Anyone used FSX for IFR training at home?

tcco94

tcco94

Future GTA VI Pilot
Don't want to get into whether FSX is good, bad, or stupid. I've been simming long before my first flight and use to use it heavily in high school, but rarely ever used it throughout any of my training in college.

I was wondering if anyone here (that has a sim at home) uses it to touch up on some instrument skills? What weather settings are you using? I realize that it's not the best simulator for training but this is just for touching up skills only...plus it isn't costing me anything extra to at least tone up my skills more. I was trying it out today for ILS approaches and VOR approaches in single and multi engine planes to try and get ready for my CFII training and back into the thick of things. I had 1 mile vis and broken layers down to 1000 feet, which is what it usually seems to be when I have been training in actual FTD's.

Is there anything better for ATC, or flying via the arc on VOR approaches, or approaches into airports that are more difficult and will improve the skills even more?

Thanks!
 
I have Lockheed Martin's Prepar3d Academic version which is basically the same as FSX and only use it for simming approaches. It's not terribly realistic but it works great for engaging the right part of the mind so you don't get too rusty. I think the biggest benefit is that it reinforces your scan just like any approved simulator would.

I always set it up for 0/0 and heavy precip since it seems to be overly generous with ceilings and visibilities. I mean, if it's just pretend I don't want to see the lights until I'm at minimums. Then I add in some gusty winds and some turbulence to make it more life-like.

Overall it's a good tool for exercising your procedure muscles and keeping your scan sharp. There's certainly plenty more less productive ways to spend your time on your computer. (I'm looking at you JC...)
 
Absolutly. I basically taught myself how to fly in the system with the IFH, FS9, and VATSIM. It is an amazing value. There might be a little bit of a learning curve in using the simulator as efficiently as you do an airplane but once you learn the sim it is invaluable. Many people get discouraged after only a flight or two and quit too soon
 
tlewis95 said:
Absolutly. I basically taught myself how to fly in the system with the IFH, FS9, and VATSIM. It is an amazing value. There might be a little bit of a learning curve in using the simulator as efficiently as you do an airplane but once you learn the sim it is invaluable. Many people get discouraged after only a flight or two and quit too soon
Click to expand...
Yeah I've been simming for a very long time. Learned a lot and helped me drastically when I started flight training initially...

I have used VATSIM online and have so many payware planes but most are big airliners or jets and I'm not really trying to work on flying approaches in something like that unless it was for fun. That won't really help me for my C172 lol. I didn't want to jump on VATSIM though and go to an airport and request a whole bunch of approaches like I do at my local airport. Are they cool with doing that ? (if you know).

I should also note that I do have another payware software that I hook up to my ForeFlight subscription...that way it's practically the same as when I'm in flight which is pretty awesome so I can get my iPad usage down on the ground, rather than trying to figure it out in flight. Although, for being an instructor now I guess it would have been better to do that when I was initially doing all my flight training. lol. Oh well.

Tiptank said:
I have Lockheed Martin's Prepar3d Academic version which is basically the same as FSX and only use it for simming approaches. It's not terribly realistic but it works great for engaging the right part of the mind so you don't get too rusty. I think the biggest benefit is that it reinforces your scan just like any approved simulator would.

I always set it up for 0/0 and heavy precip since it seems to be overly generous with ceilings and visibilities. I mean, if it's just pretend I don't want to see the lights until I'm at minimums. Then I add in some gusty winds and some turbulence to make it more life-like.

Overall it's a good tool for exercising your procedure muscles and keeping your scan sharp. There's certainly plenty more less productive ways to spend your time on your computer. (I'm looking at you JC...)
Click to expand...
I've never thought for setting it up for 0/0 with the heavy precip but I was thinking today that I should kick the turbulence up. Regardless, holding needles with a joystick is already sensitive enough in my moderate turbulence I used today. I haven't seen that academic version before....expensive? Worth it?
 
tcco94 said:
I've never thought for setting it up for 0/0 with the heavy precip but I was thinking today that I should kick the turbulence up. Regardless, holding needles with a joystick is already sensitive enough in my moderate turbulence I used today. I haven't seen that academic version before....expensive? Worth it?
Click to expand...

If you already have FSX don't bother with Prepar3d especially if you have addons, they probably won't transfer over very well, if at all. They're basically the same program anyway but the compatibility is wonky.

I keep the weather as hard as I can to make it as demanding as possible to get the most out of the sim flights. I mean what's the worst that can happen? I ball it up and go get another beer while it reloads the flight? The gusty winds and turbulence just makes it harder to track courses and the all the needles and gauges "dance around" much more life-like. Again, I use it to keep my scan sharp so when all the instruments are swinging around it helps to work your brain more than the unrealistic default settings.

Now I think I'll go blast around VFR in Prepar3D's F-22 for awhile. Totally unrealistic but a lot of fun lol...
 
Tiptank said:
If you already have FSX don't bother with Prepar3d especially if you have addons, they probably won't transfer over very well, if at all. They're basically the same program anyway but the compatibility is wonky.

I keep the weather as hard as I can to make it as demanding as possible to get the most out of the sim flights. I mean what's the worst that can happen? I ball it up and go get another beer while it reloads the flight? The gusty winds and turbulence just makes it harder to track courses and the all the needles and gauges "dance around" much more life-like. Again, I use it to keep my scan sharp so when all the instruments are swinging around it helps to work your brain more than the unrealistic default settings.

Now I think I'll go blast around VFR in Prepar3D's F-22 for awhile. Totally unrealistic but a lot of fun lol...
Click to expand...
Thanks. I will consider doing the same. I didn't even think about it making the scan even more sharp, just about getting approaches down to rhythm again. Tomorrow I'll start shooting some approaches at the higher winds. I tried to throw some crosswinds and stuff in there today but nothing gusty, just 15 kts to get back into it. Tried to stay away from the AP as much as possible, especially once I was being vectored inbound I made sure to hand fly everything. Seemed as though the approaches in the C172 took a lot longer than in the Baron. Maybe I'm being impatient because the last year has been in a twin and high performance bonanza...lol.
 
crticalaoa said:
If you want more realistic ATC try pilot edge. http://www.pilotedge.net/
Click to expand...
Seems like a fun tool for home, as well as great training device for students. Pricey though for a monthly subscription. VATSIM is free and just as realistic as this...but I will say...are these LIVE controllers ? Like actual humans? That's the only bummer about VATSIM...people have to be online and in the sector you're flying. Plus some controllers are only on KSLC tower so after you takeoff, you're left empty handed unless another controller is online controlling that overlying airspace sector. If this would guarantee that I'd be able to get coverage no matter where I'm flying throughout the US then I'd consider it...

But still $19 a month?! $180 a year? That's pricier than PMDG models.
 
Add me into the Vatsim / FS9 crowd back in the day. When I was single and had nothing better to do, it basically taught me systems and procedures. When I did my first intro flight the CFI was blown away and my radio skills. That said, it's a supplement to actually flying, as it doesn't do great as far as flight characteristics go. It's a great tool to help with IFR stuff though.
 
tcco94 said:
Yeah I've been simming for a very long time. Learned a lot and helped me drastically when I started flight training initially...

I have used VATSIM online and have so many payware planes but most are big airliners or jets and I'm not really trying to work on flying approaches in something like that unless it was for fun. That won't really help me for my C172 lol. I didn't want to jump on VATSIM though and go to an airport and request a whole bunch of approaches like I do at my local airport. Are they cool with doing that ? (if you know).
Click to expand...

Sure. Controllers always seemed happy to work with practice approaches. I would usually just go fly wherever the ATC was at which was fun getting to fly approaches and procedures all over the world.
 
To be completely honest man Throughout my instrument training I used to hardcore practice IFR flying on FSX as our frasca sim just wasn't enough for me atleast realism wise. It really helped me a lot practicing everynight but It's not for everybody to use for training or atleast practice. I tried getting my good friend into FSX and she couldn't do it. Too much to learn in a short amount of time if you've never used FSX. Even hopping on VATSIM and setting clouds to mins is amazing if you can do it
 
tcco94 said:
Seems like a fun tool for home, as well as great training device for students. Pricey though for a monthly subscription. VATSIM is free and just as realistic as this...but I will say...are these LIVE controllers ? Like actual humans? That's the only bummer about VATSIM...people have to be online and in the sector you're flying. Plus some controllers are only on KSLC tower so after you takeoff, you're left empty handed unless another controller is online controlling that overlying airspace sector. If this would guarantee that I'd be able to get coverage no matter where I'm flying throughout the US then I'd consider it...

But still $19 a month?! $180 a year? That's pricier than PMDG models.
Click to expand...
I agree is a little steep. You can do monthly subscriptions but the whole thing is limited to California. I think is pretty good just for a month to get your skills brushed up a little.
 
AZflyboy said:
I tried getting my good friend into FSX and she couldn't do it. Too much to learn in a short amount of time if you've never used FSX.
Click to expand...

I think that's probably the bottom line. If you've played around with FS before and like it and know how to use it then it can be a beneficial tool for basic IFR skills. Otherwise most people stepping into it would be pretty put off and not see the potential value in it.
 
crticalaoa said:
I agree is a little steep. You can do monthly subscriptions but the whole thing is limited to California. I think is pretty good just for a month to get your skills brushed up a little.
Click to expand...
There is always X-plane!
Click to expand...
Never used X-plane. Have way to much money and payware invested into FSX over the years I was growing up that I don't even want to think about getting rid of it...even though I probably won't use much of it lol. Even for being just for California...seems like a great tool...probably for teaching though. Won't have lots of fun just flying around California.

tlewis95 said:
Sure. Controllers always seemed happy to work with practice approaches. I would usually just go fly wherever the ATC was at which was fun getting to fly approaches and procedures all over the world.
Click to expand...

I'll keep that in mind. Gotta make sure all the systems are up to date with working VATSIM though. It's always been a b**** to set everything up and have it working properly.
 
Tiptank said:
I think that's probably the bottom line. If you've played around with FS before and like it and know how to use it then it can be a beneficial tool for basic IFR skills. Otherwise most people stepping into it would be pretty put off and not see the potential value in it.
Click to expand...
Exactly, see if she already had used FSX and had a good understanding of how it actually worked and what buttons to hit I feel like she would have actually benefited from it. But I already been a huge FS nerd for a few years and then getting into flight training, wow I honestly think it helped me more than just the frasca sim ever did.
 
I use
tcco94 said:
Don't want to get into whether FSX is good, bad, or stupid. I've been simming long before my first flight and use to use it heavily in high school, but rarely ever used it throughout any of my training in college.

I was wondering if anyone here (that has a sim at home) uses it to touch up on some instrument skills? What weather settings are you using? I realize that it's not the best simulator for training but this is just for touching up skills only...plus it isn't costing me anything extra to at least tone up my skills more. I was trying it out today for ILS approaches and VOR approaches in single and multi engine planes to try and get ready for my CFII training and back into the thick of things. I had 1 mile vis and broken layers down to 1000 feet, which is what it usually seems to be when I have been training in actual FTD's.

Is there anything better for ATC, or flying via the arc on VOR approaches, or approaches into airports that are more difficult and will improve the skills even more?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
I used it to learn how to fly an NDB approach with a crosswind.
I also used it to figure out GPS approaches and approach plates in general before I started my instrument training many years ago. Helped a lot actually.
 
@tlewis95 so I got on today for about an hour and a half. Ended up connecting to VATSIM and worked like a gem. 100% better than the standard FSX ATC which took forever to complete two approaches and they weren't realistic at all. Got right back into the thick of things quickly. My controller seemed a little confused at what I was requesting on my flight plan at first but after that it was quite nice. Ended up doing it around my home into OAK. If I get some time this week I'll try some busier airports like ATL or something. Cruise around and do new approaches like you said.

I did have a question for anyone though...maybe learned this in instrument ground but it's been a little while. I'm using ForeFlight for all my approaches as I would in real life. Why do FAA charts give me RVR for the min vis? Is this a new thing where airports will always report the RVR? I haven't gone in actual in about 2 years and when I did that I'm pretty sure it was in miles and not RVR. Kinda hard to find the answer for a specific question...maybe I'm overthinking it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top