Microsoft Flight Simulator (or equivalent)

[RalphInCA]

Many years ago I had a copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator. It was pretty sophisticated for its day.

Now that I am getting back into aviation, I am thinking of getting another copy to augment my flight training.

Is Flight Sim still the gold standard, or is there something better now?

What is the bare minimum computer I would need? Right now, all I have is an iPad, and a 10 year old laptop that has been in the closet for the past couple of years.

Is this even worth pursuing, or am I wasting time / money?

 

[jesse]

X-plane is the standard. http://www.x-plane.com/

 

[Stryker1112]

Is something like that useful for practicing IFR procedures? I have not started my instrument but wondered if this would help?

 

[Bonchie]

Prepar3D.com

Lockheed Martin licensed the ESP code (training license of MS Flight simulator) and are continuing to develop it.

 

[AggieMike88]

Is something like that useful for practicing IFR procedures? I have not started my instrument but wondered if this would help?

It can. But caution must be observed since doing so without instructor guidance can introduce habits that will take lot$ of in$tructor time and expen$e to unwind.

 

[jordane93]

It can. But caution must be observed since doing so without instructor guidance can introduce habits that will take lot$ of in$tructor time and expen$e to unwind.

Yep..

 

[redtail]

Prepar3D.com

Lockheed Martin licensed the ESP code (training license of MS Flight simulator) and are continuing to develop it.

^this^

Long time MSFS/fsx and X-Plane user.

I just bought Prepar3d 2.2 (Academic) and I'm VERY impressed with what Lockheed Martin has done with the old MS code. I'm getting very good, smooth performance on my system! The graphics have been enhanced as well as just about everything!

Note: I am not intrument rated (yet).
Flight simulation has been a hobby of mine from my teenage years (Commodore-64) and I still enjoy it on occasion.

 

[dukeblue219]

Many years ago I had a copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator. It was pretty sophisticated for its day.

Now that I am getting back into aviation, I am thinking of getting another copy to augment my flight training.

Is Flight Sim still the gold standard, or is there something better now?

What is the bare minimum computer I would need? Right now, all I have is an iPad, and a 10 year old laptop that has been in the closet for the past couple of years.

Is this even worth pursuing, or am I wasting time / money?

To answer your question about the computer, a 10 year old laptop is not going to cut it with either FSX or X-Plane. You don't need a cutting edge machine to run these programs (heck, FSX itself is quite old at this point), but the graphic capabilities of old laptops are totally unsuitable for the task. Even a brand new (non-gaming) laptop would be less than ideal, but still leaps and bounds better than was was available 10 years ago.

Fortunately you might be able to find a decent used desktop and add a modern graphics card and make it work. Anything with at least a Core 2 Duo (i3/5/i7 would be better) will work, you'll need 4GB of RAM (literally a $30 upgrade online) and a dedicated graphics card from the last 4 years or so (maybe $50-$90).

Running X-Plane with all the settings to max will bring a $2500 desktop to a halt, but that's how they designed it -- so that you can keep improving the hardware and still have another settings knob to turn up. FSX being older will run well on older hardware. Biggest thing you want to avoid is integrated graphics chips and a processor from the Pentium-4 era and before.

 

[Archammer]

You need to purchase a copy of Prepar3d here: http://www.prepar3d.com/

Read through the computer requirements and go from there. Most of the FSX software is transferable or upgrade-able.

 

[MAKG1]

Don't expect a sim to do much to augment primary training. Stick and rudder skills are totally different. Pilotage is totally different. Aircraft performance is different. VFR procedures are different.

About the only thing that works is handling the avionics IF they are similar to the airplane you're flying. But, there are better special purpose simulators for that purpose. Like Garmin's GPS sims or one of several VOR sims.

The "augmentation" can be negative in the worst case. You learn bad habits such as fixation, not trimming, and heads-down time that have to be unlearned. Most likely, it will just be playing and should be treated as such.

Instrument training is a whole 'nother ball of wax (subject to the warning about doing it without an instructor), but you aren't there yet.

 

[RalphInCA]

Don't expect a sim to do much to augment primary training. Stick and rudder skills are totally different. Pilotage is totally different. Aircraft performance is different. VFR procedures are different.

About the only thing that works is handling the avionics IF they are similar to the airplane you're flying. But, there are better special purpose simulators for that purpose. Like Garmin's GPS sims or one of several VOR sims.

The "augmentation" can be negative in the worst case. You learn bad habits such as fixation, not trimming, and heads-down time that have to be unlearned. Most likely, it will just be playing and should be treated as such.

Instrument training is a whole 'nother ball of wax (subject to the warning about doing it without an instructor), but you aren't there yet.

Makes sense.

I will forgo the computer simulator for now. An instrument rating is in my future, but realistically probably a couple of years away. Anything I buy today would most likely be outdated by then.

Thanks guys! You saved me enough money for a few hours in the air.

 

[MAKG1]

If you want to play, FlightGear is free and will run on just about anything.

There are stupid-cheap joysticks around.

Just, it's playing.

 

[Cpt_Kirk]

I used FSX to supplement my Instrument training. It did exactly what I had hoped. I used the autopilot and flew around in IMC conditions. I practiced proper scans, used my available resources in the cockpit to maintain my SA (I used round dials with no GPS to make it harder on myself), and enhanced good habits that were transferable to the airplane.

Don't make the sim more than it should be, and you will be fine.

Plus, it's how I learned to fly NDB approach. Contrary to popular belief, they are fun to practice.

It can be a fantastic resource, although nothing beats going up in an airplane.

 

[tinerj]

X-plane is the standard. http://www.x-plane.com/

Says one pilot. Many others think MS Flight Sim works as well. Regardless, both offer opportunities to learn. I found the radio calls helped me, and helped with IFR training.

Don't give up thinking a hot computer and big bucks are required. FS can be had for $30 and it will run at about 20 frames per second on my old laptop.

 

[ZeroPapaGolf]

If you're doing instrument training, cut the graphics settings all the way back and you'll get good performance even on older systems.

 

[MAKG1]

If you're doing instrument training, cut the graphics settings all the way back and you'll get good performance even on older systems.

Heh.

It's not like you need to see the terrain really nicely for instrument training.

Except for MDA, of course.

 

[jcepiano]

I use FSX and use the Accu-Sim Cessna 172 which helped me quite a lot to get started with Cessna 172R procedures. The aircraft's response is in the ball park, but there is never a replacement for real physical drag and resistance you experience in real life. They just released a Piper Cherokee as well.

I personally feel it's great to use the sim to get acquainted with the flow of a maneuver so that when it happens for real you're very fluid with your expectations. It helped me save a lot of time. On the other hand, the "unrealistic" aspects of the simulation can actually serve to test your ability to adapt to different flight characteristics which happens all the time when you switch aircraft in real flying.

Another thing I would suggest for anyone using a simulator is to use PilotEdge. (Pilotedge.net). It's a great resource for improving your radio proficiency and general VFR/IFR airspace and approach procedure practice.

 

[Archammer]

I love how some people keep harping on this whole "don't sim because it's a game" crap. It's NOT A GAME, hence the freaking name SIMULATOR! Meaning it simulates the aircraft, and is used as a TRAINING DEVICE by the people who own the software, Lockheed Martin!

Use the sim all you want for your instrument rating, private rating, ATP, or anything else you can possibly get some good use of, instead of spending unnecessary money in a paid environment. The simulator will help you in countless ways in all things.

It will help you immensely, and if for some rare reason you have difficulty evolving yourself from the sim environment to the real environment, then I'm sure the instructor will help you quickly resolve said issue...

Some people's propaganda...

 

[MAKG1]

So, you believe marketers over people who make sims for a living?

I'll only say this once, so listen up. There is no such thing as a general purpose sim. They must be designed with a purpose in mind, or they very quickly become suitable for nothing. Read LockMart's site -- and their pricing -- and you can figure out what it is for them.

Simulating weapons systems is not useful for private pilot training.

 

[redtail]

This debate always makes me chuckle

I simmed for 16 years before stepping foot into a real Skyhawk, because that was all I could afford. When I started on my PPL, I was way ahead of the game compared to someone that never touched MSFS. Did I have to unlearn a few bad habits, yes, but it didn't take long at all. And I continued to use it in between lessons.

One very good use for me, is flying a trip on the sim before making the actual flight. I did that before my solo cross countries, short and long.

 

[Palmpilot]

X-plane is the standard. http://www.x-plane.com/

When I have tried X-Plane, it didn't seem realistic at all. I've had better luck with MSFS X.

 

[son_of_a_gun]

Don't expect a sim to do much to augment primary training. Stick and rudder skills are totally different. Pilotage is totally different. Aircraft performance is different. VFR procedures are different.

About the only thing that works is handling the avionics IF they are similar to the airplane you're flying. But, there are better special purpose simulators for that purpose. Like Garmin's GPS sims or one of several VOR sims.

The "augmentation" can be negative in the worst case. You learn bad habits such as fixation, not trimming, and heads-down time that have to be unlearned. Most likely, it will just be playing and should be treated as such.

Instrument training is a whole 'nother ball of wax (subject to the warning about doing it without an instructor), but you aren't there yet.

I have found x-plane to be very useful in my primary training. The c150 I use flies very much like my trainer. Cross country check points show up where they are supposed to be. I always do some T&G's on x-plane before I go flying. And this is an old version 8 copy.

All the items you post as different are very very close to real life. Handling characteristics, performance etc. Pattern work, crosswinds, turbulance weather...I guess you just have to try it to see.

I also use trackir for looking out the windows, CH products rudder pedals and yoke and purchased a very good model of the c150.

 

[redtail]

I have found x-plane to be very useful in my primary training. The c150 I use flies very much like my trainer. Cross country check points show up where they are supposed to be. I always do some T&G's on x-plane before I go flying. And this is an old version 8 copy.

All the items you post as different are very very close to real life. Handling characteristics, performance etc. Pattern work, crosswinds, turbulance weather...I guess you just have to try it to see.

I also use trackir for looking out the windows, CH products rudder pedals and yoke and purchased a very good model of the c150.

You're still using version 8?

Remember when X-Plane came with a manual? I think I still have versions 4 thru 8 around somewhere in my junk.

9&10 are currently on my PC.

But you're right, I've used a multi-monitor setup for years but when TrackIR came out, that changed the whole ball game when it comes to situational awareness and flying a decent pattern.

Yep, it is what you make it.
I've used the simulator for entertainment as well as serious practice.

 

[KennyC]

The c150 I use flies very much like my trainer.

What c150 did you get? I train in a c152 and have missed having something similar in X-Plane. I have version 10 though, so what you use may not be compatible.

 

[bullwinkle]

X-plane is the standard. http://www.x-plane.com/

X-Plane is good for flight physics, but FSX is a better overall simulation of the flying environment. You can do flight following, get ATC calls from a tower, and have lots of other airplane traffic you have to work around. None of that is in X-Plane. Real world features and navigation is better in FSX as well.

I own the latest versions of both programs, but I always come back to FSX as a better simulation of the real world environment pilots have to operate in.

 

[MAKG1]

And neither is THAT good for pilotage.

I'll change my tune when you can report at the cement plant at KSQL like every pilot has to IRL.

At my own airport (KPAO), only one of the commonly used landmarks appears in any of the sims -- and that's because it's a high rise bridge (and it's not in all of them). For the record, the missing ones are (1) Shoreline Amphitheatre, (2) Ames Research Center large wind tunnel, (2) Stanford Stadium, (3) Ikea, (4) Train Bridge, (5) Salt Pile, (6) KGO, (7) SLAC (8) Sunken Ship, (9) Bird House, and (10) the Landing. A few of those are charted on the TAC.

Departure procedures out of KSQL require following specific streets. One of them has you overflying the "diamond shaped pool," and there is a 5 story building (Oracle HQ) under left base for 30 that's quite the issue for a student pilot.

How the hell do you fly VFR if none of the landmarks are there?

And for the stuff that is there, it is FAR too easy to spot. On a reasonably nice 8 SM vis day, spotting traffic in a straight line on base after your crosswind turn requires some effort, especially if the other aircraft is a bit low and wide over a city. It's much too easy on any of the common sims. Spotting an airport 10 miles away in flat farmland is not easy unless you happen to be aligned with the runway, even in 50 miles visibility.

As for performance, I've yet to see one that spins correctly. Slips are hit or miss.

I can only understand the claims that they are "good" or "helpful" in the context of a student pilot who hasn't really gotten into the details yet. On the surface, they look nice. Just underneath, there are BIG holes.

So, you have to ask what you want to get out of it. It certainly can teach you how certain avionics work, at least after a fashion. FSX (and the FlightGear knockoff 172P) can teach you how the KAP140 autopilot works, though no student pilot is going to be using autopilots extensively. It can teach you to trim if you let it -- but not correctly. You end up trimming for constant yoke position, which isn't how it works IRL. The control feel is not right at all, and the two finger trick we tell students to use IRL doesn't work in the sim.

Yes, I was a flight simmer too, before I was a pilot. It was fun. It was only very slightly useful for learning to fly a real airplane. I still occasionally use the sim, mainly to teach things to my kid. Except I can't teach him about spins because FSX always changes them to spiral dives. And the landmarks aren't there….and so on.

Here's a nice test for that C150 dynamics. Disconnect the rudder pedals. Pull it back into a straight-ahead or right-turning power-on stall. When the left wing dips, correct with ailerons while still holding the yoke back. IRL, this will give you a nice spin entry. What does the sim do? It's not a spin if the airspeed is high.

 

[jesse]

X-Plane is good for flight physics, but FSX is a better overall simulation of the flying environment. You can do flight following, get ATC calls from a tower, and have lots of other airplane traffic you have to work around. None of that is in X-Plane. Real world features and navigation is better in FSX as well.

I own the latest versions of both programs, but I always come back to FSX as a better simulation of the real world environment pilots have to operate in.

I do believe Xplane 10 has fake ATC like FSX had, not sure if it's bette ror worse.

Regardless, if you want that stuff, you're much better off jumping on one of the online virtual ATC systems which you can do with XPlane. Way more realistic.

 

[Bonchie]

I do believe Xplane 10 has fake ATC like FSX had, not sure if it's bette ror worse.

Regardless, if you want that stuff, you're much better off jumping on one of the online virtual ATC systems which you can do with XPlane. Way more realistic.

It's much worse. One of the major issues people have with it. FSX/P3D's is not perfect though by any means. There are some ATC add ons that do a much more realistic job within the sim.

 

[Bonchie]

So, you believe marketers over people who make sims for a living?

I'll only say this once, so listen up. There is no such thing as a general purpose sim. They must be designed with a purpose in mind, or they very quickly become suitable for nothing. Read LockMart's site -- and their pricing -- and you can figure out what it is for them.

Simulating weapons systems is not useful for private pilot training.

Where does it say P3D is just about weapons systems?

Heck, LM sells 3 different versions that contain no weapons systems (Developer, Academic, and Professional).

The major use for P3D right now is in academic settings, school programs, home users, etc. not with the military. I think Redbird is using it now as well for their sims.

I use FSX and use the Accu-Sim Cessna 172 which helped me quite a lot to get started with Cessna 172R procedures. The aircraft's response is in the ball park, but there is never a replacement for real physical drag and resistance you experience in real life. They just released a Piper Cherokee as well.

I personally feel it's great to use the sim to get acquainted with the flow of a maneuver so that when it happens for real you're very fluid with your expectations. It helped me save a lot of time. On the other hand, the "unrealistic" aspects of the simulation can actually serve to test your ability to adapt to different flight characteristics which happens all the time when you switch aircraft in real flying.

Another thing I would suggest for anyone using a simulator is to use PilotEdge. (Pilotedge.net). It's a great resource for improving your radio proficiency and general VFR/IFR airspace and approach procedure practice.

The things they did with the Cherokee are incredible. You'll never get real stick and rudder skills with a simulator, but the flight dynamics are dang close.

Even the power settings are dead on to what they equate to in real life. It's been very useful to me.

 

[Bonchie]

And neither is THAT good for pilotage.

I'll change my tune when you can report at the cement plant at KSQL like every pilot has to IRL.

At my own airport (KPAO), only one of the commonly used landmarks appears in any of the sims -- and that's because it's a high rise bridge (and it's not in all of them). For the record, the missing ones are (1) Shoreline Amphitheatre, (2) Ames Research Center large wind tunnel, (2) Stanford Stadium, (3) Ikea, (4) Train Bridge, (5) Salt Pile, (6) KGO, (7) SLAC (8) Sunken Ship, (9) Bird House, and (10) the Landing. A few of those are charted on the TAC.

Departure procedures out of KSQL require following specific streets. One of them has you overflying the "diamond shaped pool," and there is a 5 story building (Oracle HQ) under left base for 30 that's quite the issue for a student pilot.

How the hell do you fly VFR if none of the landmarks are there?

Well, that's what land class add ons are for, or photo scenery, or Orbx regions. These things add many landmarks that otherwise wouldn't be there. Stock FSX won't cut it. But I have Ultimate Terrain X and some Orbx regions and I've practiced flights before I actually take them in the sim, hit checkpoints and it's helped me greatly once I'm up the air.

Even if it's as simple as recognizing a bend in a river, where a certain highway is going to come up, and getting a feel for what position the airport will be at when I approach.

And for the stuff that is there, it is FAR too easy to spot. On a reasonably nice 8 SM vis day, spotting traffic in a straight line on base after your crosswind turn requires some effort, especially if the other aircraft is a bit low and wide over a city. It's much too easy on any of the common sims. Spotting an airport 10 miles away in flat farmland is not easy unless you happen to be aligned with the runway, even in 50 miles visibility.

True. It's way to easy to spot airports at night as well. I think I was 4 miles from KOXB the other night before I made out the lights and it wasn't that hazy. In the sim, it's like Christmas lights.

As for performance, I've yet to see one that spins correctly. Slips are hit or miss.

Nothing is like real life, but add-on planes like the stuff A2A (namely the 172 or Cherokee) are making are very good at proper stall/spin reactions. Most other add-on planes don't come close though.

They stuff that's been coming out in the past year is pretty incredible. But yes, 99% of FSX planes suck in this regard.

I can only understand the claims that they are "good" or "helpful" in the context of a student pilot who hasn't really gotten into the details yet. On the surface, they look nice. Just underneath, there are BIG holes.

If you know what those holes are and use them for what they are, they are still good and helpful. Especially for IFR training.

So, you have to ask what you want to get out of it. It certainly can teach you how certain avionics work, at least after a fashion. FSX (and the FlightGear knockoff 172P) can teach you how the KAP140 autopilot works, though no student pilot is going to be using autopilots extensively. It can teach you to trim if you let it -- but not correctly. You end up trimming for constant yoke position, which isn't how it works IRL. The control feel is not right at all, and the two finger trick we tell students to use IRL doesn't work in the sim.

Yep. Trim is the biggest difference IMO.

Yes, I was a flight simmer too, before I was a pilot. It was fun. It was only very slightly useful for learning to fly a real airplane. I still occasionally use the sim, mainly to teach things to my kid. Except I can't teach him about spins because FSX always changes them to spiral dives. And the landmarks aren't there….and so on.

Here's a nice test for that C150 dynamics. Disconnect the rudder pedals. Pull it back into a straight-ahead or right-turning power-on stall. When the left wing dips, correct with ailerons while still holding the yoke back. IRL, this will give you a nice spin entry. What does the sim do? It's not a spin if the airspeed is high.

As you said, stick and rudder isn't going to really happen in a sim. You can get the fundamentals down but real practice only comes in the plane.

But I find it useful for just about everything else assuming you have the add ons to make it useful.

 

[redtail]

Well, that's what land class add ons are for, or photo scenery, or Orbx regions. These things add many landmarks that otherwise wouldn't be there. Stock FSX won't cut it. But I have Ultimate Terrain X and some Orbx regions and I've practiced flights before I actually take them in the sim, hit checkpoints and it's helped me greatly once I'm up the air.

Even if it's as simple as recognizing a bend in a river, where a certain highway is going to come up, and getting a feel for what position the airport will be at when I approach.

You can say that again! I can't even remember all of the add-on scenery, planes, other third party software and hardware I've bought over the years.

I think some people expect way too much out of a PC flight simulator and they fail to realize that you'll have to add a lot in order to get the most out of what's currently available, that includes hardware. It would be nice if everything was just great right out of the box.

One thing's for sure, they've come a long way. I hope Lockheed Martin continue to develope P3D. I'll still use X-Plane 10 as well, I like them both

 

[son_of_a_gun]

What c150 did you get? I train in a c152 and have missed having something similar in X-Plane. I have version 10 though, so what you use may not be compatible.

A fellow named Jason Chandler had a series of cessna's for sale on his website years ago. I purchased the C150L.

Initially the plane required way too much elevator trim. I went into PlaneMaker and discovered he had 0 degrees horizontal stabilizor incidence. I corrected that and it flew just like my trainer.

That was version 8. I just purchased a new PC and plan to install V10 and upgrade my C150. If unsuccessful, I'll track down Jason Chandler let him fix it for me.

I should know by the end of this weekend. Will keep you updated.

 

[RyanB]

Some say X-Plane others say MS Flight Simulator. Personally, I would suggest MS Flight Simulator, I feel like its more widely known and has more 3rd party addons. From my little experience using X-Plane the controls are quite different from Flight Simulator. I don't think you could go wrong with either but personally I would go with MS Flight Sim.