G

GSchuld

Well Known Member
So I have a few years to learn to fly before I have something to fly:rolleyes:. I also have a good friend that is works for a company that upgrades/programs/trouble shoots/etc computers. She has just removed about 20 perfectly good shape 2-3yr old desk top PCs from a company that was upgrading. I can have as much as I want for free:D. So I was thinking that I could use all this free stuff and set up a designated flight simulator in the house. I, however, am not very computer friendly, and I'm not into video games. I have heard of people using several monitors and setting up the flight sim to display on them all to create a more realistic situation. Since I can get all the basic computer hardware for free, why not right? If it can be done, my friend can set it up. It's a matter of what is the best setup I guess. She has no personal experience with flight sims ...yet;)!

I realize that flight sims are no replacement for actual flying, but I also do get the chance to fly right seat in a nice bonanza from time to time and I get to do everything but takeoffs and landings:)! It would be nice to learn as much as I can before the official training starts, and that will be a while. I have also read that flight sims can be potentially counterproductive to a green pilot in training as getting used to the synthetic world of flying can potentially form bad habits based on the difference between real and fake.

Is there a book or program out there that is geared toward walking a person through the process of how to properly learn on a flight sim? Basically a written or digital flight instructor for flight sims?

Any suggestions as to a recommended FS program for my situation? X-plane/Flight SimX/other?

Any and all suggestion/opinions welcome and appreciated.

George
 
IFR great, VFR not so hot

PC flight sims are great for practicing cockpit procedures and the basic sequence of events for a flight. They are also outstanding for practicing instrument flight and approaches, as IFR work is completely "heads-down".

There are 2 basic faults with PC flight sims that make them not terribly suitable for learing basic heads-up flight:

1. Lack of peripheral visual cues - especially critical during take-off, approach, and landing.
2. Improper lontigudinal trim behavior - the stick is always spring-loaded to an absolute neutral position and this is totally wrong.

If you can get access to a cheap or free multiple-monitor setup I'd recommend it to address problem #1.

If you want any type of realism at all, get a controller that at least includes a rudder control axis.

MS FS, at least version 9 (probably version X as well) contains a built-in digital reference and a set of flight lessons.

I had a ton of PC-based flight sim "hours" before I took my first real flight lesson. When I got my instrument rating I breezed right through, so it probably helped. But it definitely instilled a "heads-down" mentality in me, which is not good for basic VFR flying.

There are also techniques you have to learn to avoid crashing flight sims that are completely opposite to flying a real plane, especially landing, and will probably constitute "negative learning". This is mainly due to the 2 issues listed above.
 
JHines said:
PC flight sims are great for practicing cockpit procedures and the basic sequence of events for a flight. They are also outstanding for practicing instrument flight and approaches, as IFR work is completely "heads-down".

There are 2 basic faults with PC flight sims that make them not terribly suitable for learing basic heads-up flight:

1. Lack of peripheral visual cues - especially critical during take-off, approach, and landing.
2. Improper lontigudinal trim behavior - the stick is always spring-loaded to an absolute neutral position and this is totally wrong.
Click to expand...

Being a pilot first.....................helps a lot with the 2 basic faults that are listed. The brain can fill in a lot of the gaps, if you're use to what the "feel" is suppose to feel like. I even get those peripheral visual cues on takeoff, approach, and landing by using 3D virtual cockpits. Of course, by simming first, the main benefit will be what's listed above.

When it comes to sim models, much depends on the experience of the programmer. Those that have done it for many years, in addition to piloting experience have done quite a credible job.

IMO, a sim is great for experiencing airport layouts with regards to the surrounding topography, when you've actually never been there. The topography databases are very good these days.

L.Adamson
 
I've been reading up on some of the multi display systems for flight silmulators and the ideal(without spending a fortune) seems to be using several monitors with each one being run by a seperate but centrally controlled hard drives and identical monitors. Sounds like a handfull of free, fairly new identical desktop computers and monitors would work out very nicely:). I would have every intention to get a quality joystick(perhaps I can even remove the self centering action for more realism), seperate rudder pedals, and throttle/mixture/(etc.) quadrant.

Of the examples that I have seen, a real nice layout seems to be a three identical monitor setup side by side in the panoramic position with the program running the three monitors in a continuous extra widescreen view(out the windshield/canopy) with a separate monitor(or 2) below the center of the 3 dedicated to the instrument panel. With a good joystick, seperate pedals, and seperate throttle quadrant the whole system seems like it would create a fairly good system. The joystick, pedals, quadrant, and FSX program don't seem to be overly pricey, and the programs/cards,etc. to run the multi computer/monitor equipment doesn't seem to to be that big a deal. So for a few hundred bucks, at most, I should be able to assemble a pretty serious rig to get a few hunderd hours of "free" training in. By the time I go train for real, I'll be a full on airline pilot:D

George
 
I'd be careful in how much time you spend setting up a multi-pc multi-monitor flight sim. If you are building a plane now, it will like suck lots of time away from your project. All that stuff takes a lot of tweaking and computer know-how to get functioning properly.

If the multi-monitor thing turns out to be more that you want to bite off, the check out TrackIR 4 from NaturalPoint (watch the video demo). It tracks your head movements and allows you to move your virtual head in the sim. It doesn't solve the peripheral vision issues, but its kinda cool.

As far as books go, there are many but I would recommend "Microsoft Flight Simulator as a Training Aid" by Bruce Williams (check out Bruce Air). It covers a lot of the basics about flight sim software and hardware, but it's real benefit is that it comes with a CD containing many VFR and IFR practice flights.

FSX vs X-Plane... For a beginner, I would recommend FSX or FS2004. I haven't used FS2004, but FSX contains a lot of built in lessons and resources about flying, and as a whole their are a lot more books and information available about FSX than there are for X-Plane.

FSX is VERY CPU dependent, so just be sure to throw the fastest CPU you can at it. The video card is important to, but not as much as the speed of the CPU. I would recommend using a CPU of at least 2+Ghz, a video card with 512MB, and at least 2GB of RAM in any PC you plan to run FSX on. You won't be able to max out the effects or scenery in FSX, but you will be able to run it. FS2004 isn't as resource intensive.

Here's a screenshot from FSX using some add-on scenery and an aircraft with a Garmin GNS430 I use to practice instrument approaches. No I wasn't flying an approach with a 1400fpm decent, I was just fooling around... really I was! :p

dakota_3.JPG
 
Last edited:
GSchuld said:
I would have every intention to get a quality joystick(perhaps I can even remove the self centering action for more realism), seperate rudder pedals, and throttle/mixture/(etc.) quadrant.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's that centering spring and what you see on the screen, that provides sensation of feel and trim. The mind has to be fooled. I always use the analogy of a car moving slightly ahead while you're stopped at a stop light. You swear you're rolling backwards and slam on the brakes. This is an example of where it was all visual, but the mind provided a sensation of movement, when it didn't exist.

L.Adamson
 
FSX Deluxe

FWIW - I am a new pilot as of last year, now working on instrument rating. I have owned every version of MS Flightsim since inception, but only used them a short while before getting disgusted with the keyboard (duh). After a few lessons, I asked my instructor about using FS to aid my training and he said it can be very helpful, but that I should buy the yoke. I bought the CH Products yoke and started in, using the C-172 that comes with the program and doing as many of the lessons as I could. My instructor commented on how much he noticed it helping me. I had 400-500 landings at my airport (and runway) before I had 30 for real. It very much helped me in many aspects and, while it is not perfect, it is very nice. One feature of FSX Deluxe that helped a new pilot is the ATC dialogue that it has - very helpful in helping a new pilot with radio phraseology.

I did find very quickly that I need a set of CH Products rudder pedals as well. The default steering during taxi without pedals is to turn the yoke and I didn't want to build that bad habit. Also, you need rudder pedals for practicing cross wind maneuvers.

I am now using it in my IR training and have found it very helpful, perhaps more than in the basic training. It has very realistic handling, mag compass turning errors, and you can tell it to fail various instruments randomly so you get realistic partial panel failures. Even though I can't log the sim time, I am fully expecting it to reduce the number of hours I need to be proficient.

FWIW, MS FSX has near photorealistic images of nearly every airport in the world, and all the terrain in between, so I can practice a cross country VFR flight in the mountains before actually flying it.

It does take a robust computer, so make sure you have enough of whatever to make it run smooth. I have it running on a new laptop with a 22" separate flat screen monitor and it works fine.

Total cost for program, yoke and rudder pedals, minus computer, is about $250. Check Amazon.com

My $0.02
 
Last edited:
Microsoft FSX

I'll simply confirm what Brad and Douglas have said. FSX (MS Flight Simulator 10) can help in a number of ways. I run FSX on a "tricked out" computer (but they are becoming less expensive by the day) using my HDTV and it looks spectacular in VFR mode. In addition to using it the way Brad and Douglas have recommended using it, I also use it for practicing the various calls you make around the airport and to the controller. For example, when entering down wind at your favorite airport, make your down wind call (although people around you may think you are slightly 'affected' -- and of course you are).

The book Brad recommended is also helpful. Be prepared, however, to learn about your computer in addition to flying and be prepared to spend some money on add-ons. There are some very fine airplane and scenery "payware" products.

I am also able to 'hook up' my Anywhere Map PDA like I would in my airplane and fly a route for practice that I maight be considering flying on the weekend.

Good luck - it's all fun.
 
Many times over the years, well meaning friends ----non pilots---- have coaxed me into trying their flight simulators when learning I am a pilot.

Hated them all, without exception.

As stated above, lack of visual/peripheral clues, and lack of physical feedback. No seat of the pants, stomach or inner sensations.

I suspect that is why the really big guys------Air Force for one, use big buck gimbaled/hydraulic moving cabins with 6 or 8 screens.

Obviously just my opinion, but most pilots (who have been flying for a few years) I have discussed this with feel the same way.
 
Lack of Understanding State of the Art

Don't let lack of understanding the state of the art in "personal computer" hardware, software and peripherals (e.g., force feedback controllers, joysticks, etc.) deter you from using a PC flight simulator for learning the various aspects of flying. The 'big boys' us all kinds of procedure trainers that are not mounted on hydraulic platforms or Class D certified. Mostly, they only use the 'mega buck' (~$10 million) trainers for high fidelity in-flight emergency training and 'final exams' (because they don't want ham fisted goofs to break the real airplane (or take it out of revenue service for that matter)).

Everyone is entitled to an opinion - uninformed or otherwise.
 
I'm of two minds on PC-based Flight Simulators. On the one hand, I honestly believe that they can be the single most cost-effective way of staying mentally current with the THINKING portion of instrument flying (navigation, situational awareness, procedure practice, etc...). On the other hand, when it comes to actually learning how to fly an airplane, they are great games.

So...for the "basics" (the title of this thread), I don't think you're going to get much out of them, except to keep your enthusiasm for aviation alive and kicking (not an inconsequential consideration!). But for saving money in keeping yourself instrument sharp (especially in these days of push-button and knob-twisting instrument flying), they can be pretty darn useful.

We use lots of PC-based part-task trainers in the aerospace operations community, and they are way, way cheaper than the big simulators we have used traditionally - and continue to use for the high-end, large team training. Our current trend is to build new systems simulations entirely on PC's to save money and provide better training.

Paul
 
Thanks for the suggestions especially about the TrackIR-4, very cool.

So I am looking into buying a new laptop anyway. I take my current laptop with me a bunch and I've been looking at the new HP 2140 professional series as they are so lightweight (2.6lbs) and compact.

Any suggestions as to whether this laptop would work well with FSX if hooked to a large LCD monitor through a docking station? Any suggestions for the non computer savvy?

HP 2140 mini professional series

HP recommends Windows Vista® Business
Operating system Preinstalled:
Genuine Windows Vista® Business 321
Genuine Windows Vista® Home Basic 321
Genuine Windows Vista® with downgrade
to Genuine Windows® XP Professional custom installed1,9
Genuine Windows® XP Home Edition
FreeDOS
SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 10
Processor Intel® Atom™ N270* Processor (1.6 GHz, 512 KB L2 cache, 533 MHz FSB)
*Intel’s numbering is not a measurement of higher performance
Chipset Mobile Intel 945GSE Express Chipset
Memory DDR2 SDRAM, 800 MHz,10 one SODIMM memory slot, supports up to 2048 MB11
Internal Storage 160 GB 5400 rpm SATA, 160 GB 7200 rpm SATA; with HP 3D DriveGuard (supported on
Windows models only); 80 GB Solid State Drive
Display 10.1-inch diagonal HP Illumi-Lite LED SD (1024 x 576); 10.1-inch diagonal Illumi-Lite LED HD
(1366 x 768)
Graphics6 Mobile Intel GMA 950
Audio/Visual High Definition Audio, stereo speakers, integrated stereo microphones, stereo headphone/line out,
stereo microphone in; integrated VGA webcam
Wireless support3 Broadcom 802.11a/b/g/n, b/g, optional Bluetooth™ 2.0, HP Wireless Assistant
Communications5 Marvell Ethernet Integrated Controller (10/100/1000)6
Expansion slots (1) ExpressCard/54 slot, Secure Digital (SD) slot
Ports and connectors (2) USB 2.0 ports, VGA, power connector, RJ-45/Ethernet, stereo headphone/line out, stereo
microphone in
Input device 92% full-size keyboard, touchpad with scroll zone
Software HP Recovery Manager (Windows Vista only), Roxio Creator 9, Microsoft® Office Ready 20072
Security Kensington lock
Dimensions (h x w x d) 1.05 (at front) x 10.3 x 6.54 in / 26.7 (at front) x 261.4 x 166.2 mm
Weight starting at 2.6 lb / 1.19 kg (with 3-cell battery and Hard Drive, weight will vary by configuration)
Power 3-cell (28 WHr) or 6-cell (55 WHr)8 Lithium-Ion battery, 65W HP Smart AC Adapter, HP Fast
Charge7
Expansion Solutions Optional optical drives via External MultiBay II
Warranty Limited 1-year and 90-day warranty options available, depending on country, 1-year limited warranty
on primary battery. Optional HP Care Pack Services are extended service contracts which go beyond
your standard warranties.
For more details visit: http://www.hp.com/go/lookuptool.

Perhaps it would be more reasonable to use the 2140 mini with the docking station and pick up a really big LCD tv/monitor for FSX use. I would get a docking station and larger monitor anyway for home use, might as well get a really big monitor. The TrackIR-4 system is amazing. It seems to remove much of the need for a multiple monitor setup. Fine by me. I wasn't looking forward to setting the multi computer "command center" anyway. The pedals, good joystick, and throttle quadrant are a must. My wife will think I'm nuts if I try to hook the 50" lcd tv in the living room to the docking station:D. Perhaps I shouldn't push my luck...

George
 
Last edited:
graphics capability

That looks like it probably has the default built-in graphics card. Laptops are going to lag behind in this area compared to desktops. FS is resource intensive and you want your processor speed, RAM, graphics card etc. to be at the high end or "recommended" range of what Microsoft states on the box, not the minimum. If HP offers an optional graphics upgrade you want it.

If you can really get a free 2-3 year old desktop you could make some selective DIY plug-in upgrades (e.g. RAM, video card) for say $200-$300 and end up with a much more capable machine for gaming/simulation purposes (as far as the computer hardware is concerned FS is a game).
 
GSchuld said:
HP 2140 mini professional series

HP recommends Windows Vista? Business
Operating system Preinstalled:
Genuine Windows Vista? Business 321
Genuine Windows Vista? Home Basic 321
Genuine Windows Vista? with downgrade
to Genuine Windows? XP Professional custom installed1,9
Genuine Windows? XP Home Edition
FreeDOS
SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 10
Processor Intel? Atom? N270* Processor (1.6 GHz, 512 KB L2 cache, 533 MHz FSB)
George
Click to expand...

The top two (2) PC based flight simulators are X Planes and MS FSX. I am not familiar with X Planes and will only say that X Planes was just selected by The US Navy and Air Force as the software to be used (mostly in a highly modified fashion) for a varying number of flight training devices.

I am very familiar with MS FSX. As stated in a prior response, MS FSX is very CPU intensive and, for the most part, does not take advantage of multiple core processor technology. It also does not really do much with multi GPU technology like ATI's Crossfire and Nvidia's SLI. So, in order to get the maximum "eye candy" with MS FSX you have to get the biggest CPU and GPU your pocket book can afford (and, as I stated earlier, the price of those things are coming down daily).

The 'Atom' CPU is not a good candidate for MS FSX, nor is an integrated GPU. I would refer you to www.sim-outhouse.com (once there go to the FSX section) to look at the signature lines of various members. They usually list the components they have built into their computers and the other components they use to operate FSX. You can also see some of the great options available for FSX. (Although I have been hoping, no one has yet developed a good RV-8 for FSX and I'm not about to learn how to program just to get one. That time is better spent modifying my current RV-8 and designing my next ride!) Good luck.
 
I'm afraid to admit that the fine workings of computers are way over my head. I am assuming that FSX is the way I will most likely go. And if I understand correctly, FSX needs to run on a Microsoft Vista operating system. I'm fairly sure that the free extra decktop computers available to me are just barely pre Vista vintage. I'll have to find out more about them and their capabilities to see whether they are worth messing with.
So I take it I that if I wanted to use a new laptop for FSX, I am better off getting a larger one(grown up size;)) with more processing power. I can handle that if that if larger laptops can get the job done well. The compact thing would be handy, but far from needed. I'd rather not buy a new desktop just for FSX, since I already need a new computer and it needs to be a laptop, no way around it with what I do. I have plenty of space to set up an always ready to go designated flight simulator setup in the house regardless, no issue there.

Any recommendations for a reasonably priced full sized laptop capable of giving good performance with FSX? Or am I really better off coming up with a seperate desktop based system? I'd rather do this fairly right the first time as long as it doesn't get too out of hand.

Oh, and I have read that someone is working on a standard (non glass paneled) RV-8 for FSX. The same person is also developing a glass cockpit RV-10. Reportedly, your wish should be granted fairly soon!


As a side thought, although I have some concerns about becoming too comfortable with the artificial world of flying, I imagine that I can balance that with some more real flying with a friend in his Bonanza and possibly others during the same period.

George
 
Last edited:
I used Flight Simulator for learning navigation and cross country planning and flying. Just set it up for no wind at first and concentrate on navigating then add the weather as desired. Plan a flight on paper then fly it on FS. It's a lot of fun.
Another program that you may find helpful is Comm1:

http://www.comm1.com/home.html

This one really helped me with my radio skills. They have a VOR/NDB sim too but resist buying it, FS VOR's are just fine for learning purposes.

Good luck!
 
Ironflight said:
I'm of two minds on PC-based Flight Simulators. On the one hand, I honestly believe that they can be the single most cost-effective way of staying mentally current with the THINKING portion of instrument flying (navigation, situational awareness, procedure practice, etc...). On the other hand, when it comes to actually learning how to fly an airplane, they are great games.
Click to expand...

Well said!

One more comment about buying/setting up an FSX rig. IMHO, Vista sucks! Of all the PC problems I've had within the past 2 years, I would say that the majority have been Vista related. If you read many of the posts on various sim sites, you will find that users have encountered countless errors and problems when running FSX and add-ons under Vista. My suggestion would be to stick with XP, and and wait and see what Windows 7 brings next year.

No, FSX does NOT require Vista, I run it on XP (only after running it on Vista created problems).
 
Last edited:
GSchuld said:
I'm afraid to admit that the fine workings of computers are way over my head. I am assuming that FSX is the way I will most likely go. And if I understand correctly, FSX needs to run on a Microsoft Vista operating system. I'm fairly sure that the free extra decktop computers available to me are just barely pre Vista vintage. I'll have to find out more about them and their capabilities to see whether they are worth messing with.
So I take it I that if I wanted to use a new laptop for FSX, I am better off getting a larger one(grown up size;)) with more processing power.

<SNIP>

George
Click to expand...

Rather than go "hog wild" with your new machine it might be a lot cheaper to take one of the free/surplus desktops, which presumably are running Windows XP. Then get a copy of FS version 9 which works fine on XP. You could try eBay for this, or some retailers may have old copies. Then if the old desktop is not up to snuff, you can upgrade it as your time/budget allows. FS9 will run decent on a fairly low-powered machine, you just can't use a lot of the extra "eye candy" optional graphics features. For example, it ran fine for me on a circa 2003 Pentium-4 1.6 mHz laptop.
 
George, after reading the full specs on that HP machine you listed, I have to agree with Jay. It won't make a real good FSX machine. It's really intended for portability, not power. Besides, how the heck are you going to see anything on a 10.1" monitor?!?! ;)

I like Jonathan's suggestion above... XP and FS2004. Keep it simple and cheap at first, if you like it, then upgrade.

If I were building a PC just for FSX, I would put something together myself from computer store parts and overclock the CPU (it's kinda like putting a supercharger on an engine). This is often not possible using motherboards from Dell, HP, or any other big mfg, especially not laptops. Yes, it's a little bit advanced, but it's not that difficult. People often run Intel E6600 CPUs (dual core, 2.4Ghz) at 3+Ghz without issue. Wow, do I sound like an uber-geek or what?
 
Last edited:
Let me second Brad's reply. Building your own computer is not nearly as hard as it might sound. If you can build an RV you can easily do it. A great place to start is Newegg.com As an extra benefit that Brad mentioned, if you build your own you will have industry-standard interchangable components. If something blows up you can just head down to Best Buy, CompUSA, etc. and get a replacement.
 
Hmmm, some good ideas. Luckily, my friend(surplus computer supplier:rolleyes:) is quite skilled with computers. She can set up all kinds of stuff for me. It's what she does for a living. If I go the 2-4 yr old free desktop route and run FS2004 and run it on XP, that should be easy enough. She can upgrade just about anything computer wise, no problem. I might even be able to get the upgrade hardware for cost. I just figured that if I was going to run a FS, I'd want to run the latest version so I can use the up to date stuff available like that TrackIR-4 system. Can a system like trackIR-4 run on XP and FS2004? Can trackIR-4 run on FSX on an upgraded used windows XP desktop? Too many options...

George
 
I'm with Brad - I run FSX on XP (but I never went to Vista - I was waiting for driver maturity which, apparently, never arrived). FS9 does lots of stuff, has lots of (free) support and is still widely used. Same website I cited earlier - www.sim-outhouse.com - also has lots of information about FS9 / FS2004. FS9, as noted, is also less hardware intensive.

Newegg is the place. If you can't find it at Newegg it isn't worth having (lol). Slapping together a computer and rigging it up is not too difficult, but always have a second web enabled device working so you have web/google access for trouble shooting. (Also, don't forget to have an OS ready to install once you have it assembled.) Good luck.
 
Here are the system requirement for TrackIR 4...

For Software Version 4.0++ ::
Windows 2000 / XP / Vista (32 & 64-bit)
Requires DirectX 8 or later
Pentium II 500
5 megabytes of free hard disk space
16 megabytes of RAM
USB 1.1 or 2.0 port

In addition, FSX and FS2004 are reported to support all 6 axis of motion (yaw, pitch, roll, X, Y, Z).

Just to be clear, I have not used TrackIR, but the reviews from those that have say it has changed their FS experience for the better. I would set yourself up with FS first, get it working, and if you find yourself using it and wanting more, then and only then would I add TrackIR.

Good luck!
 
Mike S said:
Many times over the years, well meaning friends ----non pilots---- have coaxed me into trying their flight simulators when learning I am a pilot.

Hated them all, without exception.

As stated above, lack of visual/peripheral clues, and lack of physical feedback. No seat of the pants, stomach or inner sensations.

I suspect that is why the really big guys------Air Force for one, use big buck gimbaled/hydraulic moving cabins with 6 or 8 screens.

Obviously just my opinion, but most pilots (who have been flying for a few years) I have discussed this with feel the same way.
Click to expand...


Notice that I highlighted the last sentence. :)

In reality, there are a lot of long time "pilots" who get quite involved in desktop flight simulation. Not so much as just using it, but actually being third party developers who have built up many years of programming experience. Some of the most authentic airliner addons were a product from commercial airline pilots. Same goes for many other GA pilots who have been producing some of the better software for years. I just happen to know this because I've done a lot of beta testing in the past for Microsoft and 3rd party vendors.

As to developing a sense of "feel" and all that, it's just something you get use to. In fact, Austin Meyer of X-Plane has made enough money to own a Cirrus, a Columbia 400, and put a deposit on a jet. Not bad! I'm not a real fan of X-Plane, but I wouldn't mind the money! :D

L.Adamson
 
There is one other option

Take the money you would spend on building a computer, yoke, etc. and go and take at least one flying lesson.

If you like the experience, you have two options, continue to save towards each lesson OR build/buy your sim.
 
I've already been up, a number of times in a friend's Bonanza. I haven't done any take offs or landings, but I've flown a good 15-20 hours in that Bonanza both local and a bit of cross country. Love it:D. No doubt there. I know myself though, and I want to primarily focus on building. When the time comes, I will just go ahead and take the flight training in a short block of time. I have no intention on spacing it out for any financial reasons. But if I went ahead and got my PPL now, I know that I will be in pilot dream world and it will distract me from building. I can barely chew gum and drive as it is:).

Plus, there is a possibility that a retired CFI aquaintance of mine would be quite willing to teach me for the cost of the fuel in his plane if he moves back to this area next year. If that could happen, I'd feel much better about the idea if I had already studied up and gotten myself as familiar as possible with the process. And I could get a chance to become better prepared for more stick(yoke:)) time in the Bonanza in the meantime.

George
 
X Plane

I run X plane on my Mac. Outstanding sim. You can even get an FAA approved version - including very high quality controls and throttle/radio quadrants.

The standard version of X-plane you can buy is the same software as the FAA approved version, minus some safety features that ensure accurate frame rates, etc. I use it for simulating IFR and cross country with REAL TIME local weather.

I wouldn't say it's anything near a replacement for any stage of training, but when I went up for my first ride with my instructor - and already knew how to shoot the IFR approach for the local field we were on, with the 430W we had on board - it didn't hurt any.

ff
 
I would recommend X-Plane over MSFS. Microsoft just recently fired/laid off the entire development team that handles Microsoft Flight Sim.

X-Plane was running a deal that was something like $39 for the sim and the DVD scenery disks. They run on Mac, Windows and linux boxes. X-Plane has an engine that takes into account the physics of flying and aircraft much better than flight sim. So that means it's esaier to model various aircraft so that they handle in the sim close to the way they handle in the air.

I run Vista at home, have no issues with it and honestly like it - but it really depends on the age of the machine. Older machines may not have the approrpriate drivers for Vista. I've been in the IT field for decades and run many different systems at work depending on the needs.

Any flight sim will require horsepower in the graphics but now days that means you can spend $100 to $150 for a graphics card that will do everything you want. Add a mulit-core processor, 4 gigs of memory and you're set. Of course the requirements are less for a linux box but honestly I want my users on windows and my servers on Linux in an ideal world.

Still like everyone says there's nothing like the real thing, boucing around the sky tasting that hot dog again and again...:D

Bob
 
bhassel said:
I would recommend X-Plane over MSFS. Microsoft just recently fired/laid off the entire development team that handles Microsoft Flight Sim.

X-Plane was running a deal that was something like $39 for the sim and the DVD scenery disks. They run on Mac, Windows and linux boxes. X-Plane has an engine that takes into account the physics of flying and aircraft much better than flight sim. So that means it's esaier to model various aircraft so that they handle in the sim close to the way they handle in the air.
Click to expand...

It's better not to argue the merits of flight simulations on a "real airplane" forum such as this. We already have near infinate threads on simulation forums. Just don't assume that those RV's included with the latest version of X-Plane fly anything like an RV. They don't! I tend to use my RV's right rudder for takeoff, and I don't remember it ballooning up like a Cessna with flap deployment. However, the X-Plane model does take a very, very long time to slow down with the throttle pulled back. Perhaps it simulates fixed pitch RV's rather well. :D

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
I found FS9 and later FSX to be very helpful in training for IFR certification. I can make repeated approaches (ILS, VOR, NDB, GPS) for pennies rather than hundreds of dollars. The net effect being that when I'm back in the cockpit with the instructor I can focus on those areas I need to.

I also found that even though the G1000 in FSX is not a perfect simulation, it's still good enough that with accompanying documentation one can stay boned up enough so that you aren't lost when you're looking at the real thing (I fly this panel in real life infrequently). I basically learned how to input and activate flight plans and approaches using FSX, which once again, translated to less time in the air (when it's expensive) learning these skills.

Certainly no where near the real thing, but an inexpensive way supplement training.
 
I presume that it would be possible for me to customize a panel layout. Say to lay out the panel as I would intend to put in my own plane so I can get a chance to functionally try out my panel layout to see if it works best for me and to familiarize myself with a fairly close representation to what I want to fly. Is this possible/practical for FS9? FSX? X-Plane?

George
 
You can do it on X-plane, but it takes a lot of work and know-how to make it right. You can build your own aircraft from scratch, for that matter.

ff
 
Another option that might be useful is FlightGear, it is a lot like FSX in overal feel, but a bit less sophisticated graphically and more fiddly to setup. It is free and all open source though so if you want to try out different things it may facilitate customization better than others. I have FSX and FG and generally prefer FSX, but do fly FG sometimes.
 
What is recommended as the most realistic stick (joystick) to use on these simulators? I don't want the yoke because in the end I'll have a plane with a stick.
 
diamond said:
What is recommended as the most realistic stick (joystick) to use on these simulators? I don't want the yoke because in the end I'll have a plane with a stick.
Click to expand...

Ouch, realism.. I'll try to give this a shot.

For the joystick, your brain makes up a lot of it. I have a Thrustmaster Cougar which has springs strong enough to train arm wrestlers. :D Yet I can translate the force down to RV-6A levels (ie, think left) and flew a friend's plane with no problems. Actually the Piper Lance takes a lot more force to move the controls, so there's definitely no predefined notion of what's correct even in the real world.

For the throttle, just having one. CH makes ambidexterous joysticks and they have a dual throttle / prop / mixture control that is probably the only thing I've seen that would relate to center mounted engine controls. Every other throttle I've seen is a left-hand model, in some way related to an F-16 or some sci-fi jet fighter. I know of none with vernier style controls. I used to have a Piper Warrior model for FSX that matched the trainer I flew very well, and I had no problem using a yoke and center mount throttle in the plane to my Cougar setup on the computer which models an F-16 with left hand throttle.

For rudder pedals, Simped. They have toe brakes, how cool is that! I did build a little wooden frame to keep from pushing the entire thing around on the floor. Some joysticks have a twist stick to emulate the rudder. It's better than nothing, but not the best.

Sadly there aren't many to choose from now. CH, Logitech, and Saitek are about the only ones left. I don't think you'd go wrong with any of those however.
 
flight simming

I read most of the posts; excuse me if I'm repeating something.
I've flown mostly MS flight sim prior to X, but like some of x's features, and the flying lessons are one of them....to a degree.
I'll vote for Track IR over many screens, but like projecting the view at 6'x10' on the wall in front of me!

I have Saitek throttle & joystick & pedals, but the darndest thing I've seen is a guy who just took a few rheostats from busted controllers, and had a broomstick for a stick, and similar wood blocks for rudders!!! It was WAY more realistic due to the correct control throws and resistance!
...way beyond me to wire up such a thing, but it was cool.

Frankly, I think the standard desktop sim is quite valuable, even if the only thing you learn is going thru the motions to sort out your checklist, learn to talk on the radio, and visualize approaching a strange field.
I do darn little flying from nov. to march, so I'm positive a few hours a week on the sim makes me more proficient in the spring!
 
I only saw one previous post mentioning TrackIR, so forgive me if I repeat anything. Definitely invest in this! It's not expensive and gives you a relatively good feel for the "looking around" part of flying.

I got my first flightsim (Falcon 3.0) almost 20 years ago and have really found that they're helpful in getting you used to the idea of flying. If you already have the basics of aerodynamics understood, then flying flight sims should give you some idea of what the real thing is like. Just make sure you pick something with realistic settings! IL2 Sturmovic, MS Flightsim X, etc are all pretty real.

You're probably going to find that actually flying the plane is the easy part (real life, not the sim) and that the procedures are what hang most people up. Once you get a good understanding of weather, airspace rules, communication procedures, etc, you'll be most of the way there. Flying is rather intuitive, but do make sure that you understand everything about it, including the dangers and "gotchas".

I've seen more than a few guys with lots of hours approach it without any caution. They scare the heck out of me!

Remember, ""Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity, or neglect."
 
Has anyone tried the Logitec G940 control system? I've been flying FSX with a Extreme 3D Pro and am thinking about an upgrade (would like force feedback and rudder pedals I think). Any thoughts?
 
Last edited:
The new generation of flight sims are awesome.

Just don't forget that flying downtown Chicago is NOT legal in the real world...

:D
 
BikePilot said:
Has anyone tried the Logitec G940 control system? I've been flying FSX with a Extreme 3D Pro and am thinking about an upgrade (would like force feedback and rudder peddles I think). Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

The "real" pilot's brain can fill in much of the "feel" gaps on a desktop simulation if the flight model is done well enough. That's an advantage we have. So many of us who fly the full size, don't feel that a force feedback has a lot of advantages. Rudder pedals are a must though. I use a Saitek X-52 myself. Right handed for the sim, and left for the RV6A.

L.Adamson
 
I can understand the gap-filling. Even though I have low time, I have flow a few real planes a little and could have sworn that I could feel a bit of a bump when flaps were deployed in FSX (no foce feedback with my controller). I did wonder if it might be better with FFB, particularly changes in stick forces with varing speed etc. I have noticed in the real planes I've flown, especially the ASK-21 glider that stick forces become extremely light at low speed and quite high at higher airspeed. I wonder if a FFB stick might add a bit of extra realism.

I'm looking forward to "flying" with rudder pedals one way or another! I've heard good things about the X52. The cost of the new G940 is about the same as an X52 + ruder pedals and adds FFB (which can be turned off) so might be a good deal.

Thanks very much for your comments!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.