Flight simulators for IFR training

All you need to know about the default FSX airplanes is try to fly a skidding turn. The model is so broken that the resulting behavior is.. hard to even explain. The airplane starts to yaw, then stops like a rubber band is keeping the yaw rate from continuing. This behavior makes a slip impossible too. Many addon makers have worked around this issue with good results, but again, you gotta buy addons. I'm not sure if P3D inherited this from FSX, because I never bothered to fly the default P3D airplanes.

X-Plane airplanes fly like airplanes out of the box. But yes, I do agree that ground handling feels wrong in X-Plane. Crosswinds create too much weathervane effect.
 
Hi Jim.
No worries. No offense taken. My only goal is to inform pilots of what I know and expect from a sim. My first, so called sim, was on a 360-30 that helped me with VOR and ADF orientation. It had +-><^.. only, worked great for what it was supposed to do. Minis and Micros came later and I've used just about any simulator that came out since 1976, including the C130 6DOF.
XP does not allow me to do certain things that others sims will. Again do not confuse what I say, to me a sim is a TOOL. I can do fine without real good looking, fine textures on the skins, or any other portion / surface that I do not care about. If it does not give me the ability to set the views that I see in a real plane, be able to sit on the runway in a 15kt Xwind, have to constantly tweak the the controls, for no good reason, you do not have a Tool / simulator in this case. What I am pointing out is on the ground / runway in a C172.

As to the Xwind practice, in flight, I do agree to some extent, none of the sims, have a real good feel in that domain, but, and that is a small but, there are some modified acft in the FSX that have very reasonable Xwind behavior, but Not the models from the original release. It's also very easy to create your own, modify the flight dynamics in the existing acft to give a decent feedback of what you need to do.

I have an EEPROM, advanced version of the PROMs, with the first OS I had to write, in Machine language, to get the the 8080 based mobo that I had to design and hand wire to allow me to read the keyboard and write a few sentences that I used for development. In addition I have a couple of S-100 computers in my garage, one generic and one with the IMSAI front panel, that ran your own OS, BIOS but it had some Video / Graphic cards, Tarbell Disk... controllers that was what I called a useful Microcomputer / PC. That is before Apple or any other micros that came later. They were all good for what they could do, XP can do more, but it does not. That is the reason I am posting.
 
George Mohr said:
All you need to know about the default FSX airplanes is try to fly a skidding turn. The model is so broken that the resulting behavior is.. hard to even explain. The airplane starts to yaw, then stops like a rubber band is keeping the yaw rate from continuing. This behavior makes a slip impossible too. Many addon makers have worked around this issue with good results, but again, you gotta buy addons. I'm not sure if P3D inherited this from FSX, because I never bothered to fly the default P3D airplanes.

X-Plane airplanes fly like airplanes out of the box. But yes, I do agree that ground handling feels wrong in X-Plane. Crosswinds create too much weathervane effect.
Click to expand...

Ground handling is even off with level D sims.
 
I have not found X-Plane more realistic, in fact, to me it seems worse. I wonder if people don't realize that MSFS has a realism setting, and unfortunately the default is "Easy".
 
bluesideup said:
Hi Jim
I have an EEPROM, advanced version of the PROMs, with the first OS I had to write, in Machine language, to get the the 8080 based mobo that I had to design and hand wire to allow me to read the keyboard and write a few sentences that I used for development. In addition I have a couple of S-100 computers in my garage, one generic and one with the IMSAI front panel, that ran your own OS, BIOS but it had some Video / Graphic cards, Tarbell Disk... controllers that was what I called a useful Microcomputer / PC. That is before Apple or any other micros that came later. They were all good for what they could do, XP can do more, but it does not. That is the reason I am posting.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a great collection...:) I remember those days! Re-writable EEPROMs?....no way! Get out! :)

Total agreement that I'd like to see more emphasis on flight dynamics than 'pretty'....I suspect Austin is catering to the overall user-base, as opposed to those of us who know what it's supposed to feel like. He knows better. Second, agreement that most included a/c (any sim) don't measure up to after-market....Nor should they probably when the after-market a/c can cost as much as the sim itself. There are some really good ones out there for most platforms.

My major issue with FSX is that the code is not , nor will it be, optimized for 64-bit OS and multiple-core chips, which will almost certainly limit it going forward. Each iteration of P3D and XP get better at it. Again...YMMV.

Jim

PS- Maybe I don't understand your comment regarding the views in XP. Critique the views in post #82 for me, if you would. Thanks!
 
Hi Jim.
I do want to get this thread sidetracked but I will give you a quick feed back:
Where is the top of your cowl?
Where is / are the wing tips when you do set it up to see the cowl?
Why do you need those you say? Because they are significant views / points when you teach / learn how to fly. It is the reason the C172 is likely the easiest plane to learn how to fly in.
MSFSX not being updated, it only becomes significant when others do better. If you do not utilize the computer's throughput for something useful it is just a waste of power.
 
Jim Rosenow said:
Sounds like a great collection...:) I remember those days! Re-writable EEPROMs?....no way! Get out! :)

Total agreement that I'd like to see more emphasis on flight dynamics than 'pretty'....I suspect Austin is catering to the overall user-base, as opposed to those of us who know what it's supposed to feel like. He knows better. Second, agreement that most included a/c (any sim) don't measure up to after-market....Nor should they probably when the after-market a/c can cost as much as the sim itself. There are some really good ones out there for most platforms.

My major issue with FSX is that the code is not , nor will it be, optimized for 64-bit OS and multiple-core chips, which will almost certainly limit it going forward. Each iteration of P3D and XP get better at it. Again...YMMV.

Jim

PS- Maybe I don't understand your comment regarding the views in XP. Critique the views in post #82 for me, if you would. Thanks!
Click to expand...


What are you using it for?

Most of us use sims for IFR work, and for that real world, you don't need photo realism or anything.
 
bluesideup said:
Hi Jim.
I do want to get this thread sidetracked but I will give you a quick feed back:
Where is the top of your cowl?
Where is / are the wing tips when you do set it up to see the cowl?
Why do you need those you say? Because they are significant views / points when you teach / learn how to fly. It is the reason the C172 is likely the easiest plane to learn how to fly in.
MSFSX not being updated, it only becomes significant when others do better. If you do not utilize the computer's throughput for something useful it is just a waste of power.
Click to expand...

It's your thread @bluesideup...sidetrack away :) The combination POV in the pic is adjustable up/down, fore/aft, port/starboard to suit with a single keystroke. The side monitor view is adjustable relative to the main screen in 3 directions.

If one accepts your premise that no one is doing it better than FSX, your conclusion that FSX is good enough certainly follows logically.

Jim
 
James331 said:
What are you using it for? Most of us use sims for IFR work, and for that real world, you don't need photo realism or anything.
Click to expand...

Hi, James! Primary use for our sim is IFR practice work also. Agreed...no need for great views out the window.

We have a 182RG and the most realistic configuration I've come up with to match it so far is a Carenado T210 in XP11, with both the REP (reality enhancement pack...developed by rw 210 pilots to tweak the Carenado) and RXP GTN GPS/radios. By limiting the MP/RPM to what we see in the 182 and adjusting weights, we get real-world performance with the set-up. The avionics set-up in the 210 matches what we have in the 182, with the addition of the GTN to the 210. So far the GTN is a dead-on accurate reproduction. Till we went with the GTN addition (requires Windows to run the Garmin Trainer), I had been using the Linux versions of XP, which seemed a bit more efficient than Windows.

Before moving to this software set-up, we had used the Carenado 182RG for FSX. I had modded the panel to add an HSI, and a modern autopilot and radios, but there was no GTN option available in FSX. We had started using the 182RG in P3D before moving to the new platform.

Just for fun, we've got Ellen's work Citation Bravo in P3D, but haven't set-up for the more sophisticated controls required. Also have an old version (originally FSX, usable in P3D) of a Citabria/Decathlon and a stick/throttle for it. I can't say the aerobatics match our 7ECA, but it's still great fun.

Jim
 
Jim Rosenow said:
Sounds like a great collection...:) I remember those days! Re-writable EEPROMs?....no way! Get out! :)

Total agreement that I'd like to see more emphasis on flight dynamics than 'pretty'....I suspect Austin is catering to the overall user-base, as opposed to those of us who know what it's supposed to feel like. He knows better. Second, agreement that most included a/c (any sim) don't measure up to after-market....Nor should they probably when the after-market a/c can cost as much as the sim itself. There are some really good ones out there for most platforms.

My major issue with FSX is that the code is not , nor will it be, optimized for 64-bit OS and multiple-core chips, which will almost certainly limit it going forward. Each iteration of P3D and XP get better at it. Again...YMMV.

Jim

PS- Maybe I don't understand your comment regarding the views in XP. Critique the views in post #82 for me, if you would. Thanks!
Click to expand...
As I understand it, P3D v4 is 64-bit (that I know for sure), but does not fully utilize multi-core chips.

As for crosswinds, they may not perform exactly realistically, but you can certainly use P3D for muscle memory.
 
So I started reading this thread with intention of receiving Divine guidance of what to do. I am currently working on my IFR and want to to a lot of home sim to augment my training. I have a a MacBook Air I purchased a few months ago that I love. So naturally I was looking to go with the Apple version of flight sim. But might need to get an external drive for space (got 17gb left in it). Planning on Saitek yoke and power controls. Do I proceed with that plan. Or do I drop a couple hundred bucks on a new pc laptop and go Microsoft way. Will the newer OS on the pc’s run MFSX???
I am currently flying a c182 with garmin 430 and will be for the foreseeable future.
What is the “right” way to go???
 
I've used for several years and am quite happy with the following, especially for IFR work:
  • Mac OS
  • X-Plane 11
  • stock aircraft (C172 6-pack or G1000, Baron, etc)
  • decent joystick or yoke
  • PilotEdge *** I can't stress enough how vital PilotEdge is for Instrument training, currency and proficiency --- and that REAL adrenaline rush ***
  • (optional) payware aircraft
  • (optional) rudder pedals (but not that important for IFR work)
  • (optional) some payware scenery (in my case around SoCal)
You might find this homegrown Primer on X-Plane useful, although this primer is more intended for someone totally new to flying.
Best wishes,
Wayne
 
wayneda40 said:
I've used for several years and am quite happy with the following, especially for IFR work:
  • Mac OS
  • X-Plane 11
  • stock aircraft (C172 6-pack or G1000, Baron, etc)
  • decent joystick or yoke
  • PilotEdge *** I can't stress enough how vital PilotEdge is for Instrument training, currency and proficiency --- and that REAL adrenaline rush **
Click to expand...
Just looked at PilotEdge. Looks pretty cool and a good way to practice some of your local fields. Unfortunately I live on East coast and I looks like coverage area is only west coast. But still would be good practice to work on the radios which can be overwhelming at first.
Thank you!
 
Phil Benyo said:
So I started reading this thread with intention of receiving Divine guidance of what to do. I am currently working on my IFR and want to to a lot of home sim to augment my training. I have a a MacBook Air I purchased a few months ago that I love. So naturally I was looking to go with the Apple version of flight sim. But might need to get an external drive for space (got 17gb left in it). Planning on Saitek yoke and power controls. Do I proceed with that plan. Or do I drop a couple hundred bucks on a new pc laptop and go Microsoft way. Will the newer OS on the pc’s run MFSX???
I am currently flying a c182 with garmin 430 and will be for the foreseeable future.
What is the “right” way to go???
Click to expand...

Hi, Phil! An easy way to get your feet wet is the computer you have, a joystick and a demo copy of XP11. The XPII is free to download, but limited to the Seattle area, and 15 minute flights. Those are the only limitations on the software...everything else works as the full version. Avsim.com is a great forum resource with devotees of all the popular sims, and XP and P3D both have their own forums. The search feature is your friend. Have fun!

Edit- Just had a thought on your space issue. XP works just fine from an external drive. I don't speak Apple, but to remove Linux or Win versions you just delete the directory it's in if and when you want.

Jim
 
Last edited:
Agreed, and the X-Plane default 430 is a reasonable facsimile of the Garmin (with a subset of features, but generally the important ones).
 
Phil Benyo said:
Just looked at PilotEdge. Looks pretty cool and a good way to practice some of your local fields. Unfortunately I live on East coast and I looks like coverage area is only west coast. But still would be good practice to work on the radios which can be overwhelming at first.
Thank you!
Click to expand...

I don't live in SoCal either but PilotEdge is still awesome. Nice thing about it is that it's really condensed airspace with tons of tricky airports, mountains, low IMC at times, heavy traffic. I can't recommend PilotEdge enough.
 
labbadabba said:
I don't live in SoCal either but PilotEdge is still awesome. Nice thing about it is that it's really condensed airspace with tons of tricky airports, mountains, low IMC at times, heavy traffic. I can't recommend PilotEdge enough.
Click to expand...

Agree completely. I'm a new user of P.E. and I'm amazed at how good it is. And yes, SoCal will get you out of your comfort zone.
 
wayneda40 said:
I've used for several years and am quite happy with the following, especially for IFR work:
  • Mac OS
  • X-Plane 11
  • stock aircraft (C172 6-pack or G1000, Baron, etc)
  • decent joystick or yoke
  • PilotEdge *** I can't stress enough how vital PilotEdge is for Instrument training, currency and proficiency --- and that REAL adrenaline rush ***
  • (optional) payware aircraft
  • (optional) rudder pedals (but not that important for IFR work)
  • (optional) some payware scenery (in my case around SoCal)
You might find this homegrown Primer on X-Plane useful, although this primer is more intended for someone totally new to flying.
Best wishes,
Wayne
Click to expand...
This is the setup I use —including PilotEdge, which is terrific — and it works perfectly for me. I have pedals but no longer use them. My joystick — a Thrustmaster — is set up so that yaw and ground steering are done by twisting the stick.

A question: what payware do you use for Southern California scenery? I found lots of payware scenery for PCs but none for Macs.
 
I'm using only Ortho4XP (freeware). But tbh I'm not that interested in scenery, since I'm staring at the panel most of the time :D
 
I bought an Oculus Rift this weekend and got it running on X-Plane 11 last night.
Holy hell...Closest thing to being in a real plane I've ever seen.
 
You can use hardware.... I just used my CH yoke with the built in throttle/levers. Also use the HOTAS joystick. Worked a treat. (you have to feel your way around or know where the controls are though) I have my yoke buttons for trim, different views, etc., set up to easily use. You can use the virtual hands to do everything in the cockpit, and it works, but it seemed klunky. I may just need to get used to it, or adjust a few things.

If you haven't done so yet, watch some youtube videos of guys playing War Thunder with the Oculus Rift. It's going to be a blast when I get time to set it up. Dog fighting has been what I've wanted to do since I was a kid. This is going to get me as close to it as I will ever be I'd imagine.

It's sooo much better than 3 monitors. IMO if you're even thinking of 3 monitors, I'd seriously look at this option first.
Best buy has the entire kit now for $399. I'll have more fun with this thing than $399 worth of flying around the pattern, no question. I actually think I can do some virtual instructing with my grandson and girlfriend to introduce them to systems and controls, etc., and let them fly around.

Plus they have many other games that are pretty dang cool in VR. I've only played a few but there are tons out there.
One was an 'entertainment' game demo, where a scantily clad young lady dances for you. Wowsers... almost too real. I can only guess the porn industry is going to be all over VR (if not already).

As a side note, and mentioned by others... I did get a little motion sickness when riding a roller coaster. Actually closed my eyes sometimes because it was so realistic.
Also did some first person shooter stuff. What a blast.
I can say that in the future, when they get higher resolution and a few other things more refined, it will be flat out unbelievable. Already is amazing.

Some may not like it or may disagree, but wanted to give a PIREP from my experience so far. YMMV
 
Last edited:
Lon33 said:
This is the setup I use —including PilotEdge, which is terrific — and it works perfectly for me. I have pedals but no longer use them. My joystick — a Thrustmaster — is set up so that yaw and ground steering are done by twisting the stick.

A question: what payware do you use for Southern California scenery? I found lots of payware scenery for PCs but none for Macs.
Click to expand...

The very best payware scenery by far IMHO is from gpb500-x@yahoo.com. Works on Macs and, I assume, PCs.
 
The GBP scenery is excellent. I couldn't find a website, so I suggest you simply email him.
 
Hi Wayne and everyone.
I would appreciate if you, or anyone else, can post some pics with that scenery, to get an idea of what it looks like and compare with some scenery that I created for MSFSX.
I tried many different approaches to generating scenery for XP11 (and all prev. XPs) and I am not able to get anything that is very real looking / that I can recognize as I fly over it, as I can generate using FSEarthTiles.
I am also interested in the distance that XP11 ca view / display it, in the max distance, as selected in the Settings, that you can distinguish areas.
All the airborne pics were taken at about 1000Ft MSL, about 2SM N of KSNA, and I am most interested in On RWY, 20R, they all have trees at at he end, the outside view to the N and S to view Catalina, which is only about 30SM away, and see how far to the N can be viewed. The default scenery in XP, on the RWY, is not even close to what I see when I am on the RWY.
Note: All these pics were reduced in resolution from 4K to 1080, and do not represent the actual clarity as seen in the sim.
Thank you.

SNA-IN-20R.jpg



SNA-OUT-S.jpg


SNA-OUT-N.jpg

SNA-IN-E.jpg
 
I have a solid SIM platform that I put together for instrument training but trying different platforms for some live controller interaction. I wanted to like PilotEdge, but doesn’t cover my region. I installed VATSIM, but never find controllers online. Too bad, was excited to use it.

Maybe I’ll just practice at strange, unfamiliar airports in SoCal with PilotsEdge. I guess flying IMC practice in unfamiliar areas may be a good training tool.
 
I'd strongly consider that you use PilotEdge, even though it is out of your region. In fact, for training purposes its probably better that you fly in unfamiliar territory. It get's you into the idea of travel, and the prep needed for being in new airspace. I've been doing my IFR and using PE for ATC training, and I can honestly say it is worth its weight in gold.
 
George Mohr said:
I'd strongly consider that you use PilotEdge, even though it is out of your region. In fact, for training purposes its probably better that you fly in unfamiliar territory. It get's you into the idea of travel, and the prep needed for being in new airspace. I've been doing my IFR and using PE for ATC training, and I can honestly say it is worth its weight in gold.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that feedback. I’ll hop onboard and experience it. I agree, think it’ll be a huge help to fly in that airspace now that I think about it.
 
From a Flythissim, X-plane, and long-time Microsoft sim owner: Flythissim paid for itself over and over. If you are really concerned about the cost, sell when you're done with IFR. There's a robust market for Flythissim, because it just "plane" works and it is FAA approved (you can now stay current without an instructor at home). If your Flythissim depreciates $1K, how many hours of dual IFR is that? 4 - 6?

I easily cut my IFR training hours in half with Flythissim and passed my checkride on the first try. I have also owned elaborate X-plane and MS set-ups. Neither came close, and I spent numerous hours troubleshooting instead of practicing IFR.

I was planning to sell my Flythissim. But I decided to keep it for practice and currency.

And yes...huge thumbs up on Pilotedge.net. Work through their ratings, and you can conquer most of IFR complexities at home.


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...
 
What about using X-Plane with a random jet to practice approaches before 121 training? I am proficient IRL in the 172, but I haven't flown anything really faster. Thanks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top