Is basic flight simulators fun or boring?

[mandm]

Have been thinking if I should get a flight simulator, something basic for home, but I’m also thinking it would be boring. Any thoughts on those who have flight simulators at home?

 

[Pinecone]

They are boring as you make it.

I find they are great for keeping the IFR skills up.

 

[falconkidding]

I hate them. They are terrible videogames and terrible sims. Sim setups can be cool for something more game related, for just a flight sim though ughh.

 

[Eric Brunelle]

They are great for practicing your IFR scan while training for your Instrument Rating - can save you a good amount of money. I have a real hard time landing - I’ve used both X-Plane and Microsoft. I’ve never got the sensitivity right.

 

[guest user]

I think it depends on your purpose. I can certainly see where having and using a flight sim has been beneficial to my real world flying.
I will agree that it is more helpful to IFR related endeavors, but it certainly has a place for the VFR pilot, both student and after the checkride.

Pros:
Anything that is focused on mental activity

Cons:
Anything that is focused on sensory activity


Examples of mental activities (Great use of a home sim)
- Anything related to instrument scan. Whether learning or maintaining.

- Maintaining desired altitude or heading. The sim will be great to keep the scan going and teaching you how to keep focused on keeping level on heading.

- Maintaining a glide slope, either by PAPI / VASI or actual GS. Learning to use pitch power.

- Partial panel work. Get creative with instrument failures. This applies to both VFR as well as IFR pilots. Setup a nasty failure scenario in heavy turbulence, etc. Things you probably shouldn't try to set up in real life.

- Switchology, learning new avionics for example. Most sims will have full g1000 cockpits available, so you can spend some time learning at home instead of in an actual plane. Note that there are a lot of after market options to add specific avionics to aircraft if you're just looking to learn say a garmin 650. You can install the 650, get familiar with the interface and use the knowledge next time you go flying.

- New aircraft. When transitioning to another aircraft you can download most every aircraft and use the camera to look around and familiarize yourself with a new cockpit layout.

- Communication. There is an online community of actual ATC guys who can interact with your sim. You put on a headset and push your PTT and call up CD / ground / tower / departure / etc. This is available for VFR and IFR pilots. Lookup pilotedge.net. Very useful. At $20/month, that's cheaper than firing up a real airplane to go up and work on comms.

-----------

Examples of sensory activities (Poor use of a sim)
- Practicing stalls. There are a lot of physical cues to a stall that a home sim cannot duplicate.

- Landings. Yes, you can land in the sim, and you should for the final approach part to setup a stabilized approach. But the "this is where I need to flare, and this is how much back pressure I need", it does not provide the right feedback.

- Maneuvers. A lot of maneuvers rely on feedback on the yoke, as in 'move it <x> amount to keep the nose level on the horizon during a steep turn' Flight sim yokes, whether home, BATD, AATD, (I can't speak to the yokes in the real expensive flight sims) are not going to react the same as your aircraft so getting used to the proper manipulations in the sim will not transfer exactly to your plane. Of course, there is the argument that at least you'd be familiar with the mechanics of the maneuver, and that is valid.

----------

So, I endorse using a FS as long as you're using it within it's limitations.

 

[midlifeflyer]

It depends what you want to get out of it.

I've owned some version of MSFS or X-Plane since DOS but never got "into" it very seriously. But using it more now since buying a computer that can really run them. But games never intrigued me that much. My impressions FWIW:

• I like them for checking out instrument procedures, especially those I might use.
• They'd can be a huge help for developing a scan.
• I'm not impressed otherwise, but I suppose MSFS2020's enhanced graphics can be used for practicing VFR arrivals. XP seems a bit deficient in that respect,
• I think they might be helpful learning to land if you have rudder pedals (simply because they are much more difficult to land) but using a keypad or button to look around is way too artificial.
• With add-ons like PilotEdge, you can do realistic ATC communication but like landings, there's a disconnect if you are limiting yourself to mouse and keyboard workarounds rather that turning dials to change frequencies. (The simulated ATC within the programs typically sucks although I did have one amazingly accurate flight on MSFX a few years ago.)

 

[midlifeflyer]

Switchology, learning new avionics for example. Most sims will have full g1000 cockpits available, so you can spend some time learning at home instead of in an actual plane. Note that there are a lot of after market options to add specific avionics to aircraft if you're just looking to learn say a garmin 650. You can install the 650, get familiar with the interface and use the knowledge next time you go flying.

Agree with most of what you said but unless you do go to something like RealityXP, it's really only switchology. The ones I have seen within the programs lack enough fidelity to the real thing for much more than the basics, (That's true of many BATDs too.)

 

[Jim K]

I dunno. I find them boring. I LOVED them as a kid... spent MANY hours in MSFS (95 iirc). Tried to get back into them as an adult, thinking they could keep my head in the game between real flights.

Bought a yoke & pedals. Got frustrated with it. Bought a much nicer yoke & throttle setup. Forced myself to do it to practice ifr procedures... still hate it. I should probably cut my losses and sell the hardware. I keep thinking I'll try again; not sure what I think is going to change.

Once I tasted the real thing, the simulator is boring and frustrating. The models don't act like real airplanes, and the sight, sound, and feel aren't there. The sense of accomplishment isn't there.

I love computer games, to the extent I can't keep them installed on my machine because I'll waste too much time on them, but flight sims....yawn.

Ymmv

ETA: Not saying don't try them, they certainly have value and some people love them. I'm just saying start with cheap hardware like a basic $10 stick. If you don't enjoy it, don't blow real money on better hardware thinking it will improve the experience.

 

[guest user]

Agree with most of what you said but unless you do go to something like RealityXP, it's really only switchology. The ones I have seen within the programs lack enough fidelity to the real thing for much more than the basics, (That's true of many BATDs too.)

I can agree with this. I've seen the limitations in AATDs also (Redbird MCX). But, if you're starting from 0, they are great learning tools.

But, as you point out the RealityXP devices go the extra distance and buying the addon is still cheaper than flight time (plus more comfortable in your own home).

 

[Baked Potato]

What are your goals?

In addition to everything people have said above,

Putzing around in a civilian sim with no real aim - probably boring.

However, learning to fly a high fidelity recreation of an F-14 or Spitfire in DCS - amazing.

Though the best setup takes dedication, money, space, and a lot of configuration. Stick/yoke, throttle, pedals, a good PC, and ideally VR if you really want that immersion.

 

[Skyrys62]

Most fun I get is flying inverted through control towers.

I guess it could be somewhat helpful for a few flights if transitioning from steam to glass panel.

ETA: this is in addition to what others have mentioned.. i.e., IFR basics, etc.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I can agree with this. I've seen the limitations in AATDs also (Redbird MCX). But, if you're starting from 0, they are great learning tools.

Maybe not "great" but I agree they are effective in learning where certain buttons are, how to get around the system, and getting used to viewing a PFD with tapes rather than round dials. But when you can't do IFR tasks as basic as clearing a HILPT after being cleared straight in, you are not going to learn instrument flight among the basics. I agree with those who say, if you know how to fly the avionics and understand the limits, you can get some decent practice, but you are not going to learn the system from something that does not truly emulate the system. I think the PC and iOS trainers for products are better, which is a lot of the attraction for add-ons like Reality XP. Too bad Garmin hasn't done what Avidyne did with its iOS trainer - you can run it in XP11 without an add-on. It's biggest limitation is that it won't feed the NAV function on an XP AP.

 

[Jim Rosenow]

The sim is what you make of it. We flew up to Kelly's Island (89D - 2200') in Lake Erie (North of Port Clinton) for lunch yesterday in the R182. Did some sitatuational awareness 'flying' of the area on Friday in the sim, using X-Plane 11 and Carenado's T210 to substitute for the R182. Felt well-prepared and scenery matched nicely.

For IFR practice, the T210 avionics (after adding the RXP GTNs)are almost exactly what we have in the R182, so that's a good fit.

Jim

 

[kaiser]

I was quite deep into MSFS + VATSIM + lots of external hardware to replicate a 737NG including full MCP, FMS, radio stacks, etc. I loved the systemic aspect of flying and really enjoyed it. I also enjoyed building it, as a EE wannabe. I got to the point of beginning the build of a 220* ceiling to floor curved screen to make it 1:1 scale 737 when my buddy took me flying in his ‘72 E55 Baron.

Then it clicked, I was about to drop 20-30k on something in my basement when I could just go flying for real. Alas now I’m a pilot. It’s still fun and if I had the money to do both, I probably would. But I have to choose, and I choose flight.

So I suppose it depends on your goals for the sim. Training? Simulating a flight that you can’t do for real because you don’t have the equipment? If so, this may also beg the question: can one just go out and rent a Level D for a few hours if I wanted to? Even dual?

 

[Crashnburn]

You pays your money and you takes your chances. If you are going to build a flight simulator setup, get TrackIR and maybe Pro. I've had it for years, but never used it until recently because everyone said it took weeks to set up. I finally bit the bullet and installed it. I needed almost no time to tweak it and with the current software, function key F12 will set it to the pilot's POV. I wish I'd gotten it sooner. Really beats using the POV swich.

I have Prepar3D on my system. The only thing I don't like about it is the gauges are tiny. I cured that with RemoteFlight. You have a server running on your PC picking up your flight sim's essential information, and wirelessly sending it to an app on your iPad or iPhone. My PC didn't have native wireless capability, so I had to buy and install a PCIe wireless adapter card. Not only does it enable the app to communicate with the server, it also helps increase my Ethernet download speed (I already had 3 wired Ethernet connections so I could get along fine without that capability).

I fly a SportStar a lot both for real flying lessons and flight simulation. None of the RemoteFlight apps give me a tachometer that recognizes the Rotax, so I bought a Saitek Flight Information Panel (FIP). Its tachometer responds to the Rotax, but it's about 1/2 the actual RPM. Better than nothing. It also gives me 3 of the 4 SportStar flap setting indications. It shouldn't be too hard to copy that FIP display and modify it to give me the correct RPM and flap settings, but I haven't looked into it.

You install Saitek's drivers, but you need Spad.Next to use the FIP. Also, a USB 2.0 port is required so I got a PCIe to USB 2.0 adapter. It gives me 3 external USB ports, and one internal. Sad.Next comes with a lot of FIP display options, besides the ones Saitek provides (which are also included). Plan on one powered USB 2.0 port per FIP.

The TrackIR works OK with USB 3.0, except it glitches a lot. It glitches a lot less plugged into a USB 2.0 port. I bought a visor and dedicated it to the reflective clip that is essential to TrackIR.

The best control yoke I've used is the Honeycomb Alpha yoke. I tried two different CH Products yokes, but you turn the yoke, and you have to retrim the plane. Not so with this yoke.

Sometimes I think my flight simulation hobby is just an excuse to buy more computer equipment. I've been saving rewards points for a 38" curved monitor for my simulator and am just about there.

BTW, I view flight simulation as a hobby as I don't get tired doing simulated flying. And the time doesn't seem to fly by.
I view Flight Training for real as a sport, as it's really challenging, and draining. Even so, the time flies by.

 

[LesGawlik]

It's training. You can do things in sims you can't or shouldn't do IRL. Set failures to a short enough period that you will get a vacuum failure in hard IMC. Can you pick it up? What do you do? Same thing with engine failure. Do you know your checklist? My set up allows me to use my iPad and FF with XP11. So my FF checklists are always with me. Can I get to them? Can I read them with bells going off?

I would like to set up a twin in XP11 and practice v1 cuts. That carries and certain risk IRL and is hard on the equipment. But it must be done.

I don't really like flying around to look at scenery IRL much less in a sim. But if you're planning a trip to unfamiliar airports, it's a big help to set the time of day and anticipated weather to the airport and put some laps in the pattern.

 

[Rico Burgos]

I really want to put one together to be able to study IFR , that way I can actually put it in practice to better understand

 

[tsts4]

I really want to put one together to be able to study IFR , that way I can actually put it in practice to better understand

I caution against this. This is is a good way to learn bad habits. IMO sims are great tools when paired with a CFII during training and for currency/proficiency after you pass your checkride, but on your own without proper instruction, not so much.

 

[coma24]

I caution against this. This is is a good way to learn bad habits. IMO sims are great tools when paired with a CFII during training and for currency/proficiency after you pass your checkride, but on your own without proper instruction, not so much.

Counterpoint, I did exactly this, along with more people than I can count over the years. Any bad habits were easily addressed during the formal training that later occurred with a CFII. As long as the student is aware that a couple of things might need to get straightened out once training starts, the pros massively outweight the cons IMO. The CFII pointed out a grand total of 2 issues, then after 2-3 flights, sent me off to go fly with a safety pilot in the flying club as we were "just burning time at this point."

Fast forward a few years, my work involves cross-over into a community that routinely sees students working towards their instrument rating using self-study and home sims. I'm yet to come across a single person who said that it didn't ultimately help them. Again, as long as the candidate is open to the idea that they might need a course correction on a few topics, a ton of productive work can take place ahead of time.

The 'negative training' argument appears to be grossly exaggerated when it comes to IFR training. Almost the same can be said for primary training as well but that's a more complex topic and likely out of scope for this thread.

 

[Skyrys62]

Best case is to start on the sim with a CFII, develop proper habits, then move forward to solo practice on the sim.
Otherwise, some of the time/money saved gets negated if spending time later to correct.
Everyone's different though.

 

[coma24]

I forgot to mention, YES, they absolutely can be fun. I'll use a GA mission generator (pays virtual $ to conduct charter-style operations) which takes me to fields I would've never visited, with a wide variety of payloads. Add real-time WX and realistic ATC to the mix and it's pretty immersive. The number of times that I've been surprised by which aspects of a flight turned out to be challenging has been eye-opening.

 

[coma24]

Best case is to start on the sim with a CFII, develop proper habits, then move forward to solo practice on the sim.
Otherwise, some of the time/money saved gets negated if spending time later to correct.
Everyone's different though.

That's one way to do it, and is fairly efficient, granted. I used Machado's Instrument Survival Manual, with references to IFH, IPH, AIM and FARs from time to time, coupled with a crap load of simulator time prior to rocking up for my formal instrument training. "correction time" was minimal....we're talking minutes. And again, to be clear, many other people have done largely the same thing. I say that to make it clear that I don't believe that I had, or have any unique abilities.

Either way, we agree that a point exists where solo practice in a sim can be helpful.

 

[Pinecone]

Best case is to start on the sim with a CFII, develop proper habits, then move forward to solo practice on the sim.
Otherwise, some of the time/money saved gets negated if spending time later to correct.
Everyone's different though.

I agree.

It is much better (and faster) to build proper habits and methods from the beginning.

Everything you learn wrong, you have spent time learning it wrong, then will need spend time to learn the right way, and spend a LOT of time ingraining the new, proper way, of doing things.

 

[bluesideup]

Have been thinking if I should get a flight simulator, something basic for home, but I’m also thinking it would be boring. Any thoughts on those who have flight simulators at home?

Hi.
It's Not Fun or Boring. Use it as a Tool. The best way to do it is after you have a lesson with your CFII then go home and practice. It's a good procedural tool but if you use it as a Game / for Fun or just because you have nothing to do, don't get into it.
If you do try XPlane 11, XP12 is very resource intensive and is in Beta stage with a lot of bugs and at this point useless as a tool in my opinion.

 

[guest user]

The good news is that if you buy XP12, the license for it will also allow you to use XP11, so it is the better buy. I have no doubt that XP12 will be great, but the "early release" (beta) version is a bit lacking.

 

[Jim K]

I forgot to mention, YES, they absolutely can be fun. I'll use a GA mission generator (pays virtual $ to conduct charter-style operations) which takes me to fields I would've never visited, with a wide variety of payloads. Add real-time WX and realistic ATC to the mix and it's pretty immersive. The number of times that I've been surprised by which aspects of a flight turned out to be challenging has been eye-opening.

That's interesting... what's this mission generator?

 

[simtech]

I maintain flight simulators for the airforce. Every night I have access to a 270 degree HD visual with a full mock up of a military trainer complete with control loading and all. It's a very very expensive video game. I used to fly them all the time, now eh....I will shoot an approach every now and then otherwise it's just work. So I would imagine a cpu based flightsim would get boring pretty quickly. But that's just me and again I have access to a $4mil simulator soo.....haha

 

[Andrew]

(Disclaimer: PPL in 2012, IFR written in 2019, all IR requirements complete... aircraft went into shop end of 2019, haven't completed checkride.)

I've used sims since my Apple ][ days in 1982 or so... so I can't be fully objective... and have used FSX and then X-Plane throughout my training. While I didn't expect either to closely replicate the feel of flying, going through the in-cockpit flows, checklists, and in-flight tasks is fantastic.

That said, I learned x-wind landings in X-Plane.

Once I started my IFR training I was using FSX extensively, but set up custom panels on two monitors with mostly instruments and only a small window for an outside view. I used this as well as unmodified setups along with Pilotedge. Pilotedge proved invaluable, and I asked several instructors through my IR training if I could get on the radios, since I think some instructors assume IR students aren't ready to do it as well as fly the plane early in training.

I'm just getting ready to get back to flying & finish my IR now, and my first priorities are 1) getting my study software updated (over 2 years have passed since my written) and getting my simulators set back up.

FWIW, FS 2020 would likely make an amazing VFR training aid since the visual environment closely or exactly matches the real-world environment.

 

[Dry Creek]

If you do decide to build a home simulator, avoid the mistake I made. I started out with the Saitek/Logitech Yoke and Throttle Quadrant. While the TQ was good, the yoke is miserable. Since it only has a total of 90 degrees of travel, all of your inputs will be exaggerated. I replaced those with the Honeycomb Alpha. Much better, and the switch panel is a nice touch. Since I train in Cessna products now (again), I opted for the FlightSimStuff Cessna TPM/Flaps/Trim setup. I also found a nice conversion pedal for the Saitek/Logitech rudder pedals - Cessna-Style Rudder Pedals. I use 32" TV as my monitor to allow a wider field of view.
I use MSFS-X, X-Plane 11, and MSFS-2020. I tried the freeware FlightGear 2020.3, but I had too many issues with it.
I use the sim mainly for practicing upcoming lessons and reinforcing skills taught in previous ones (i.e. steep turns, the elements of the stall series, emergency memory action item reinforcement).
I found treating it like I was actually going flying keeps me focused and serious - 8 hrs. bottle to throttle, use every checklist, make all pattern calls out loud, call AWOS for arrival info. With the weather settings you can also set up some crosswind landings and various levels of VFR conditions.

It's just a tool. How you use it will determine the benefits you receive from it. The first flight school I went to used one for their students that had difficulty multi-tasking.

 

[Pinecone]

If you do decide to build a home simulator, avoid the mistake I made. I started out with the Saitek/Logitech Yoke and Throttle Quadrant. While the TQ was good, the yoke is miserable. Since it only has a total of 90 degrees of travel, all of your inputs will be exaggerated. I replaced those with the Honeycomb Alpha. Much better, and the switch panel is a nice touch. Since I train in Cessna products now (again), I opted for the FlightSimStuff Cessna TPM/Flaps/Trim setup. I also found a nice conversion pedal for the Saitek/Logitech rudder pedals - Cessna-Style Rudder Pedals.

Hmm, on my Mooney the total yoke travel is about 90 degrees.

But I do agree to spend the money for the Honeycomb Alpha over the Logitech.

Thanks for the tip on FlightSimStuff. I have been looking for a push-pull throttle setup.

 

[LesGawlik]

I like the Honeycomb TQ as well. It can be set up for GA or big iron. It has an AP, gear switch and flap switch. Nicely made. I use the Honeycomb yoke, and I like it. I use Thrustmaster pedals, mainly because they were all I could find. I think Honeycomb just released a model.

 

[guest user]

I also have the Honeycomb setup. Yoke and throttle quadrant.

One thing I found is that you can use the last axis as a flap axis, so you can actually duplicate the Cessna flaps that you can put in any position between 0 and full down (yes, there are usually two intermediate stops, but you could do 13.5* or some such if you wanted to). To allow for the four positions, I 3d printed an insert/cover to put over the 5th slider that has raised notches you match the flaps to for the ~ 10* / 20* stops. https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:5405165

I agree completely w/ the Logitech yoke vs Honeycomb statements. Night and day. I modified the Logitech with the rubber band mod, but even then very inconsistent on center and only allowing 45* left / right from center was very problematic. The 90* left / right is much more realistic.

 

[Pinecone]

only allowing 45* left / right from center was very problematic. The 90* left / right is much more realistic.

Again, that depends on what you fly. That is about right for a Mooney.

Since my plane has push pull controls, I want to get push pull quadrant.

 

[guest user]

That is about right for a Mooney.

Since my plane has push pull controls, I want to get push pull quadrant.

Then you're in luck. The Logitech yoke is not very expensive.

Push pull quadrant will be a bit more limited in choice, but they're out there.

 

[Dry Creek]

Again, that depends on what you fly. That is about right for a Mooney.

Since my plane has push pull controls, I want to get push pull quadrant.

If the push-pull T/P/M is what you're looking for, also check out the Turtle Beach Velocity One. Of course, the issue with that choice is that the yoke has a full 180 degree total travel arc. It would be less expensive than buying the Logitech Yoke/Throttle Quadrant and the Cessna style T/P/M I linked to earlier.

Honeycomb was set to release their "Charlie" rudder pedals this month. I don't think the launch happened as planned. Thrustmaster TPM is nice, but quite expensive (at least to my budget). The Logitech rudder pedals with the Cessna-Style pedals is a good middle ground. The same bloke that offers the Cessna pedals lists Piper-style pedals too. Without the modified pedals the Logitech is pretty unrealistic with the 45 degree angle to the floor. I have mine raised and mounted up under my simulator desk to more closely mimic the feel of the real thing. Without the more upright pedals it is nearly impossible to apply full toe brakes, and you can rest your heels on the floor - something I really needed practice with.

 

[Pinecone]

It is not a huge deal for me whether the yoke turns 90 or 180 degrees. I also fly C-172, C-182, 7GCBC.

I can always set the response curves to give full aileron at 45 degrees each way.

I have the Logitech setup. I need to play with it some, as the big issue is sticktion.

The Cessna style pedals look nice.

 

[Scrabo]

I use FSX to get acquainted with a new EFB, recently did that for Garmin pilot

 

[Dry Creek]

I have the Logitech setup. I need to play with it some, as the big issue is sticktion.

Man, it was horrible. I tried all of the mods and it just didn't work for me. A climbing right or left turn was miserable - unless you used both hands. Kinda' hard to do that and keep a hand you don't have on the throttle.

I think that the bushings for radial alignment aren't sufficiently robust or don't have tight enough tolerances to prevent side movement. The Logitech yoke and TQ are back in their original box, and up in the attic now.

 

[guest user]

It is not a huge deal for me whether the yoke turns 90 or 180 degrees. I also fly C-172, C-182, 7GCBC.

I can always set the response curves to give full aileron at 45 degrees each way.

I have the Logitech setup. I need to play with it some, as the big issue is sticktion.

By default, when you calibrate the yoke to the game it gives full aileron at full movement. However, I ended up using a custom response curve that made the first ~30* of yoke travel roughly normal and then the remaining 15* or so be the rest. It was the best I could come up with.

But I agree that if it werent for the sticktion I probably wouldnt have considered it worth spending the money on a newer yoke. Like Dry Creek I tried mods with very little to show for it.

My yoke and TQ are on a shelf and I'm thinking of gifting/donating it to a person who is just starting out with flight simming using a joystick. It will be a huge improvement in that case.

 

[Pinecone]

I think I programmed mine with a curve, so the more you move the yoke, the more it moves the controls per movement.

So fairly natural feeling.

But unless you fly only one aircraft in real life, you fly different control movement to response, so you adapt.