Flight simmers - help me understand the market for super-realistic airplane models

[RussR]

I am currently getting my type rating in the Challenger 650. One of the other students found a series of training videos made by a flight simulation company that are pretty good in explaining the rather complicated pre-start and startup checks that are performed. The videos are made using a Challenger 650 add-on to X-Plane, and the aircraft model is extremely accurate in every detail we've been able to find (that other student bought it to get some extra after-hours practice with the systems). Here are some examples of the accuracy of the simulation. (Note, I'm not even talking about flying the plane here.)

- Every switch and circuit breaker is included and is operable.
- Every switch and circuit breaker seems to accurately reflect reality.
- The interactions between the switches seems to be accurate.
- The electrical busses/hydraulic/pneumatic/etc systems seem to be accurate.
- You can literally walk around the exterior and open panels and remove gear pins and covers.

This is no single-engine piston - the startup checks are lengthy and involved. And the simulator seems to model them accurately. For example, for one of the checks you bring up the Hydraulic synoptic page, then basically cycle through the 4 electrically-powered hydraulic pumps to make sure the hydraulic pressure acts as appropriate. Things like setting the 14th stage and 10th stage bleed air and isolation valves and APU pressure and all that stuff seem to be accurate. When you refuel, you need to set the refueling panel properly as well. I have no reason to doubt that any failure of various systems will be accurate too.

So I'm impressed with the level of accuracy of this aircraft model. I think the cost for it is $150. And that's kind of my question - clearly it takes a lot of time, money and effort to make it this realistic. But this is for a Challenger 650, which I wouldn't think would be that popular of a model to put that much money towards - maybe if it was a 747 or an A380 or something like that I could see it. So to make this a viable product, you have to have enough people who 1) want to fly a CL-650 on X-Plane, 2) don't mind spending $150 to do so, and 3) really want ultra-detailed realism. I wouldn't have thought there were enough people in that Venn diagram to make it worth the development effort, but clearly there must be.

Side topic - In addition to the ultra-realism of the aircraft model, there appear to be realism settings that really baffle me as to why someone would want them. For instance, in the video he "calls" the FBO for fuel. The FBO responds and a while later (i.e. not immediately) a fuel truck pulls up, he sets the fuel panel, fuel is pumped in at I guess the normal rate, the fuel truck leaves, and even a "bill" is given to you, which you then "sign". So it's a lengthy process. I already mentioned that during the walkaround you can (or have to?) pull the various gear pins and covers and all. At one point the FBO calls and tells you that your passengers are coming out. I assume that if you need de-icing, that's a realistic process too.

I get the value of flight simulation. I get that lots of people enjoy "flying" different airplanes. I get that in general, realism is better. But watching 2+ hours of videos to learn how to start it up accurately? Removing simulated gear pins? Waiting for the fuel truck? Those things I would not have guessed there's a market for. But again, apparently I'm wrong. (And I'm glad, because it did make for a good training video.)

 

[ArrowFlyer86]

Side topic - In addition to the ultra-realism of the aircraft model, there appear to be realism settings that really baffle me as to why someone would want them. For instance, in the video he "calls" the FBO for fuel. The FBO responds and a while later (i.e. not immediately) a fuel truck pulls up, he sets the fuel panel, fuel is pumped in at I guess the normal rate, the fuel truck leaves, and even a "bill" is given to you, which you then "sign". So it's a lengthy process. I already mentioned that during the walkaround you can (or have to?) pull the various gear pins and covers and all. At one point the FBO calls and tells you that your passengers are coming out. I assume that if you need de-icing, that's a realistic process too.

I get the value of flight simulation. I get that lots of people enjoy "flying" different airplanes. I get that in general, realism is better. But watching 2+ hours of videos to learn how to start it up accurately? Removing simulated gear pins? Waiting for the fuel truck? Those things I would not have guessed there's a market for. But again, apparently I'm wrong. (And I'm glad, because it did make for a good training video.)

People love the nitty-gritty realism and really get into it.

And I asked myself the same question about the market for it when I heard about Vatsim (https://vatsim-radar.com/). The virtual ATC environment.
I wondered why anyone would volunteer to be a virtual ATC controller and route virtual pilots around through virtual airports, all in the name of realism. Ditto for pilots.
And yet... Here's vatsim right now (it's late so there's less people on...)


I imagine the people who like this are the same kinds of people who are interested in super detailed sims.
(And I actually find the realism fun and amusing, especially when I play with non pilots and can be like "yep, that's how it really works!").

 

[Jim_R]

Are there flight schools that use some of these super-realistic models to complement training on the real aircraft? Could it be that some of them want/need a low-demand model enough to pay for (or at least partially subsidize) its initial development, or promise to buy X commercial licenses after it was developed?

A lot of applications have different licenses for recreational vs. commercial use. Could that $150 model for an individual cost $2500 for a flight school, or $50/month, or something like that?

I can also see a few individuals doing this just for the pure pleasure of the endeavor. Same reason some folks build incredibly detailed model ships, planes, buildings, dioramas, etc. from scratch.

 

[Salty]

I am currently getting my type rating in the Challenger 650. One of the other students found a series of training videos made by a flight simulation company that are pretty good in explaining the rather complicated pre-start and startup checks that are performed. The videos are made using a Challenger 650 add-on to X-Plane, and the aircraft model is extremely accurate in every detail we've been able to find (that other student bought it to get some extra after-hours practice with the systems). Here are some examples of the accuracy of the simulation. (Note, I'm not even talking about flying the plane here.)

- Every switch and circuit breaker is included and is operable.
- Every switch and circuit breaker seems to accurately reflect reality.
- The interactions between the switches seems to be accurate.
- The electrical busses/hydraulic/pneumatic/etc systems seem to be accurate.
- You can literally walk around the exterior and open panels and remove gear pins and covers.

This is no single-engine piston - the startup checks are lengthy and involved. And the simulator seems to model them accurately. For example, for one of the checks you bring up the Hydraulic synoptic page, then basically cycle through the 4 electrically-powered hydraulic pumps to make sure the hydraulic pressure acts as appropriate. Things like setting the 14th stage and 10th stage bleed air and isolation valves and APU pressure and all that stuff seem to be accurate. When you refuel, you need to set the refueling panel properly as well. I have no reason to doubt that any failure of various systems will be accurate too.

So I'm impressed with the level of accuracy of this aircraft model. I think the cost for it is $150. And that's kind of my question - clearly it takes a lot of time, money and effort to make it this realistic. But this is for a Challenger 650, which I wouldn't think would be that popular of a model to put that much money towards - maybe if it was a 747 or an A380 or something like that I could see it. So to make this a viable product, you have to have enough people who 1) want to fly a CL-650 on X-Plane, 2) don't mind spending $150 to do so, and 3) really want ultra-detailed realism. I wouldn't have thought there were enough people in that Venn diagram to make it worth the development effort, but clearly there must be.

Side topic - In addition to the ultra-realism of the aircraft model, there appear to be realism settings that really baffle me as to why someone would want them. For instance, in the video he "calls" the FBO for fuel. The FBO responds and a while later (i.e. not immediately) a fuel truck pulls up, he sets the fuel panel, fuel is pumped in at I guess the normal rate, the fuel truck leaves, and even a "bill" is given to you, which you then "sign". So it's a lengthy process. I already mentioned that during the walkaround you can (or have to?) pull the various gear pins and covers and all. At one point the FBO calls and tells you that your passengers are coming out. I assume that if you need de-icing, that's a realistic process too.

I get the value of flight simulation. I get that lots of people enjoy "flying" different airplanes. I get that in general, realism is better. But watching 2+ hours of videos to learn how to start it up accurately? Removing simulated gear pins? Waiting for the fuel truck? Those things I would not have guessed there's a market for. But again, apparently I'm wrong. (And I'm glad, because it did make for a good training video.)

they made $300 just from you and your buddy. Seems like it could get profitable pretty quickly to me.

 

[midlifeflyer]

There are simmers who are very very into their virtual world with home mockups of aircraft that boggle the imagination. $150? A drop in the bucket.

 

[bflynn]

I am currently getting my type rating in the Challenger 650. One of the other students found a series of training videos made by a flight simulation company that are pretty good in explaining the rather complicated pre-start and startup checks that are performed. The videos are made using a Challenger 650 add-on to X-Plane, and the aircraft model is extremely accurate in every detail we've been able to find (that other student bought it to get some extra after-hours practice with the systems). Here are some examples of the accuracy of the simulation. (Note, I'm not even talking about flying the plane here.)

- Every switch and circuit breaker is included and is operable.
- Every switch and circuit breaker seems to accurately reflect reality.
- The interactions between the switches seems to be accurate.
- The electrical busses/hydraulic/pneumatic/etc systems seem to be accurate.
- You can literally walk around the exterior and open panels and remove gear pins and covers.

This is no single-engine piston - the startup checks are lengthy and involved. And the simulator seems to model them accurately. For example, for one of the checks you bring up the Hydraulic synoptic page, then basically cycle through the 4 electrically-powered hydraulic pumps to make sure the hydraulic pressure acts as appropriate. Things like setting the 14th stage and 10th stage bleed air and isolation valves and APU pressure and all that stuff seem to be accurate. When you refuel, you need to set the refueling panel properly as well. I have no reason to doubt that any failure of various systems will be accurate too.

So I'm impressed with the level of accuracy of this aircraft model. I think the cost for it is $150. And that's kind of my question - clearly it takes a lot of time, money and effort to make it this realistic. But this is for a Challenger 650, which I wouldn't think would be that popular of a model to put that much money towards - maybe if it was a 747 or an A380 or something like that I could see it. So to make this a viable product, you have to have enough people who 1) want to fly a CL-650 on X-Plane, 2) don't mind spending $150 to do so, and 3) really want ultra-detailed realism. I wouldn't have thought there were enough people in that Venn diagram to make it worth the development effort, but clearly there must be.

Side topic - In addition to the ultra-realism of the aircraft model, there appear to be realism settings that really baffle me as to why someone would want them. For instance, in the video he "calls" the FBO for fuel. The FBO responds and a while later (i.e. not immediately) a fuel truck pulls up, he sets the fuel panel, fuel is pumped in at I guess the normal rate, the fuel truck leaves, and even a "bill" is given to you, which you then "sign". So it's a lengthy process. I already mentioned that during the walkaround you can (or have to?) pull the various gear pins and covers and all. At one point the FBO calls and tells you that your passengers are coming out. I assume that if you need de-icing, that's a realistic process too.

I get the value of flight simulation. I get that lots of people enjoy "flying" different airplanes. I get that in general, realism is better. But watching 2+ hours of videos to learn how to start it up accurately? Removing simulated gear pins? Waiting for the fuel truck? Those things I would not have guessed there's a market for. But again, apparently I'm wrong. (And I'm glad, because it did make for a good training video.)

In my CAP squadron, we are building as realistic a simulator as we can. For us, the value is:

Motivation for cadets who do well to get time to fly
Familiarization for Pilots / Observers who don't know or aren't comfortable with the G1000. Training for Mission Observers
CRM training

Eventually, there's a desire to certify the device as an AATD and we can use it with pilots to stay ifr current / train ifr.

The value - it's much, much cheaper than an airplane.

If we can get to this, with a force feedback yoke and large TV screen monitors for the front, left, and right windscreens...it will be amazing



The market - about 1700 CAP squadrons world wide?

 

[Jim_R]

In my CAP squadron, we are building as realistic a simulator as we can.

The OP was not doubting the value of simulations in general:

I get the value of flight simulation. I get that lots of people enjoy "flying" different airplanes. I get that in general, realism is better. But watching 2+ hours of videos to learn how to start it up accurately? Removing simulated gear pins? Waiting for the fuel truck? Those things I would not have guessed there's a market for. But again, apparently I'm wrong. (And I'm glad, because it did make for a good training video.)

The OP was questioning whether there was really a market for the level of detail he was seeing for a relatively uncommon / not-so-popular-among-the-masses aircraft. It's a Challenger 650, not a C172 or B737 or F-35.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Some of these "simmers" are quite laughable in their approach to simming. Although not pilots, they will argue with experienced pilots on aircraft and procedures because they believe their make believe world is right and correct.

I've watched a few videos where simmers were trying to describe set up and start procedures, and it was laughable. Proceed with caution.

 

[iamtheari]

I don’t know how the economics of the $150 Challenger model work, but I have flown through one of the Apollo missions (8, I believe, but it was years ago) at nearly that level of simulation. I paid $0 for the simulation software and $0 more for the spacecraft model.

To me, $150 seems like exactly the wrong price. If they wanted to make it for the joy of making it and spreading the love of aviation, they’d give it away. If they wanted to turn a profit, they’d charge $1,500. But maybe they have the volume of sales to make it work at $150, as hard as it is to imagine.

 

[bflynn]

The OP was not doubting the value of simulations in general:

I'm aware.

I wanted to talk about where our value for simulators come from, because I have an interest in well developed markets for GA level components so we have an easier time building our certification to avoid vendor lock in.

Also, the size of the market for high realism (AATD) level is higher than we think. I don't believe the standard weekend warrior pilot like me needs or wants a certified simulator at home, but some do.

 

[Salty]

I don’t know how the economics of the $150 Challenger model work, but I have flown through one of the Apollo missions (8, I believe, but it was years ago) at nearly that level of simulation. I paid $0 for the simulation software and $0 more for the spacecraft model.

To me, $150 seems like exactly the wrong price. If they wanted to make it for the joy of making it and spreading the love of aviation, they’d give it away. If they wanted to turn a profit, they’d charge $1,500. But maybe they have the volume of sales to make it work at $150, as hard as it is to imagine.

I think you're over estimating both the effort required and the overhead costs for the geek that does this while living in his mom's basement.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Some of these "simmers" are quite laughable in their approach to simming. Although not pilots, they will argue with experienced pilots on aircraft and procedures because they believe their make believe world is right and correct.

I've watched a few videos where simmers were trying to describe set up and start procedures, and it was laughable. Proceed with caution.

We occasionally have the same problem in the 142 world.

 

[SoonerAviator]

I don’t know how the economics of the $150 Challenger model work, but I have flown through one of the Apollo missions (8, I believe, but it was years ago) at nearly that level of simulation. I paid $0 for the simulation software and $0 more for the spacecraft model.

To me, $150 seems like exactly the wrong price. If they wanted to make it for the joy of making it and spreading the love of aviation, they’d give it away. If they wanted to turn a profit, they’d charge $1,500. But maybe they have the volume of sales to make it work at $150, as hard as it is to imagine.

They aren't doing it for the love of aviation though. They are doing it to recoup some of the cost of the project, hopefully keeping the price in an area that gets a 50-100+ guys to pony up the money for it. You price it at $1,500, you might get a handful of really dedicated (and well-funded) guys to buy it, but that's it. $150 is accessible to even the high schoolers.

As far as the demand for a Challenger 650 in such detail, there's apparently a market. It may be niche, but you aren't trying to strike it big with "the best" 747 sim because there's already tons of them out there, so a really good Challenger 650 model may mean you're the only player in the game so-to-speak, and your add-on is all that is available because others won't waste time designing one when another established model is already on the market. There's also a fairly big market for customizable livery as well, so that these simmers can have paint/graphics on their birds that match vintage Braniff or Pan Am schemes. The flight sim world is pretty crazy in the realism they try to impart, and partially why Microsoft has been keeping the MSFS software alive and is getting ready to release a new version. I have a nice set of Honeycomb Alpha and Bravo components (yoke and throttle quadrant) that I intended to use to work on some instrument rating stuff but haven't hardly got them out of their original packaging, much less figured out how to run live ATC via Vatsim with MSFS2020. There's a lot of money in the sim world, and realism is the name of the game in most cases.

 

[RussR]

they made $300 just from you and your buddy. Seems like it could get profitable pretty quickly to me.

Only $150, he bought it, I didn't.

There are simmers who are very very into their virtual world with home mockups of aircraft that boggle the imagination. $150? A drop in the bucket.

View attachment 133487

Oh, I know that, but the setup you have pictured is very generic. And I'm not so much asking about the hardware, but the software. I'll show some pictures in my next post.

In my CAP squadron, we are building as realistic a simulator as we can. For us, the value is:



The market - about 1700 CAP squadrons world wide?

Sure, but you have an established market. And that looks like a 172 or similar. Pretty simple airplane to model (and it's been done lots of times already, you're not developing the software for it), compared to a mid-size business jet.

The OP was not doubting the value of simulations in general:


The OP was questioning whether there was really a market for the level of detail he was seeing for a relatively uncommon / not-so-popular-among-the-masses aircraft. It's a Challenger 650, not a C172 or B737 or F-35.

That is exactly my point. I can see lots of people wanting to fly a realistic F-35 or Airbus on their home computer. A CL-650 (that you have to pay extra for)? I just don't see the market, but obviously I'm wrong, because the product does exist.

I think you're over estimating both the effort required and the overhead costs for the geek that does this while living in his mom's basement.

Quite possible. I don't know the level of effort, but it seems like it would be substantial.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Oh, I know that, but the setup you have pictured is very generic. And I'm not so much asking about the hardware, but the software. I'll show some pictures in my next post.

Is this it?

 

[RussR]

Here is a link to the first video of the series that led to my classmate buying the X-Plane add-on.

And here are some screen shots.

First one, note the availability of the DC Electrical Synoptic page. It appears to be fully functional and accurate, as are all of the buttons, knobs, and switches on the pedestal.



Here we have the overhead panel and the Hydraulic Synoptic page:



One of the circuit breaker panels. They claim that all circuit breakers (and there are hundreds of them) are fully functional.



Again, I'm amazed at the level of realism in the systems modeling here. It must have taken a ton of work, no? I'm just surprised that there is enough market for this level of detail in one specific model to warrant its development.

 

[RussR]

Is this it?

Yes, that is it. And apparently I got the price wrong, it's only $115.

 

[midwestpa24]

Ok, I have a confession to make, I'm one of them.

It's a hobby. Even though I'm a pilot, my career path has taken me in different directions and I'll probably never get fly some of the aircraft I'd love to, at least not anytime soon. Flight simming is a way to do, even if not for real. I find it interesting to learn the systems.

X-Plane has many options for study level aircraft that can be purchased, the Challenger being one of them. Just like in the real world, it fits a mission niche. A study level 747 can be fun, if you like spending hours doing international trips on a sim. Some do. I prefer 1-2 hour domestic trips.

Digital Combat Simulator (DCS) is another sim that has many study level military aircraft available, including the A-10, F-16, F-18, AH-64, Chinook, etc. They are a little limited by what material is unclassified, so usually stick to older generations.

For what its worth, I don't have a home sim. Just a good PC with joystick and throttles. Still have to be able to buy Avgas.

I'll see myself out now...

 

[TCABM]

Here is a link to the first video of the series that led to my classmate buying the X-Plane add-on.

And here are some screen shots.

First one, note the availability of the DC Electrical Synoptic page. It appears to be fully functional and accurate, as are all of the buttons, knobs, and switches on the pedestal.

View attachment 133491

Here we have the overhead panel and the Hydraulic Synoptic page:

View attachment 133492

One of the circuit breaker panels. They claim that all circuit breakers (and there are hundreds of them) are fully functional.

View attachment 133493

Again, I'm amazed at the level of realism in the systems modeling here. It must have taken a ton of work, no? I'm just surprised that there is enough market for this level of detail in one specific model to warrant its development.

I’m just going to throw this out here as pure speculation. Could it be that Bombardier partnered with the company (they provide artifacts, procedures, etc.) to develop a commercial use version to drive FTDs or FFSs and the non-commercial use version is just gravy for the developer?

 

[dmspilot]

So to make this a viable product, you have to have enough people who 1) want to fly a CL-650 on X-Plane, 2) don't mind spending $150 to do so, and 3) really want ultra-detailed realism. I wouldn't have thought there were enough people in that Venn diagram to make it worth the development effort, but clearly there must be.

You might be thinking of this the wrong way...I think a high-end product like this could create its own demand. And it's not another Airbus or 737 so the product will stand out more.

 

[Lindberg]

Here is a link to the first video of the series that led to my classmate buying the X-Plane add-on.

And here are some screen shots.

First one, note the availability of the DC Electrical Synoptic page. It appears to be fully functional and accurate, as are all of the buttons, knobs, and switches on the pedestal.

View attachment 133491

Here we have the overhead panel and the Hydraulic Synoptic page:

View attachment 133492

One of the circuit breaker panels. They claim that all circuit breakers (and there are hundreds of them) are fully functional.

View attachment 133493

Again, I'm amazed at the level of realism in the systems modeling here. It must have taken a ton of work, no? I'm just surprised that there is enough market for this level of detail in one specific model to warrant its development.

Surely much of this is based on standard elements within X-Plane that are just assembled in the correct way. There's still work involved to, e.g., tell X-Plane what each breaker affects, but the idea of circuit breakers would be built into X-Plane. I would expect that X-Plane would also have say, "start-up" logic, so the aircraft creator would only have to input the correct procedure for the particular aircraft.

Found this: https://developer.x-plane.com/manuals/planemaker/

Not that it isn't still a lot of work, but it might not be as much work as the OP contemplates.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Surely much of this is based on standard elements within X-Plane that are just assembled in the correct way. There's still work involved to, e.g., tell X-Plane what each breaker affects, but the idea of circuit breakers would be built into X-Plane. I would expect that X-Plane would also have say, "start-up" logic, so the aircraft creator would only have to input the correct procedure for the particular aircraft.

Found this: https://developer.x-plane.com/manuals/planemaker/

Not that it isn't still a lot of work, but it might not be as much work as the OP contemplates.

It sounds like it should be that "simple," but I doubt it. If it were, there would not be add-on aircraft that were really true to the real one and those which are not. And once you get to avionics, I think you are in a different ball game altogether if you want them to work like in the real aircraft. The stock x-plane ones do not; heck the stock ones in the popular Redbird ATDs do not.

 

[SoonerAviator]

It sounds like it should be that "simple," but I doubt it. If it were, there would not be add-on aircraft that were really true to the real one and those which are not. And once you get to avionics, I think you are in a different ball game altogether if you want them to work like in the real aircraft. The stock x-plane ones do not; heck the stock ones in the popular Redbird ATDs do not.

I would imagine there is a fair bit of code involved in order to drive the logic for each circuit breaker, especially when triggering all of the subsequent systems that would be impacted. Not to mention having to make sure that everything aligns with the graphics portion (location, switch movements, annunciators, lights, etc). There are also a number of flight dynamics regarding the physics of each aircraft that get pretty realistic as well (yaw rates, roll rates, pitch oscillations and sensitivity especially after configuration changes to flaps/gear). I can't imagine making something like the Challenger 650 model takes any less than 1,000 man hours to complete.

 

[Randomskylane]

Someone wake me up when I can tell an ai bot to put the correct avionics in my sim to match my 60 year old plane so I can get good sim work in

The sim promise is so …promising but reality is I have a kx155

 

[trenton]

These are labors of love. You ever go to bar with a live band? And that band is really good? Much better than the tip jar? Why do they do it? Same reason.

 

[Nervegas]

I do flight model and systems coding for a company that makes rotorwings for msfs as well as FAA approved trainers. It does take a significant amount of development work to bring these birds to the sim, but the end result is a very close facsimile to its real world counter part. I have been using a high fidelity 172 addon to augment my flight training and its definitely been a massive benefit. I can refly maneuvers and do pattern work to my hearts content. How well it translates to the real world is very dependent on the setup, but at the least its very good for developing your flows and practicing procedures.

 

[denverpilot]

There’s definitely a market for these things. A friend builds a couple rigs a year for people who come into his computer shop who don’t want to build them.

The guy who did the A10 warthog cockpit and the German dude who built the full motion Airbus on YouTube are both pretty impressive pieces of work.

The Airbus is hilarious — he hasn’t bought aircraft seats yet. Full motion in a typical stacking chair of unpainted plywood floor sends him sliding sideways during one of the early motion tests. lol

He plants both feet on the floor in a turn and keeps the narration of the control tweaking of bank angle to floor deflection going for the YT audience but you can tell he wants out of that turn pretty quick. lol.

There’s also stuff like DCS where folks get very into mimicking fighter cockpits at home they’ll never have a chance to fly for real in a lifetime — similar to the Warthog guy.

Quite a few don’t use projectors or multiple monitors though, a gadget called TrackIR mounted to your head allows for head turning and “looking behind you” with less actual head turning than needed to actually look behind you. Infrared tracking of where your head is pointed in relation to the monitor. Also allows you to look down at aircraft controls and instruments, etc.

Don’t hate one but they say you adjust fairly quickly to the smaller head movements and it becomes muscle memory pretty quickly as to how far to move your head.

Which is fascinating from a prioperceptiom (I think I got that word wrong — “knowing where your body parts are neurologically”) perspective — your eyeballs can recalibrate and override what your neck muscles are telling the brain. Neck says “I turned the head a few inches” the eyeballs say “nah, I’m looking at the left side tail of my airplane.”

Some of the custom cockpit work is insanely cool. At least for an electronics and 3D printing nerd. But OMG the number of USB ports needed for the really elaborate rigs… the wiring photos are a rats nest of giant powered USB hubs and cables.

Like many computer and electronics hobbies, often it seems to start small and snowball until you run out of time and money or both. Ha.

I can’t judge, says the guy with boxes of ham radio gear that he hasn’t used any of what’s in the boxes since the 90s. (I’ve been purging. Really I have.) The rigs on the shack desk are used weekly but the storage boxes… not so much.

The box of handheld radios is hilariously large. I use three of them. Infrequently. The pure chinesium junk digital radio I bought on sale at Amazon out of curiosity actually gets the most use — $13. lol! Completely operable DMR rig it turns out. Programming software is unbelievably hideous.

Ultra-realism is just… a thing with some simmers. And I’ve never seen people more anal about saying “Tree” instead of “Three” anywhere in the world other than on VATSIM. Hahaha.

I hear this week’s sim drama is VATSIM decided to double or triple down on requiring personally identifiable information (photo ID) that they store “somewhere” without audit nor written policy for handling it. Even of minors.

Completely inappropriate these days and likely violates numerous laws in numerous European countries and some US States.

(I’m involved in a completely unrelated activity online where we are required by law to see a form of photo ID… we look at it over Zoom… but we do not EVER screenshot or otherwise record those portions of the video. And we sure as hell never record a minor or anything to do with a minor without recorded parental agreement. Extremely rare to even need to. “Are you ok with a screenshot of you and the kiddo to send to our team sponsor so they can see the smiles and send you congrats on passing your test?”)

Fun times. Will be interesting to see if anyone in the EU pushes the issue. There’s always administrative dramas at VATSIM. Or so I hear. Shrug. ‍

Even the cheapest cockpit hardware today with a yoke and a few hardware “radios” and a panel, is a million times better than the stuff FAA let me log time in as a certified training device during IR training. That old Jeppesen pentium system that had an LOA was fifteen years out of date even back then!

But boy did that ten to fifteen frames a second sure draw some lovely black and white jerky six pack graphics!

 

[AvNavCom]

I'm a dilettante simmer, mostly to screw around practicing procedural/instrument flying or do wildly stupid/illegal stuff which I could never do (more than once) in real life. I will say that MSFS has VFR fidelity now to the point that I think it's genuinely useful to test-fly an unfamiliar route and to an unfamiliar airport. The fidelity isn't perfect, of course, but I've found that the big picture stuff of terrain and overall appearance has helped me when I fly it for real. I find myself "recognizing" landmarks and layouts that I've never actually seen in real-life before. I'm looking forward to the next MSFS version out next month, which looks like a pretty improvement in environmental accuracy.

I did recently complete my Honeycomb collection by getting the Honeycomb Charlie pedals. Along with the Alpha Yoke and Bravo throttle quadrant, it really does end up being a solid set of hardware at not unreasonable prices (in a hobby in which a real-life LED beacon costs $800). I agree with denverpilot that it's light years beyond my first flight sim on an Amstrad CPC 464! We've come a long way!

 

[SoonerAviator]

I'm a dilettante simmer, mostly to screw around practicing procedural/instrument flying or do wildly stupid/illegal stuff which I could never do (more than once) in real life. I will say that MSFS has VFR fidelity now to the point that I think it's genuinely useful to test-fly an unfamiliar route and to an unfamiliar airport. The fidelity isn't perfect, of course, but I've found that the big picture stuff of terrain and overall appearance has helped me when I fly it for real. I find myself "recognizing" landmarks and layouts that I've never actually seen in real-life before. I'm looking forward to the next MSFS version out next month, which looks like a pretty improvement in environmental accuracy.

I did recently complete my Honeycomb collection by getting the Honeycomb Charlie pedals. Along with the Alpha Yoke and Bravo throttle quadrant, it really does end up being a solid set of hardware at not unreasonable prices (in a hobby in which a real-life LED beacon costs $800). I agree with denverpilot that it's light years beyond my first flight sim on an Amstrad CPC 464! We've come a long way!

View attachment 134069View attachment 134070

I also came from the early days of MSFS on a Windows 3.1 machine. I have the fanciest version of the MSFS2020 on my computer and I think I have played it twice lol. I have decent yoke/throttles (Honeycomb stuff) but I struggle to find enough time to set it up and play. I think it would be great to work on some IR stuff just for general understanding.

 

[AvNavCom]

I also came from the early days of MSFS on a Windows 3.1 machine. I have the fanciest version of the MSFS2020 on my computer and I think I have played it twice lol. I have decent yoke/throttles (Honeycomb stuff) but I struggle to find enough time to set it up and play. I think it would be great to work on some IR stuff just for general understanding.

MSFS is tough to use just on a whim, especially if you have yokes and stuff to set up. If you haven't played in a while, there's usually some giant update as well and by the time you get it all set up, you've been messing around for an hour without any flying happening!

I have found a few things helped me get over the inconvenience factor of getting the sim launched. The first was to regard the simulator as a training device for flights I wanted to do in real life, particularly for those flights to an unfamiliar airport or via a new route. I acknowledged that the "feel" of the sim is always going to suck, even with good equipment. What the Honeycomb devices do is let me flip switches, advance/retard throttles/mixtures/props, raise/lower gear, and hit autopilot modes without having to awkwardly use a mouse. If my space allows and I'm actively working on something, I'll try to leave the hardware set up so I remove a barrier to using the sim.

Two major factors have transformed the value of MSFS for me. The first was realizing that since the feel/controllability isn't the same as real life (and I found myself chasing needles the way I never would in the real world), I should let the autopilot fly everything I can, allowing me to concentrate on instrument scan, procedures, and buttonology. The second, and perhaps biggest, is that I can put Garmin Pilot into sim mode and MSFS will drive it so I can see *exactly* what I would see during a real-life flight. While the sim is flying along on autopilot, I can use my iPad to bring up charts, review frequencies, and monitor progress in exactly the same manner as I would in flight. It's the ultimate chair-flying.

I haven't done it myself, but I imagine bringing Pilot Edge into the picture to practice IFR comms would also be pretty next-level to get off any rust and hone your skills.

 

[SoonerAviator]

MSFS is tough to use just on a whim, especially if you have yokes and stuff to set up. If you haven't played in a while, there's usually some giant update as well and by the time you get it all set up, you've been messing around for an hour without any flying happening!

I have found a few things helped me get over the inconvenience factor of getting the sim launched. The first was to regard the simulator as a training device for flights I wanted to do in real life, particularly for those flights to an unfamiliar airport or via a new route. I acknowledged that the "feel" of the sim is always going to suck, even with good equipment. What the Honeycomb devices do is let me flip switches, advance/retard throttles/mixtures/props, raise/lower gear, and hit autopilot modes without having to awkwardly use a mouse. If my space allows and I'm actively working on something, I'll try to leave the hardware set up so I remove a barrier to using the sim.

Two major factors have transformed the value of MSFS for me. The first was realizing that since the feel/controllability isn't the same as real life (and I found myself chasing needles the way I never would in the real world), I should let the autopilot fly everything I can, allowing me to concentrate on instrument scan, procedures, and buttonology. The second, and perhaps biggest, is that I can put Garmin Pilot into sim mode and MSFS will drive it so I can see *exactly* what I would see during a real-life flight. While the sim is flying along on autopilot, I can use my iPad to bring up charts, review frequencies, and monitor progress in exactly the same manner as I would in flight. It's the ultimate chair-flying.

I haven't done it myself, but I imagine bringing Pilot Edge into the picture to practice IFR comms would also be pretty next-level to get off any rust and hone your skills.

Yeah, I think my biggest issue aside from just having spare time to mess with it (coaching multiple sports for multiple kids right now lol) is just not having a dedicated setup. Having to unbox the yoke/throttles and clamp them in place on a desk, move around various equipment, getting MSFS started up and configured, etc. can be tedious. Spending 15-20 minutes prepping the peripherals takes some of the fun out of it, lol. Being a rusty pilot, I'd get some good use out of utilizing Vatsim and ATC communication, but that's yet another system to learn/implement. There's some value to having a dedicated rig you can just plop down into and fire up within a few minutes to be up and flying.