A thought & question on simulators

[Ricky]

During my instrument training (early 90s) I spent a lot of time in a
simulator. It was not a new, modern simulator, but it did the job.
I remember going out to the C-172 for instrument training and thinking
how glad I was that I wasn't in the sim today. The plane was like a
breath of relief. Flying the sim was hard, I remember it being more
difficult than the airplane. Induced failures were frequent, things
happened faster, and the sim was not nearly as forgiving as the
airplane.

I have never flown a MS simulator but I do wonder if the thing has the
same level of difficulty that a non-motion sim from the early 90s may
have had? The MS sim I speak of would have a basic lightplane setup
with pedals, yoke, throttle, radios, etc, in other words; as close to
a light plane as is possible in MS. It would also mean the MS sim is
flown as a pilot would be doing in gaining hours & instruction or
recurrency toward his/her instrument rating.

This post is meant for those instrument rated pilots who've flown MS
and a real sim, too, not Anthony.

Ricky

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Jan 12, 7:09*pm, Ricky > wrote:
> During my instrument training (early 90s) I spent a lot of time in a
> simulator. It was not a new, modern simulator, but it did the job.
> I remember going out to the C-172 for instrument training and thinking
> how glad I was that I wasn't in the sim today. The plane was like a
> breath of relief. Flying the sim was hard, I remember it being more
> difficult than the airplane. Induced failures were frequent, things
> happened faster, and the sim was not nearly as forgiving as the
> airplane.
>
> I have never flown a MS simulator but I do wonder if the thing has the
> same level of difficulty that a non-motion sim from the early 90s may
> have had? The MS sim I speak of would have a basic lightplane setup
> with pedals, yoke, throttle, radios, etc, in other words; as close to
> a light plane as is possible in MS. It would also mean the MS sim is
> flown as a pilot would be doing in gaining hours & instruction or
> recurrency toward his/her instrument rating.
>
> This post is meant for those instrument rated pilots who've flown MS
> and a real sim, too, not Anthony.
>
> Ricky

No good for the scenario you describe.
DH

[Darkwing]

"Ricky" > wrote in message
...
>
> During my instrument training (early 90s) I spent a lot of time in a
> simulator. It was not a new, modern simulator, but it did the job.
> I remember going out to the C-172 for instrument training and thinking
> how glad I was that I wasn't in the sim today. The plane was like a
> breath of relief. Flying the sim was hard, I remember it being more
> difficult than the airplane. Induced failures were frequent, things
> happened faster, and the sim was not nearly as forgiving as the
> airplane.
>
> I have never flown a MS simulator but I do wonder if the thing has the
> same level of difficulty that a non-motion sim from the early 90s may
> have had? The MS sim I speak of would have a basic lightplane setup
> with pedals, yoke, throttle, radios, etc, in other words; as close to
> a light plane as is possible in MS. It would also mean the MS sim is
> flown as a pilot would be doing in gaining hours & instruction or
> recurrency toward his/her instrument rating.
>
> This post is meant for those instrument rated pilots who've flown MS
> and a real sim, too, not Anthony.
>
> Ricky

It's fun shooting approaches to minimums in a 747 into O'Hare but I can't
say MSFS has significantly added to my aviation knowledge. I learn more
reading the posts on RAP (well before all the idiots moved in).

[Paul kgyy]

On Jan 12, 6:09*pm, Ricky > wrote:
> During my instrument training (early 90s) I spent a lot of time in a
> simulator. It was not a new, modern simulator, but it did the job.
> I remember going out to the C-172 for instrument training and thinking
> how glad I was that I wasn't in the sim today. The plane was like a
> breath of relief. Flying the sim was hard, I remember it being more
> difficult than the airplane. Induced failures were frequent, things
> happened faster, and the sim was not nearly as forgiving as the
> airplane.
>
> I have never flown a MS simulator but I do wonder if the thing has the
> same level of difficulty that a non-motion sim from the early 90s may
> have had? The MS sim I speak of would have a basic lightplane setup
> with pedals, yoke, throttle, radios, etc, in other words; as close to
> a light plane as is possible in MS. It would also mean the MS sim is
> flown as a pilot would be doing in gaining hours & instruction or
> recurrency toward his/her instrument rating.
>
> This post is meant for those instrument rated pilots who've flown MS
> and a real sim, too, not Anthony.
>
> Ricky

I found MS sim to be overkill for instrument practice and use ASA's
OnTop instead. I find it significantly harder than the airplane.
Part of it is having to use a mouse to tune radios and set up the GPS
- knobs are more efficient. I find the flying also a good deal more
"twitchy" than the plane (76 Bo). You can tell the system what
failures you want it to simulate and it will do that at a random time.

Notwithstanding all of that, I still use it to practice during the
winter when the clouds are full of ice, and even during the rest of
the year if I'm headed out in the plane I may do a practice approach
into the planned airport.

[Darkwing]

"Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 12, 6:09 pm, Ricky > wrote:
> During my instrument training (early 90s) I spent a lot of time in a
> simulator. It was not a new, modern simulator, but it did the job.
> I remember going out to the C-172 for instrument training and thinking
> how glad I was that I wasn't in the sim today. The plane was like a
> breath of relief. Flying the sim was hard, I remember it being more
> difficult than the airplane. Induced failures were frequent, things
> happened faster, and the sim was not nearly as forgiving as the
> airplane.
>
> I have never flown a MS simulator but I do wonder if the thing has the
> same level of difficulty that a non-motion sim from the early 90s may
> have had? The MS sim I speak of would have a basic lightplane setup
> with pedals, yoke, throttle, radios, etc, in other words; as close to
> a light plane as is possible in MS. It would also mean the MS sim is
> flown as a pilot would be doing in gaining hours & instruction or
> recurrency toward his/her instrument rating.
>
> This post is meant for those instrument rated pilots who've flown MS
> and a real sim, too, not Anthony.
>
> Ricky
>
>I found MS sim to be overkill for instrument practice and use ASA's
>OnTop instead. I find it significantly harder than the airplane.
>Part of it is having to use a mouse to tune radios and set up the GPS
>- knobs are more efficient. I find the flying also a good deal more
>"twitchy" than the plane (76 Bo). You can tell the system what
>failures you want it to simulate and it will do that at a random time.
>
>Notwithstanding all of that, I still use it to practice during the
>winter when the clouds are full of ice, and even during the rest of
>the year if I'm headed out in the plane I may do a practice approach
>into the planned airport.
>

I was hoping MSFS-X would help me learn the G1000 since it is offered on the
program but it was way to stripped down with only the basic screens so I
can't say I learned much unfortunately. Wonder if they will offer the Garmin
Perspective?! That way you can fly a simulator on the simulator!

[Dylan Smith]

On 2009-01-13, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> No good for the scenario you describe.

I respectfully *strongly* disagree; a PC sim is great for instrument
procedure training if used properly. I used one and it was tremendously
helpful. I set it up with a faster, slipperier plane than I was actually
flying, and it helped greatly on things such as instrument scan,
procedures, partial panel etc.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Jan 30, 3:39*pm, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2009-01-13, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > No good for the scenario you describe.
>
> I respectfully *strongly* disagree; a PC sim is great for instrument
> procedure training if used properly. I used one and it was tremendously
> helpful. I set it up with a faster, slipperier plane than I was actually
> flying, and it helped greatly on things such as instrument scan,
> procedures, partial panel etc.
>
> --
> From the sunny Isle of Man.
> Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

In the context you are describing you are absolutely correct. I read
the OP as asking about the sim in direct comparison to the physical
action/ reaction of the real airplane which of course the sim cannot
duplicate in any way.
For instrument procedures ONLY, as relates to instrument training, the
sim has many practical uses when used in conjunction with an
instrument instructor, and in fact I have highly recommended it for
that purpose many times in the past and will continue to do so in the
future.
Dudley Henriques

[Jon]

On Jan 30, 7:01*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> On Jan 30, 3:39*pm, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> > On 2009-01-13, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > > No good for the scenario you describe.
>
> > I respectfully *strongly* disagree; a PC sim is great for instrument
> > procedure training if used properly. I used one and it was tremendously
> > helpful. I set it up with a faster, slipperier plane than I was actually
> > flying, and it helped greatly on things such as instrument scan,
> > procedures, partial panel etc.
>
> [...]
>
> In the context you are describing you are absolutely correct. I read
> the OP as asking about the sim in direct comparison to the physical
> action/ reaction of the real airplane which of course the sim cannot
> duplicate in any way.

There has been a fair amount of research done which supports Dudley's
statement. Some of the recently published papers can found here:

<http://www.volpe.dot.gov/hf/pubs.html>

<http://www.volpe.dot.gov/hf/docs/aiaa-2007-6564.doc> may provide
useful info to some here.

>[...]

> Dudley Henriques

Regards,
Jon

[Gezellig]

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:01:35 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:

> On Jan 30, 3:39*pm, Dylan Smith > wrote:
>> On 2009-01-13, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>>> No good for the scenario you describe.
>>
>> I respectfully *strongly* disagree; a PC sim is great for instrument
>> procedure training if used properly. I used one and it was tremendously
>> helpful. I set it up with a faster, slipperier plane than I was actually
>> flying, and it helped greatly on things such as instrument scan,
>> procedures, partial panel etc.
>>
>> --
>> From the sunny Isle of Man.
>> Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
>
> In the context you are describing you are absolutely correct. I read
> the OP as asking about the sim in direct comparison to the physical
> action/ reaction of the real airplane which of course the sim cannot
> duplicate in any way.
> For instrument procedures ONLY, as relates to instrument training, the
> sim has many practical uses when used in conjunction with an
> instrument instructor, and in fact I have highly recommended it for
> that purpose many times in the past and will continue to do so in the
> future.
> Dudley Henriques

Dudley, you preferred one Microsoft Sim version, which one and why?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Feb 1, 1:30*am, Gezellig > wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:01:35 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > On Jan 30, 3:39*pm, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> >> On 2009-01-13, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> >>> No good for the scenario you describe.
>
> >> I respectfully *strongly* disagree; a PC sim is great for instrument
> >> procedure training if used properly. I used one and it was tremendously
> >> helpful. I set it up with a faster, slipperier plane than I was actually
> >> flying, and it helped greatly on things such as instrument scan,
> >> procedures, partial panel etc.
>
> >> --
> >> From the sunny Isle of Man.
> >> Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
>
> > In the context you are describing you are absolutely correct. I read
> > the OP as asking about the sim in direct comparison to the physical
> > action/ reaction of the real airplane which of course the sim cannot
> > duplicate in any way.
> > For instrument procedures ONLY, as relates to instrument training, the
> > sim has many practical uses when used in conjunction with an
> > instrument instructor, and in fact I have highly recommended it for
> > that purpose many times in the past and will continue to do so in the
> > future.
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> Dudley, you preferred one Microsoft Sim version, which one and why?

I worked with Microsoft on both 2004 and all through FSX. Both
programs are similar as relates to what we have been discussing here.
Without going into a ton of detail, I would simply say that I find
2004 contains everything needed by a CFI or CFII to work with a
student and do that without the glitches and issues that live in FSX.
2004 in my opinion contains very good programming and runs well on
almost all computer systems. FSX requires MUCH more computer power to
run at the same level of smoothness as 2004.
DH

[Gezellig]

On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 06:06:13 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:

> On Feb 1, 1:30*am, Gezellig > wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:01:35 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>> On Jan 30, 3:39*pm, Dylan Smith > wrote:
>>>> On 2009-01-13, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>>>>> No good for the scenario you describe.
>>
>>>> I respectfully *strongly* disagree; a PC sim is great for instrument
>>>> procedure training if used properly. I used one and it was tremendously
>>>> helpful. I set it up with a faster, slipperier plane than I was actually
>>>> flying, and it helped greatly on things such as instrument scan,
>>>> procedures, partial panel etc.
>>
>>>> --
>>>> From the sunny Isle of Man.
>>>> Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
>>
>>> In the context you are describing you are absolutely correct. I read
>>> the OP as asking about the sim in direct comparison to the physical
>>> action/ reaction of the real airplane which of course the sim cannot
>>> duplicate in any way.
>>> For instrument procedures ONLY, as relates to instrument training, the
>>> sim has many practical uses when used in conjunction with an
>>> instrument instructor, and in fact I have highly recommended it for
>>> that purpose many times in the past and will continue to do so in the
>>> future.
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> Dudley, you preferred one Microsoft Sim version, which one and why?
>
> I worked with Microsoft on both 2004 and all through FSX. Both
> programs are similar as relates to what we have been discussing here.
> Without going into a ton of detail, I would simply say that I find
> 2004 contains everything needed by a CFI or CFII to work with a
> student and do that without the glitches and issues that live in FSX.
> 2004 in my opinion contains very good programming and runs well on
> almost all computer systems. FSX requires MUCH more computer power to
> run at the same level of smoothness as 2004.
> DH

Thx

[JJ[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
FSX requires MUCH more computer power to
> run at the same level of smoothness as 2004.
> DH

MS products are always overloaded at take-off and not flight tested :-)

JJ

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Feb 6, 12:18*pm, JJ > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
> * FSX requires MUCH more computer power to
>
> > run at the same level of smoothness as 2004.
> > DH
>
> MS products are always overloaded at take-off and not flight tested :-)
>
> JJ

I own TWO Macs! Love um both!!
:-))
-D

[Jon]

On Feb 6, 12:18*pm, JJ > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
> * FSX requires MUCH more computer power to
>
> > run at the same level of smoothness as 2004.
> > DH
>
> MS products are always overloaded at take-off and not flight tested :-)

Difficult when you can't get off the ground ;)

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7874937.stm>

> JJ

JP