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