot operating a trim wheel. As
> the sim-pilot smoothly moves the joystick into neutral position,
> RealTrim automatically adjusts the elevator trim so the airplane stays
> in its current pitch configuration. This mechanism is superior to
> moving the joystick into neutral while tapping a trim-key or moving a
> trim-axis. That's because moving the joystick's axis and modifying trim
> are not linked to each other and especially difficult in the case of
> tapping a trim-key.
>
> Filename: realtrim-0-9.zip
> License: Freeware, limited distribution
> Added: 24th January 2006
> Downloads: 32
> Author: Nils Meier
> Size: 22kb