Flight simulators for IFR training

Here's what I've put together. The pic is the standard XP11 172, but I use the Carenado T210, modded with a 750/650 combo in it for actual training. The right screen is the instructor's console.
.1127171214modded.jpg
 
Jim Rosenow said:
Here's what I've put together. The pic is the standard XP11 172, but I use the Carenado T210, modded with a 750/650 combo in it for actual training. The right screen is the instructor's console.
.View attachment 60123
Click to expand...

Nice!
Mine is similar, with 3 27" screens. I have an old laptop I'm going to use for instrument panel as soon as I raise the other 3 screens higher...that should give me the view I'm after. (finally)......however, soon it will be the Oculus Rift.
 
For those using Occulus or Vive (or any other VR headset) can you read the glass screens in the cockpit? Say text to program your GNS-530?
 
Big thumbs up for BATD www.flythissim.com. Expensive, yes. But for IFR training, for me, it was not just a nice to have. It saved me money by reducing the number of training hours drastically. In addition, given my work schedule, it allowed me to grab 30 minutes here and there to fly various approaches to minimums.

I passed IFR practical easily on first try at 63 years old.

Now it's helping me stay current.

I bet if I added up flying / training costs I would have incurred without it, the true cost would be near zero. PLUS, if I wanted to sell it now, I'd get most of my money back...there's a very robust used market for quality BATD's.

Finally, don't forget www.pilotedge.net for "good as real" ATC practice. Oh, and it works perfectly with ForeFlight.






Blueangel said:
Hi all,

I have toyed with the idea of buying a nice BATD flight simulator called Fly This Sim to use for training and afterwards to maintain IFR currency. Basic unit costs about 5K and wanted to find out if you think it is worth buying or just an expensive toy?

An alternative would be to buy a cheaper non BATD simulator like AOPA Jay which would be helpful but not FAA approved. I had bad experiences with Saitek flight sim products breaking and not being that accurate when I used them on my old now defunct simulator.

I want to add Live ATC and PilotEdge to the sim to make it realistic for flying and training in mastering ATC communications.

Thoughts? Or should I just save the money spent on an expensive sim and use if to fly real plane and rent the club simulator?

My CFII and I had a chat about it and he mentioned that sims are best used ONLY once the core basic attitude skills have been mastered such as constant rate turns, and constant speed climbs and descents and best for practicing procedures like holds and approaches.
Click to expand...
Blueangel said:
Hi all,

I have toyed with the idea of buying a nice BATD flight simulator called Fly This Sim to use for training and afterwards to maintain IFR currency. Basic unit costs about 5K and wanted to find out if you think it is worth buying or just an expensive toy?

An alternative would be to buy a cheaper non BATD simulator like AOPA Jay which would be helpful but not FAA approved. I had bad experiences with Saitek flight sim products breaking and not being that accurate when I used them on my old now defunct simulator.

I want to add Live ATC and PilotEdge to the sim to make it realistic for flying and training in mastering ATC communications.

Thoughts? Or should I just save the money spent on an expensive sim and use if to fly real plane and rent the club simulator?

My CFII and I had a chat about it and he mentioned that sims are best used ONLY once the core basic attitude skills have been mastered such as constant rate turns, and constant speed climbs and descents and best for practicing procedures like holds and approaches.
Click to expand...
Blueangel said:
Hi all,

I have toyed with the idea of buying a nice BATD flight simulator called Fly This Sim to use for training and afterwards to maintain IFR currency. Basic unit costs about 5K and wanted to find out if you think it is worth buying or just an expensive toy?

An alternative would be to buy a cheaper non BATD simulator like AOPA Jay which would be helpful but not FAA approved. I had bad experiences with Saitek flight sim products breaking and not being that accurate when I used them on my old now defunct simulator.

I want to add Live ATC and PilotEdge to the sim to make it realistic for flying and training in mastering ATC communications.

Thoughts? Or should I just save the money spent on an expensive sim and use if to fly real plane and rent the club simulator?

My CFII and I had a chat about it and he mentioned that sims are best used ONLY once the core basic attitude skills have been mastered such as constant rate turns, and constant speed climbs and descents and best for practicing procedures like holds and approaches.
Click to expand...
 
Blueangel said:
Hi all,

I have toyed with the idea of buying a nice BATD flight simulator called Fly This Sim to use for training and afterwards to maintain IFR currency. Basic unit costs about 5K and wanted to find out if you think it is worth buying or just an expensive toy?

An alternative would be to buy a cheaper non BATD simulator like AOPA Jay which would be helpful but not FAA approved. I had bad experiences with Saitek flight sim products breaking and not being that accurate when I used them on my old now defunct simulator.

I want to add Live ATC and PilotEdge to the sim to make it realistic for flying and training in mastering ATC communications.

Thoughts? Or should I just save the money spent on an expensive sim and use if to fly real plane and rent the club simulator?

My CFII and I had a chat about it and he mentioned that sims are best used ONLY once the core basic attitude skills have been mastered such as constant rate turns, and constant speed climbs and descents and best for practicing procedures like holds and approaches.
Click to expand...
I am doing exactly this right now. Here's my take: buy a decent computer, a yoke, rudder pedals and a throttle quadrant. Get P3D or XPlane. Use it to fly approaches, holds, DME arcs, etc.

Simulators are never "accurate" per se. You're not flying. What they are is procedure trainers. If you fly an approach 20 times in a sim before you fly the real thing, I guarantee you it will help.

But $5k on a sim? Naw. The point of a sim is to save money, not waste it.
 
I agree - simulators are not accurate. My biggest annoyance is basic aircraft control, things like transitioning to level flight. The big problem is that you're missing feedback, so when pull back on the yoke you really have no way to trim off the pressure because you don't get pressure...no feedback. I probably need to tweak the rudder pedals too - way too sensitive. I suppose I can turn down the realism.

For IFR procedures, I expect it to be pretty good. My setup is similar to Jim's in post 82, but my monitors are not as large. Total cost for my PC was about $900 - AMD Ryzen 5/1600, 16 GB Ram and a Raedon 560 video card. I reused two monitors that I already had, but they were in the neighborhood of $100 each. I have a Saitek yoke/throttle quadrant and CH-Pro pedals, which I've had for years and I remember being $200 for the set? Total is in the neighborhood of $1300.

The only thing I would change on this now is to upgrade the graphics card to a 1070 or 1080. I have to take my graphics quality pretty far down and I only get 18 fps out of it.
 
They are also really good for honing the procedures too, since you can reset the approaches repeatedly, but you can accomplish that in a decent home-assembled non-FAA-approved simulator for a lot less. The upside is that you can log up to 20 hours (on some sims) towards your rating, saving 20x airplane rental or operating cost of your own plane, but is it actually saving yu any $$. If you rented a plane for $200 hour (including CFI), you'd "save" that would cost $4000. Compare to buying the Sim for $5000 but you'll still need a CFI to legally log that time as training (you can't do it solo). Using your CFI for the sim training at $50/hr for the 20 hours you can count, you've paid another $1000, now that's $6000 invested. If you're going to use it regularly for currency, etc. (once they change the regs. to allow it, if it happens) it may pan out better if you have it long enough. However, for an individual, the initial outlay and instructor costs for the 20 hours you can count, cost $2000 more that just spending those hour in the plane. Getting a legal sim is more feasible for a flight school who can spread those costs over a large number of students.
 
Just a couple more comments on the thread. I have to chuckle a bit right now at folks nit-picking the cost of a sim as an adjunct to flying...having just written a check for a new prop for the 182. :)

I went thru the simming phases...joystick, then cheap Saitek controls, then bit the bullet and put something substantial together. I find many of the limitations on hardware are self-imposed. The Saitek yoke, for example, had about 90 degrees of total aileron travel, and +-4 inches of total elevator throw (fore/aft). The Redbird yoke I'm using now has the same 180 degree aileron 'twist' as the 182, and within a half inch of the fore/aft throw...11 1/2 inches if I recall correctly. It also has a nice spring arrangement (not force-feedback) that provides some 'feel'. Just like airplanes...you get what you pay for.

My philosophy on trim.... Ideally, you will never have forces on the yoke of an airplane, so lack thereof shouldn't be an issue in a sim. Each change in power or attitude should be accompanied a simultaneous change in trim, anticipating the changing forces on the yoke. Maybe it's just me, but it's just always how I've flown.

I've talked to the FSDO about certifying my homemade sim, and they'd be willing to do the inspection. Could probably get it done, but I'm fortunate that I don't really need to log the sim time. What my wife and I both love about it is what we did yesterday afternoon. We took turns hand-flying holds to approaches, using equipment that (as far as I have found so far) perfectly mimics the GTN650 in the 182. When was the last time you really did, or practiced, a hold in a complex airplane?

Oh...and we do it when it's too crappy out to fly. :)

Jim
 
Last edited:
Pulled the trigger on Alienware with an 8700k 4.6 ghz, 16 gig ram, and a GTX1070 for simming. I have my CH controls from years ago. Looking forward to practicing approaches and IFR navigation! Also, practicing scenarios I’d hope to not find myself in in a real airplane.
 
Jim Rosenow said:
Just a couple more comments on the thread. I have to chuckle a bit right now at folks nit-picking the cost of a sim as an adjunct to flying...having just written a check for a new prop for the 182. :)

I went thru the simming phases...joystick, then cheap Saitek controls, then bit the bullet and put something substantial together. I find many of the limitations on hardware are self-imposed. The Saitek yoke, for example, had about 90 degrees of total aileron travel, and +-4 inches of total elevator throw (fore/aft). The Redbird yoke I'm using now has the same 180 degree aileron 'twist' as the 182, and within a half inch of the fore/aft throw...11 1/2 inches if I recall correctly. It also has a nice spring arrangement (not force-feedback) that provides some 'feel'. Just like airplanes...you get what you pay for.

My philosophy on trim.... Ideally, you will never have forces on the yoke of an airplane, so lack thereof shouldn't be an issue in a sim. Each change in power or attitude should be accompanied a simultaneous change in trim, anticipating the changing forces on the yoke. Maybe it's just me, but it's just always how I've flown.

I've talked to the FSDO about certifying my homemade sim, and they'd be willing to do the inspection. Could probably get it done, but I'm fortunate that I don't really need to log the sim time. What my wife and I both love about it is what we did yesterday afternoon. We took turns hand-flying holds to approaches, using equipment that (as far as I have found so far) perfectly mimics the GTN650 in the 182. When was the last time you really did, or practiced, a hold in a complex airplane?

Oh...and we do it when it's too crappy out to fly. :)

Jim
Click to expand...
Which 650 do you use? Flight1 or RXP?
 
Ronnie Godfrey said:
Pulled the trigger on Alienware with an 8700k 4.6 ghz, 16 gig ram, and a GTX1070 for simming. I have my CH controls from years ago. Looking forward to practicing approaches and IFR navigation! Also, practicing scenarios I’d hope to not find myself in in a real airplane.
Click to expand...
Nice. What accessories do you have? Having radios to tune and switches to flip sure beats having to grab the mouse every minute to click on some stuff in the virtual cockpit.
 
mryan75 said:
Which 650 do you use? Flight1 or RXP?
Click to expand...

We've got the RXP units. For those not familiar, these are software add-ons to X-Plane. To say they are true-to-life is an understatement...they actually require the Garmin-provided GTN Trainer software on the PC and some how magically integrate it into XP. Anything you can do with the trainer, works in XP, and 'talks' to the XP autopilots, HSI's, and other avionics.

Cool thing is...they're touchscreen units, so if you put them on a touchscreen monitor, no mouse clicks, just a finger.

Jim
 
Last edited:
BigBadLou said:
Nice. What accessories do you have? Having radios to tune and switches to flip sure beats having to grab the mouse every minute to click on some stuff in the virtual cockpit.
Click to expand...
All I have right now is the CH yoke, Rudder pedals, and a Saitek Quadrant. I'd like to add some radios and stuff but I'll have to regenerate the piggy bank a little bit first. The computer has 15 USB ports so expanding won't be an issue!
 
Jim Rosenow said:
We've got the RXP units. For those not familiar, these are software add-ons to X-Plane. To say they are true-to-life is an understatement...they actually require the Garmin-provided GTN Trainer software on the PC and some how magically integrate it into XP. Anything you can do with the trainer, works in XP, and 'talks' to the XP autopilots, HSI's, and other avionics.

Cool thing is...they're touchscreen units, so if you put them on a touchscreen monitor, no mouse clicks, just a finger.

Jim
Click to expand...
That's the KEY! :nod:
I still see people paying shhhload for RXP GTN models and then using mouse to click. Yikes. My buddy did it right, he put in a 7" USB touch-screen monitor and that's his GTN. Just like in a real airplane. :) Great trainer.

Ronnie Godfrey said:
All I have right now is the CH yoke, Rudder pedals, and a Saitek Quadrant. I'd like to add some radios and stuff but I'll have to regenerate the piggy bank a little bit first. The computer has 15 USB ports so expanding won't be an issue!
Click to expand...
Yes, radio(s) and panel switch would work well.
I also built me an audio panel so that I can identify navaids. It eliminates the need for clicking with the mouse.
 
Ronnie Godfrey said:
All I have right now is the CH yoke, Rudder pedals, and a Saitek Quadrant. I'd like to add some radios and stuff but I'll have to regenerate the piggy bank a little bit first. The computer has 15 USB ports so expanding won't be an issue!
Click to expand...

I'm a big fan of the GoFlight radios and other panel accessories. You can find them on eBay and I may or may not have one I'd be willing to part with...
 
BigBadLou said:
That's the KEY! :nod:
I still see people paying shhhload for RXP GTN models and then using mouse to click. Yikes. My buddy did it right, he put in a 7" USB touch-screen monitor and that's his GTN. Just like in a real airplane. :) Great trainer.


Yes, radio(s) and panel switch would work well.
I also built me an audio panel so that I can identify navaids. It eliminates the need for clicking with the mouse.
Click to expand...

That bit about the USB touchscreen is pretty awesome. We just put a 650 in our Cherokee, and I'm doing my IR. So being able to use it in the sim is just awesome. I have the Saitek pedals, home and throttle quadrant and just got a new PC, so I'm going to sit tight for a bit. I also use the TrackIR, which makes having to use the mouse for e radios and such much more tolerable.

I really think a lot of people undervalue the usefulness of a home sim. It is what it is, and what it is is an excellent procedure trainer. I look at some of the FAA approved sims and just laugh. What i have is ten times better.
 
Ronnie Godfrey said:
Not to start a war, but what platform do you guys recommend between P3d and xp11?
Click to expand...

Depends on whether you think it is better to get your instrument rating in a low wing or a high wing.
 
Ronnie Godfrey said:
Not to start a war, but what platform do you guys recommend between P3d and xp11?
Click to expand...
XP has more accurate flight dynamics, but is also more difficult to use, adjust, modify, etc. P3d is more user-friendly, has much more in the way of add ons (scenery, aircraft, etc.), and is much easier to tweak. A better analogy is Apple vs. Microsoft. I personally think P3D is much more enjoyable. It is also usable at much lower levels of hardware than XP. I can get 150 FPS with P3D and can barely run XP. P3D has a really annoying name to type though.
 
Ronnie Godfrey said:
Not to start a war, but what platform do you guys recommend between P3d and xp11?
Click to expand...

I have both, so I feel I can give a pretty good opinion here

X-Plane is superior in almost all ways that matters to us. The flight dynamics of the out-of-the-box airplanes is vastly superior (i.e. slip behavior, power/pitch/performance, etc.). The smoothness of the gauges is better in my perception, which is big for IFR. The baked in GNS 430-like-box is pretty darn good for the normal VFR/IFR stuff. Advanced features are missing, but its really good enough for most. Weather rendering is also much better. Night lighting is superb in X-Plane. Finally, there is a much larger library of freeware add-ons/airplanes/scenery for X-Plane, if you like to tinker. Others have mentioned that X-Plane is harder to configure and setup, but I think that doesn't apply to X-Plane 11. It's quite easy now, and on par with P3D.

Now consider that you can easily fix the P3D environment to equal or surpass X-Plane. Some of the 3rd party aircraft for P3D are just better than anything I know of for X-Plane (looking at you, A2A/PMDG). But all of this costs money, time and aggravation.

Over to P3D... the world landmark visuals are much better out of the box. For example NYC looks like NYC, with all the landmarks you expect. X-Plane still has the twin towers :-/ and no statue of liberty in the default scenery. There is a huge wealth of payware scenery for P3D that I dont think can be matched by X-Plane, but I don't know for sure (Orbx, etc).

I upgraded to X-Plane for IFR practice, and it was a great move.

-G
 
Ronnie Godfrey said:
Not to start a war, but what platform do you guys recommend between P3d and xp11?
Click to expand...

Both....or either. Like @mryan75, my experience has been that the flight dynamics (i.e, pitch up when flaps added to a Cessna, dropping gear slows airspeed) are better in XP. Depending on your prefs, there are some aircraft you can't get in one or the other. I spend most of my time in XPII cause it mimics small a/c better (again, an opinion), but we've got P3D specifically because there's a well-done C550 for it that matches my wife's work airplane. Nothing similar in XP currently. For $50-60 each, go for it :)

Oh...and user-friendly is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. Oddly enough, I find the more user-friendly of the two to be the one I've been using the most lately. :cool:

Jim
 
Last edited:
I'm interested in seeing how P3D performs for me, but not $199 interested...if they had a limited demo then I might try it out and if it were better, buy it.

But I suspect I'll be purchasing Xp11 shortly for $60.
 
bflynn said:
I'm interested in seeing how P3D performs for me, but not $199 interested...if they had a limited demo then I might try it out and if it were better, buy it.

But I suspect I'll be purchasing Xp11 shortly for $60.
Click to expand...
A friend told me that everyone just buys an academic license of P3D for $60. They don't verify in any way whether the purchaser meets the criteria for the different licenses. Again, a friend told me that.
 
mryan75 said:
A friend told me that everyone just buys an academic license of P3D for $60. They don't verify in any way whether the purchaser meets the criteria for the different licenses. Again, a friend told me that.
Click to expand...
A friend told me the same. Same friend? Or common trend? :)
 
George Mohr said:
I have both, so I feel I can give a pretty good opinion here

X-Plane is superior in almost all ways that matters to us.
Click to expand...

I was curious about this, and anyone that knows can answer, but does X-Plane have the IFR scenarios like FSX had? They had several pre programmed IFR flights that you could fly and practice instrument flying.
 
George Mohr said:
I have both, so I feel I can give a pretty good opinion here

X-Plane is superior in almost all ways that matters to us. The flight dynamics of the out-of-the-box airplanes is vastly superior (i.e. slip behavior, power/pitch/performance, etc.). The smoothness of the gauges is better in my perception, which is big for IFR. The baked in GNS 430-like-box is pretty darn good for the normal VFR/IFR stuff. Advanced features are missing, but its really good enough for most. Weather rendering is also much better. Night lighting is superb in X-Plane. Finally, there is a much larger library of freeware add-ons/airplanes/scenery for X-Plane, if you like to tinker. Others have mentioned that X-Plane is harder to configure and setup, but I think that doesn't apply to X-Plane 11. It's quite easy now, and on par with P3D.

Now consider that you can easily fix the P3D environment to equal or surpass X-Plane. Some of the 3rd party aircraft for P3D are just better than anything I know of for X-Plane (looking at you, A2A/PMDG). But all of this costs money, time and aggravation.

Over to P3D... the world landmark visuals are much better out of the box. For example NYC looks like NYC, with all the landmarks you expect. X-Plane still has the twin towers :-/ and no statue of liberty in the default scenery. There is a huge wealth of payware scenery for P3D that I dont think can be matched by X-Plane, but I don't know for sure (Orbx, etc).

I upgraded to X-Plane for IFR practice, and it was a great move.

-G
Click to expand...
Not to argue, just for discussion, but there ain't no way, no how that there's a larger add-on library for X-P. Just no way. There are literally hundreds of pages of add-ons for prepared, and very little for XP.

I have both as well, and I have to say, it used to be that the flight dynamics in X were better than the old FSX, but I just legit bounced a landing in prepared, and it was actually pretty cool.

Gauges probably are smoother in XP, but they're just fine in prepared. And XP is much, much harder on your hardware. Like I said before, I can crank out all the frame rates I could possibly want in prepared, and my machine (Ryzen 1800x / RX 580) can barely run XP.
 
Hi everyone.
MSFSX, after all these years, is still the best all around tool, VFR or IFR, for Instructors and serious Pilots, that actually want to use it to improve their skills, and stay current.
To date XP does Not have a C172, and or most light GA aircraft, that behaves, has a flight, and visual model, from the pilot seat, that satisfies the requirements for a serious pilot / instructor.
There are panels, models... that can be set up in FSX that can be very useful to a serious pilot wanting to stay current.
If what you want is eye candy, flight models that behave like tumbleweeds in a xwind on the ground, use your plane to drive on the Highway... XP is for you. If you want to use a sim as a tool MSFSX is the sim for you.
As to the people that think XP has more add ons, it's obvious that they know very little about the MSFSX.
That said either sim can be used to help pilots stay current, in addition to FSX and XP there are others, that are better for specific type of training, but all are better than no sim at all.
 
George Mohr said:
I couldn’t say with certainty which has more, but have you seen this site? 8,000 plus scenery packages, and thousands of aircraft. Of course, quality is all over the map I’m sure...

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/files/
Click to expand...
I had looked through there, actually, I was looking for a Cherokee for XP11. There are a grand total of 88 GA aircraft for XP11. Im not trying to be argumentative, but there are probably 88 versions of the Cherokee for P3D. There are just tons and tons and tons of addons for P3D. I think it's purposeful really. Going back to the FSX days (and even fs2004), they always released developer tools for the sim. Addons for the various Xplane sims have always been limited in comparison. That could be because XPlane has always been considered more of a sim for hardcore simmers and not gamers per se.
 
bluesideup said:
Hi everyone.
MSFSX, after all these years, is still the best all around tool, VFR or IFR, for Instructors and serious Pilots, that actually want to use it to improve their skills, and stay current.
To date XP does Not have a C172, and or most light GA aircraft, that behaves, has a flight, and visual model, from the pilot seat, that satisfies the requirements for a serious pilot / instructor.
There are panels, models... that can be set up in FSX that can be very useful to a serious pilot wanting to stay current.
Click to expand...
XP now (as of its latest update) has a C172 with a G1000 that works just like a real G1000, autopilot and all.
 
Hi Lon and everyone.
I look at the sim as a general / overall Tool. Having a G1000 is Only a small / minute part of the sim. FSX had / has a G1000 for many years.
Try to get a 15kt xwind on a runway, set up a view to look forward and to your wings and notice what a real view is in a real C172 and compare. In addition look at the view out the acft and see what you recognize, to use as VFR references, how does the flight model perform in flight and on the ground, all of these elements can, and are, better simulated in the MSFSX.
XP has an overdone, much higher demand on the PC for things that are not important, just to satisfy the eye candy, not important in a real tool.
 
I think most long-term simmers will agree that none of the past or current software sim packages have good on-the-runway cross-wind capability. It's not what they're designed for. To practice cross-wind landings, you need an airplane.

Just some neutral background information on MSFSX, as provided by Wikipedia.... It was first released by Microsoft in October, 2006. In 2009 it was reported by the industry that the entire FSX development team was being laid off, and in 2010 Microsoft officially dropped the FSX platform.

It seems important to me that Microsoft has not updated the package since that time. In 2010, the hot O/S was original Win7, which is what the final MS iteration of FSX was designed for. Since that time a large number of intelligent and dedicated simmers have done their best to patch FSX with frankly amazing results. As one contemplates a choice of sims it seems reasonable to recognize that both XP and P3D are currently and actively being improved in 2018 to reflect changes in technology. As always, YMMV, and everyone needs to find their own answer. Do your research and make your choices.

No offense intended @bluesideup...just presenting an alternative view for the new simmers. I still have both 2004 and FSX on hard drives ready for instant use. I also have DOS 3.1 on disks. :)

Jim
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top