Which X-Plane plane is good for IFR practice?

NoHeat

NoHeat

Final Approach
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
5,045
Location
Iowa City, IA
Display Name
Display name:
17
I bought the X-Plane simulation software and a yoke for the purpose of practicing IFR approaches. The goal is mostly to practice my scan. That and practicing approaches to airports before I actually fly there.

The problem is that X-plane comes with some "planes," but none of them seem to be suited for IFR practice. There's also an abundance of aftermarket "planes" sold by developers, but they all seem to be advertised based on how cool they look, and similar things that I don't care about. I also don't care about scenery since I just look at clouds during the approach anyway. I just want a basic IFR single-engine plane that is stable, not overly twitchy, and has an appropriate panel. I haven't found one that makes this claim.

For now I'm using an RV that came with X-Plane, and I figured out how to add a DME to its panel. It's a help, but it's not stable enough -- it's so twitchy that hand-flying it is unrealistically hard. The C-172 that comes with X-plane is even worse.

It seems like somebody must have a plane available for sale, or free, that is intended for single-engine IFR practice, but I can't find it. Any suggestions?
 
I'm flying C172 on Xplane and use GNS430 as DME. it is harder to fly that thing then real airplane for sure but it makes your scan going fast. When you need reconfigure VOR or GPS just pause sim.
Also you can feed your coordinates from Xplane to SkyCharts Pro and see yourself on the moving map. Helps a lot to verify that you a really where you think you are :)
 
Probably the one you're actually flying, but only under the supervision or direction of your instrument flight instructor. Otherwise, you're just "burning in" bad habits or poor procedures which your instructor will then have to "de-teach" before teaching you good ones.
 
Ron Levy said:
Probably the one you're actually flying, but only under the supervision or direction of your instrument flight instructor. Otherwise, you're just "burning in" bad habits or poor procedures which your instructor will then have to "de-teach" before teaching you good ones.
Click to expand...

Couldn't disagree more.
 
Ron Levy said:
Probably the one you're actually flying, but only under the supervision or direction of your instrument flight instructor. Otherwise, you're just "burning in" bad habits or poor procedures which your instructor will then have to "de-teach" before teaching you good ones.
Click to expand...

Umm, are you talking about something totally different?

Maybe my post wasn't well written. I'm talking about simulated planes used in a computer simulation on a desktop computer. Not a physical plane. If there's a simulated plane out there that met the double requirement that it is identical to one of my club's physical planes that I actually fly IFR and it is actually useful for IFR simulations, that would be great. However, that's hopeless. I'd be happy to settle for any single-engine plane that's good for IFR simulations -- that's why I posed the question in my post the way I did.

Also, I'm not a student. I'm instrument rated. I'm current. So it's normal that I don't have an instructor sitting beside me at every moment. As my post said, I want to keep my scan in practice, and that's the main reason for the software.

So back to the regular programming -- I'm hoping to hear from anybody who uses X-plane for practicing their scan and has found a plane that they like for this purpose.
 
Last edited:
NoHeat said:
Umm, are you talking about something totally different?
Click to expand...
Perhaps so.

Also, I'm not a student. I'm instrument rated. I'm current.
Click to expand...
Sorry -- I thought this was another person trying to get a jump on instrument training by self-training on an uncertified device. But I'd still suggest picking the model which most closely emulates what you fly.
 
NoHeat,
Can you share what computer system you are using for X-Plane? Looking for info on RAM, processor, graphics card, monitor(s)

thanks
 
Badger said:
NoHeat,
Can you share what computer system you are using for X-Plane? Looking for info on RAM, processor, graphics card, monitor(s)

thanks
Click to expand...

Not NoHeat, but I can share my configuration :)
I bought Mac Mini 2.5GHz : 500GB
2.5GHz dual-core Intel Core i5
4GB memory
500GB hard drive1
AMD Radeon HD 6630M
OS X Lion
and External SuperDrive - X-Plane comes on 6 CD's and need first CD in the slot when using it. I have 21" monitor. Was thinking about getting bigger one but for my mission - instrumental flying don't really need big screen. All I need to see most of the time is C172 panel. For controls I use CH yoke and pedals. Controls are a bit jumpy and unrealistic. Graphics is very good and physics is quite natural. I enabled "surprise mode" when X-Plane throws on you from time to time things like bird strike or instruments malfunction. Makes flying sim a bit more challenging and interesting.
 
Artiom said:
I'm flying C172 on Xplane and use GNS430 as DME. it is harder to fly that thing then real airplane for sure but it makes your scan going fast. When you need reconfigure VOR or GPS just pause sim.
Click to expand...


Thanks, Artiom.

I also found that having a 'pause' button available is essential. Otherwise I crash if I must look at the radio or otherwise divert my eyes from my scan for the briefest of moments. That's because the planes that came with my X-Plane version 9 seem to have too little inertia -- they bank and pitch much too fast. Also, they seem to be too sensitive to small control inputs with the yoke. Among the handful of single-engine GA planes that came with X-Plane, I found the RV9 to be less awful than the C172, for this problem.

I haven't found any way to reduce the response of the plane to inputs from my CH Eclipse yoke. In the X-Plane v9 software, I can change the response curve's shape from linear to nonlinear, but I'm unable to adjust the overall magnitude of the response which I think is what is needed. It's as if elevator has an effect that's 10X too big, if you move the yoke a millimeter -- and it is almost that bad for the ailerons, too.

About the DME, I found that it's possible to use the "PlaneMaker" software that comes with X-Plane to drag a DME indicator onto the panel. So I edited the RV9 panel by just dragging that indicator and putting it someplace where I could see it. This DME indicator is much easier to read than the tiny digits for distance shown on the GPS that comes on those planes -- plus it is capable of showing distances to localizer transmitters, not just VORs, which is helpful on many ILS approaches.

Fixing the DME problem got me almost halfway there, to making the plane good for IFR scan practice. If I could just find a plane that has more inertia against pitch and roll, and less sensitivity to yoke inputs.
 
Last edited:
I use FSX (microsoft) and it helps immensely with the scan provided you're not teaching yourself....get the fundamentals from the instructor and it's a fantastic tool. No simulator is going to feel like the real thing, most sims are harder to control. But for practicing the scan and simulating holding patterns, approaches, etc it's a no brainer. Sure it's not "FAA-certified" - most of the sims that are certified are way behind the curve anyway. It's cheap, good practice, provided you start out with the right foundation and not trying to teach yourself as Ron mentioned.

Anyone that thinks the PC sims out there nowadays shouldn't be used for practice after developing your foundation hasn't tried it. I can't see how it hurts you unless you try to self-teach.

Nothing beats being able to practice an oscar pattern once a day or shoot an approach after dinner just for the hell of it and save yourself $60/hr otherwise spent on some clapped out antique technology.

To the OP: I tried X-plane and it was terrible. I heard how the physics were great, etc etc, but to me it was horrible. Maybe I didn't give it a chance to play around with the physics settings, etc but FSX was good enough so I didn't really pursue X-plane any further.
 
how do you guys set up the yoke and pedals on the desk? Mine always seems to get to clumsy and awkward on the desk. Its hard to sim comfortable without a good table. Anyhow the 172 and the beechcraft baron are pretty nice planes on x plane. on microsoft flight sim try the cub. LOL
 
I used to use yoke and pedals but since realized it was pointless -- I know how to fly.

I use MSFS X to help maintain proficiency. I use an airplane and a safety pilot for currency.
 
NoHeat said:
Thanks, Artiom.

I also found that having a 'pause' button available is essential. Otherwise I crash if I must look at the radio or otherwise divert my eyes from my scan for the briefest of moments. That's because the planes that came with my X-Plane version 9 seem to have too little inertia -- they bank and pitch much too fast.

I haven't found any way to reduce the response of the plane to inputs from my CH Eclipse yoke. In the X-Plane v9 software, I can change the response curve's shape from linear to nonlinear, but I'm unable to adjust the overall magnitude of the response which I think is what is needed. It's as if elevator has an effect that's 10X too big, if you move the yoke a millimeter -- and it is almost that bad for the ailerons, too.

If I could just find a plane that has more inertia against pitch and roll, and less sensitivity to yoke inputs.
Click to expand...

This is why no consumer-level flight software is suitable for IFR training other than familiarity with instruments. There's nothing realistic about it.

Yes, there's an approved version of XPlane, but it requires completely different control equipment, the type that resolves the problem you're having with your yoke.
 
"On Top" was recommended by one of my CFIIs. Seems to work well. I really should spend some time on it refreshing scans and the like.
 
Who cares if the simulator is really hard to fly. It'll make you better in the airplane.

Master doing approaches at 300 knots in a twitchy fighter jet in X-plane...then go do it in a 172 at 90 knots. It'll be a piece of cake.
 
jesse said:
Master doing approaches at 300 knots in a twitchy fighter jet in X-plane...then go do it in a 172 at 90 knots. It'll be a piece of cake.
Click to expand...

The opposite is true, too! :) If you can do the 300 knot fighter jet in real life, it's easy in X-plane in the 172 at 90 knots.
 
jesse said:
Who cares if the simulator is really hard to fly. It'll make you better in the airplane.
Click to expand...

If it is "really hard" as in "almost impossible", it's not going to make you better in the airplane.

It's like saying driving a car with the power steering inop will make you a better driver when it's fixed.

On MSFS, no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't stop the VSI from having net 2000fpm swings during maneuvering. And that's with a full panel. In visual conditions it was almost as bad. I probably could not have flown the sim any better immediately after I passed my instrument checkride.

It was completely useless for working on my scan. But is really is useful for learning to do procedure turns and holding patterns and such...just use the autopilot to control the plane.
 
dmspilot said:
If it is "really hard" as in "almost impossible", it's not going to make you better in the airplane.

It's like saying driving a car with the power steering inop will make you a better driver when it's fixed.

On MSFS, no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't stop the VSI from having net 2000fpm swings during maneuvering. And that's with a full panel. In visual conditions it was almost as bad. I probably could not have flown the sim any better immediately after I passed my instrument checkride.

It was completely useless for working on my scan. But is really is useful for learning to do procedure turns and holding patterns and such...just use the autopilot to control the plane.
Click to expand...

MSFS? Really? How much time did you spent doing that? It took me a while to get used to, but its possible and useful.
I think I could probably pass a check-ride on the sim. It will be harder, but shouldn't be impossible.

Think about it as flying a different plane. Get yourself checked out - a few hours should allow you to fly it safely.
P.s thanks for the Oral Exam Flash cards - I used it and liked it!
 
dmspilot said:
If it is "really hard" as in "almost impossible", it's not going to make you better in the airplane.

It's like saying driving a car with the power steering inop will make you a better driver when it's fixed.

On MSFS, no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't stop the VSI from having net 2000fpm swings during maneuvering. And that's with a full panel. In visual conditions it was almost as bad. I probably could not have flown the sim any better immediately after I passed my instrument checkride.

It was completely useless for working on my scan. But is really is useful for learning to do procedure turns and holding patterns and such...just use the autopilot to control the plane.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you had something seriously wrong with your configuration. I can fly X-Plane or MSFS to the PTS standards quite easily with any yoke or joystick i've ever used.
 
jesse said:
Sounds like you had something seriously wrong with your configuration. I can fly X-Plane or MSFS to the PTS standards quite easily with any yoke or joystick i've ever used.
Click to expand...

I agree. The quality of models for both X-Plane and MSFS vary greatly; yet quite a variety do a very good job of imitating flight, with proper control movements.

L.Adamson
 
Following up on my original posts, I solved my problems with X-Plane.

Those problems were excessive sensitivity of the plane to tiny control inputs.

I solved the problem when I upgraded to the new version of X-Plane, and during the start-up process it asked me to calibrate my yoke by making full-range movements (push it all the way in, pull it all the way out, etc.). That way the software knew how to calibrate the certain amount of yoke movement. That solved my problem. Probably I could have done the same thing without upgrading the X-Plane software.

So my problem was essentially my not using the software properly. And I'd better other people have the same problem, for the same reason.

Anyway, I've been using the RV-9 plane that came with X-Plane, and I added a DME indicator to the panel. I'm now happy with this as a way of practicing my scan.
 
NoHeat said:
Anyway, I've been using the RV-9 plane that came with X-Plane, and I added a DME indicator to the panel. I'm now happy with this as a way of practicing my scan.
Click to expand...

The RV-9 is a hand me down, from prior versions. I haven't been to fond of the way it handles. It's more work than a actual 9, which I have a lot of hours in. I own a 6. The Beech F33 from Carenado (for example) is more sedate.
 
NoHeat said:
Following up on my original posts, I solved my problems with X-Plane.

Those problems were excessive sensitivity of the plane to tiny control inputs.

I solved the problem when I upgraded to the new version of X-Plane, and during the start-up process it asked me to calibrate my yoke by making full-range movements (push it all the way in, pull it all the way out, etc.). That way the software knew how to calibrate the certain amount of yoke movement. That solved my problem. Probably I could have done the same thing without upgrading the X-Plane software.

So my problem was essentially my not using the software properly. And I'd better other people have the same problem, for the same reason.

Anyway, I've been using the RV-9 plane that came with X-Plane, and I added a DME indicator to the panel. I'm now happy with this as a way of practicing my scan.
Click to expand...

What version did you install? I played with calibration on X-Plane 9 with all updates available but controls still very sensitive. What helped is armchair. Once I put left elbow on armrest and get used to sensitive controls I'm able to fly to PTS standards. It is still very different from the real plane. I just treat it as a different plane and fly it like one :)
 
NoHeat said:
Following up on my original posts, I solved my problems with X-Plane.

Those problems were excessive sensitivity of the plane to tiny control inputs.

I solved the problem when I upgraded to the new version of X-Plane, and during the start-up process it asked me to calibrate my yoke by making full-range movements (push it all the way in, pull it all the way out, etc.). That way the software knew how to calibrate the certain amount of yoke movement. That solved my problem. Probably I could have done the same thing without upgrading the X-Plane software.

So my problem was essentially my not using the software properly. And I'd better other people have the same problem, for the same reason.

Anyway, I've been using the RV-9 plane that came with X-Plane, and I added a DME indicator to the panel. I'm now happy with this as a way of practicing my scan.
Click to expand...

I haven't used X-Plane 9 in a few months. I do like 9 but speaking of the new version, what do you think about it. Is it worth the upgrade?
 
Artiom said:
What version did you install? I played with calibration on X-Plane 9 with all updates available but controls still very sensitive.
Click to expand...

I think there are two different things to adjust in the software to make the yoke work well with X-Plane. They're called two different things. I'm wondering if you're doing what I did and just trying to fix one of those things without being aware of the other.

One thing can be found on the menus in day-to-day operation under an equipment menu - this is a menu that allows you to assign the function of the various controls and to make them linear or nolinear and to 'center' the controls. That was never enough for me. My controls were still too hypersensitive to small inputs.

The other thing, the one I had trouble with even though I didn't know it, is something that I have only seen when I first install the software. I don't remember what it is called (maybe 'calibrate' but I'm not sure). In this step you are asked to push the yoke fully forward then fully back, etc, so that the software learns the yoke's full range of movement. Probably the first time I installed the software I was in a hurry and I didn't realize the significance of this step and I didn't do it, or I didn't do it properly. When I bought an upgrade I had to reinstall the (new) software, and when I got to this step I suddenly realized its significance and I was sure to do it carefully. I think that is what solved my problem.

As for the latest version of X-Plane, compared to the previous version it has no advantages or disadvantages for my very limited purpose of practicing a scan while on approach without looking out the window. Probably I could have uninstalled my old X-Plane and then just reinstalled it and solved my calibration problem that way, without purchasing anything new.

However, I did find that the 'plane maker' application that comes with X-plane has been improved in the latest version, so that the user interface is now a bit easier for doing something like placing a DME indicator on your panel. This plane maker software is what you use to modify an existing plane, and for my purpose I only try to modify the panel to make it an adequate IFR platform.
 
Last edited:
redtail said:
I haven't used X-Plane 9 in a few months. I do like 9 but speaking of the new version, what do you think about it. Is it worth the upgrade?
Click to expand...

I have the demo version of 10. Short answer - yes.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
X-plane control calibration:

http://wiki.x-plane.com/Chapter_3:_Initial_Flight_Setup#Control_Calibration
Click to expand...

Yes, my problem is that originally I tried to do all the things indicated there except that I overlooked the following one:

Control Calibration

Control calibration is a step of vital importance that often gets left out. It is, however, necessary due to the vast array of hardware that X-Plane can interface with. Some devices may send a signal from 0 to 1,000 when a user moves a given control from one limit to the opposite, while another device may send a signal (given the same movement of a user’s hand or foot) from, say, -6,000 to 3,992. The only way for X-Plane to know the range of the joystick’s input is for the user to “teach” it.

All it takes to calibrate the joystick hardware is to move all the axes of the joystick through their full range of motion while on the Axis tab of the Joystick & Equipment window. Be sure to move each of the joystick’s variable controls (that is, all sliders, joysticks, rudders, etc.) through their full range of motion—-take them all the way forward, all the way back, left, and right.​

The reason it's easy to leave this step out is that there's nothing on a menu etc. to serve as a clue to do this, after you've installed the software. The only time the software told me to do this full-range-movement calibration was when I install the software. It's mentioned in the instruction webpage that you linked to, and highlighted above, but like many people I didn't read that -- I just installed the software and used it. So that's why I had so many problems with hypersensitivity to yoke control inputs until I re-installed the software.
 
NoHeat said:
It seems like somebody must have a plane available for sale, or free, that is intended for single-engine IFR practice, but I can't find it. Any suggestions?
Click to expand...
I like the Piper Archer II by Carenado. It gives a wide view of the panel so you don't have to switch back and forth between various subscreens, and still provides a good view outside for looking at X-Plane 10's excellent scenery.

I'm running it on an iMac with 1920x1080 display.

Carenado_Archer.jpg


The Carenado C-172N is a very good model, but it does not have glide slope or DME. Their Mooney 201, Piper Saratoga and Beech F33A are also excellent, but their complex panels require a lot of fussing with switches. That's not so bad VFR, but can be very annoying and distracting while trying to shoot an ILS. The Archer minimizes that, and it's my ride of choice when I'm noodling around the X-Plane world IFR.
 
Pilawt said:
The Carenado C-172N is a very good model, but it does not have glide slope or DME. Their Mooney 201, Piper Saratoga and Beech F33A are also excellent, but their complex panels require a lot of fussing with switches. That's not so bad VFR, but can be very annoying and distracting while trying to shoot an ILS. The Archer minimizes that, and it's my ride of choice when I'm noodling around the X-Plane world IFR.
Click to expand...

Why not pause, set up all the instruments, and continue?
 
I don't have a sim, but I do have limited exposure to most of them and can pretty much say I don't think it much matters. All the current and even last generation stuff I do get exposed to all does sufficiently well at what it can do. They excel as procedure trainers and all of the have similar enough control/response interface similarity they all do a fair job. What they do not do is simulate the 'shock and awe' of being slammed through a +2/-2/+2 G turbulence cycle. They also don't do well at teaching buttonology. Focus mostly on what they give you most of.
 
Last edited:
Tracey said:
Can I hijack and ask what these are and where I can get them?
Click to expand...

In my signature -click "IFR Flashcards" :)

It is a computerized study tool. The idea is to use them before the checkride (or any time afterward really) to help commit to memory some of the important stuff.

While I'm here...I downloaded the X-Plane demo, but I guess my PC is outdated junk because it won't work. I will be getting a Mac soon enough anyway though. :yesnod:
 
Pilawt said:
The Carenado C-172N is a very good model, but it does not have glide slope or DME.
Click to expand...

I haven't tried any of the third-party planes yet, for example Carenado. Is it possible to edit them using the PlaneMaker application that comes with X-Plane?

For the simpler-looking planes that come with X-Plane, I found that it isn't hard to use PlaneMaker to add two things that are needed for a basic IFR plane:
First, you drag a DME indicator onto the panel -- it just goes wherever you drop it, and it automatically displays the distance to the transmitter that your NAV1 receiver is tuned to. Piece of cake.
Second, you can change the CDI. At least I think you can. The RV-9 that I have been using already had a glideslope, but I wanted an HSI as well, so I just swapped one in to replace the old heading indicator, and it wasn't hard. Mostly it was just a couple of mouse clicks to delete the old indicator and add the new one.
 
Have a look at "Fly this sim". Best performance with an extra computer and screen. Great tool to stay "current" if you know what I mean.
See if you can find the plane you fly in real and you can do the layout of the panel exactly as your real plane. All the nav data is up to date!

Just bought a G1000 panel (FTS) since I'm going to fly some G1000 equipped planes in real.

Cheers
 
My problem with X-Plane is that it's a pain to switch frequencies on the radio. It takes so long to get that silly pointer in the right place and by that time I'm off course.

Plus I have a Mac and you can't do GPS approaches in X-Plane. No body make a third party 430/530W for the mac version
 
X-15 is the best for simulating instrument flight...at Mach 6, you really need to be on top of your game!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top