MS Flight Simulator
- Thread starter Chrispee
- Start date
JaceTheAce
Well-Known Member
Excellent for additional help with instrument training, horrible for grasping the airplane's real feel.
MS Flight Sim is great for make-believe, but horrible in demonstrating an airplane's physical dynamics.
One thing that it does do is it includes the effects of adverse yaw...
MS Flight Sim is great for make-believe, but horrible in demonstrating an airplane's physical dynamics.
One thing that it does do is it includes the effects of adverse yaw...
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
Not usefull at all.
It will leach you plenty of bad habits that you will have to "unlearn" when you start flying for real.
When flying FS you use the instruments much more than the real thing. In the real world you should be lookin at the horizion, 95% of the time. I have seen CFIs cover the entire pannel with a map in order to get the student to look outside.
When you start training for instrument, FS becomes a valuable tool, but even then it has it's limitations.
When sitting at a computer, your inner ear dosen't try to fool you about which way is up like it does in the air.
As for the controlls for flight sim, spend the money on an extra hour or two in the air.
It will leach you plenty of bad habits that you will have to "unlearn" when you start flying for real.
When flying FS you use the instruments much more than the real thing. In the real world you should be lookin at the horizion, 95% of the time. I have seen CFIs cover the entire pannel with a map in order to get the student to look outside.
When you start training for instrument, FS becomes a valuable tool, but even then it has it's limitations.
When sitting at a computer, your inner ear dosen't try to fool you about which way is up like it does in the air.
As for the controlls for flight sim, spend the money on an extra hour or two in the air.
JaceTheAce
Well-Known Member
kellwolf
Piece of Trash
I stopped using FS when I started my PPL. Once you start flying the real deal you realize the whole "As Real As It Gets" thing is a total misnomer. Started again for my instrument training to get approaches and procedures down. Haven't touched the thing since. Now if you like to attempt barrel rolls in a 747, then go ahead. Personally, I'd classify it as a "limited training tool for IFR" and "entertainment value" for everything else. If you do a lot of flight simming before training for your Private, I can almost guarantee that your CFI will roll his eyes and have to cover up the entire instrument panel.
Sprint100
Well-Known Member
I told my instructor that I had accumulated over 2,000 hours on MSFS. He had me skip PPL training, IFR training, and ME training then we went straight to commercial
But really, MSFS is high on entertainment value, good on learning theories, but any flight characteristic realism is slim to none. Plus it lets you get away with alot of traits that don't apply when your doing the real thing.
But really, MSFS is high on entertainment value, good on learning theories, but any flight characteristic realism is slim to none. Plus it lets you get away with alot of traits that don't apply when your doing the real thing.
GrantHubbell
New Member
[ QUOTE ]
I told my instructor that I had accumulated over 2,000 hours on MSFS. He had me skip PPL training, IFR training, and ME training
But really, MSFS is high on entertainment value, good on learning theories, but any flight characteristic realism is slim to none. Plus it lets you get away with alot of traits that don't apply when your doing the real thing.
[/ QUOTE ]
And then you got hired flying the 777 for Gulfstream International Airlines???
I told my instructor that I had accumulated over 2,000 hours on MSFS. He had me skip PPL training, IFR training, and ME training
But really, MSFS is high on entertainment value, good on learning theories, but any flight characteristic realism is slim to none. Plus it lets you get away with alot of traits that don't apply when your doing the real thing.
[/ QUOTE ]
And then you got hired flying the 777 for Gulfstream International Airlines???
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I told my instructor that I had accumulated over 2,000 hours on MSFS. He had me skip PPL training, IFR training, and ME training
But really, MSFS is high on entertainment value, good on learning theories, but any flight characteristic realism is slim to none. Plus it lets you get away with alot of traits that don't apply when your doing the real thing.
[/ QUOTE ]
And then you got hired flying the 777 for Gulfstream International Airlines???
[/ QUOTE ]
SA! Gulfstream flies the A380, not the 777
[ QUOTE ]
I told my instructor that I had accumulated over 2,000 hours on MSFS. He had me skip PPL training, IFR training, and ME training
But really, MSFS is high on entertainment value, good on learning theories, but any flight characteristic realism is slim to none. Plus it lets you get away with alot of traits that don't apply when your doing the real thing.
[/ QUOTE ]
And then you got hired flying the 777 for Gulfstream International Airlines???
[/ QUOTE ]
SA! Gulfstream flies the A380, not the 777
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Not usefull at all.
It will leach you plenty of bad habits that you will have to "unlearn" when you start flying for real.
[/ QUOTE ]
I respectfully disagree.
I'd say that MSFS does have SOME practical value, if you understand the fact that it's not as realistic as the airplane is.
How else can you learn how to use a VOR indicator, or how the DG looks when you're on a heading? I suppose you could rent the airplane and figure this stuff out.
Or you could look at a book . . . yeah, that's realistic.
Or, you can use MSFS and get a realistic picture. You can play with the VOR receiver and OBS and see what it will really look like. You can play around with the relationship between pitch and power, and see how they affect airspeed and glide path.
Sure, it's not as realistic as the airplane, but it certainly has some value.
As I've said in the past: I'll accept a student that looks at the panel too much, if it means that he'll have a better understanding of other things. I can fix the panel problem very easily.
Not usefull at all.
It will leach you plenty of bad habits that you will have to "unlearn" when you start flying for real.
[/ QUOTE ]
I respectfully disagree.
I'd say that MSFS does have SOME practical value, if you understand the fact that it's not as realistic as the airplane is.
How else can you learn how to use a VOR indicator, or how the DG looks when you're on a heading? I suppose you could rent the airplane and figure this stuff out.
Or you could look at a book . . . yeah, that's realistic.
Or, you can use MSFS and get a realistic picture. You can play with the VOR receiver and OBS and see what it will really look like. You can play around with the relationship between pitch and power, and see how they affect airspeed and glide path.
Sure, it's not as realistic as the airplane, but it certainly has some value.
As I've said in the past: I'll accept a student that looks at the panel too much, if it means that he'll have a better understanding of other things. I can fix the panel problem very easily.
BrettInLJ
Well-Known Member
I agree with the above post. For PPL training I think it is useful for learning how to use nav-aids, and also maybe to quiz yourself on emergency checklist items. I use it to brush up on IFR procedures now and then. I wouldn't use it very extensively until after you are done with your initial training.
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
To clairify my origional post:
[ QUOTE ]
I would have to say that I do think that Flight Sim is VERY usefull for IFR training. Learnig an instrument scan and IFR procedures is much cheaper in a simulator vs real flight. I got about 1 hr of simulator time for every hour of flight time durring my instrument training (some FS2001 and some Frasca).
I would include VOR navigation in that, despite that fact that it may be a PPL student.
However the original question was regarding primary training. VOR navigation is a "nearly" solo or post solo subject. After you have learned to fly the plane, then you can use a sim to go over some things.
[/ QUOTE ]
How's that, Loyd?
[ QUOTE ]
I would have to say that I do think that Flight Sim is VERY usefull for IFR training. Learnig an instrument scan and IFR procedures is much cheaper in a simulator vs real flight. I got about 1 hr of simulator time for every hour of flight time durring my instrument training (some FS2001 and some Frasca).
I would include VOR navigation in that, despite that fact that it may be a PPL student.
However the original question was regarding primary training. VOR navigation is a "nearly" solo or post solo subject. After you have learned to fly the plane, then you can use a sim to go over some things.
[/ QUOTE ]
How's that, Loyd?
[ QUOTE ]
Not sure how a programmable FMS and autopilot will help ya on a 172. You gotta learn to crawl before you can run.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeh no kidding, I was just saying that Flight Simulator has taught me alot, maybe not in the sense of flying but in the sense of terminology, and were things are located
Example put me into a CRJ and put a person who wants to be a pilot but has no training, I bet I find the APU faster than that person with out the training since I have MSFS
I was not trying to show how I can program a FMC
Not sure how a programmable FMS and autopilot will help ya on a 172. You gotta learn to crawl before you can run.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeh no kidding, I was just saying that Flight Simulator has taught me alot, maybe not in the sense of flying but in the sense of terminology, and were things are located
Example put me into a CRJ and put a person who wants to be a pilot but has no training, I bet I find the APU faster than that person with out the training since I have MSFS
I was not trying to show how I can program a FMC
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
To clairify my origional post:
[ QUOTE ]
I would have to say that I do think that Flight Sim is VERY usefull for IFR training. Learnig an instrument scan and IFR procedures is much cheaper in a simulator vs real flight. I got about 1 hr of simulator time for every hour of flight time durring my instrument training (some FS2001 and some Frasca).
I would include VOR navigation in that, despite that fact that it may be a PPL student.
However the original question was regarding primary training. VOR navigation is a "nearly" solo or post solo subject. After you have learned to fly the plane, then you can use a sim to go over some things.
[/ QUOTE ]
How's that, Loyd?
[/ QUOTE ]
I can dig it, Cat Daddy!
To clairify my origional post:
[ QUOTE ]
I would have to say that I do think that Flight Sim is VERY usefull for IFR training. Learnig an instrument scan and IFR procedures is much cheaper in a simulator vs real flight. I got about 1 hr of simulator time for every hour of flight time durring my instrument training (some FS2001 and some Frasca).
I would include VOR navigation in that, despite that fact that it may be a PPL student.
However the original question was regarding primary training. VOR navigation is a "nearly" solo or post solo subject. After you have learned to fly the plane, then you can use a sim to go over some things.
[/ QUOTE ]
How's that, Loyd?
[/ QUOTE ]
I can dig it, Cat Daddy!
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Flight Simulator has taught me alot, maybe not in the sense of flying but in the sense of terminology, and were things are located
Example put me into a CRJ and put a person who wants to be a pilot but has no training, I bet I find the APU faster than that person with out the training since I have MSFS
[/ QUOTE ]
Now here is where you start to get into trouble, are you sure about all that stuff?
Is the Flight Sim CRJ cockpit EXACTLY the same as the real one? I have no idea, but I highly doubt it.
Did they set up the FMC computer to work EXACTLY like the real one? Again, doubtful.
Most experianced pilots can sit in a jet cockpit for the first time in their lives, and figure out where everything is in about 10 minutes.
Flight Simulator has taught me alot, maybe not in the sense of flying but in the sense of terminology, and were things are located
Example put me into a CRJ and put a person who wants to be a pilot but has no training, I bet I find the APU faster than that person with out the training since I have MSFS
[/ QUOTE ]
Now here is where you start to get into trouble, are you sure about all that stuff?
Is the Flight Sim CRJ cockpit EXACTLY the same as the real one? I have no idea, but I highly doubt it.
Did they set up the FMC computer to work EXACTLY like the real one? Again, doubtful.
Most experianced pilots can sit in a jet cockpit for the first time in their lives, and figure out where everything is in about 10 minutes.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Flight Simulator has taught me alot, maybe not in the sense of flying but in the sense of terminology, and were things are located
Example put me into a CRJ and put a person who wants to be a pilot but has no training, I bet I find the APU faster than that person with out the training since I have MSFS
[/ QUOTE ]
Now here is where you start to get into trouble, are you sure about all that stuff?
Is the Flight Sim CRJ cockpit EXACTLY the same as the real one? I have no idea, but I highly doubt it.
Did they set up the FMC computer to work EXACTLY like the real one? Again, doubtful.
Most experianced pilots can sit in a jet cockpit for the first time in their lives, and figure out where everything is in about 10 minutes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well of course it will NOT come absolutely close to the multi million dollar machine, I mean it is a $50 dollar program the aircraft I am talking about, the crj, is not from Microsoft but from a company by the name of WILCO PUB they make aircraft for MSFS, some are crappy, some are great, here is the CRJ I was talking about, I think it is pretty real looking. They have a real CRJ pilot on their forum and says teh aircraft is very very close to the real thing...
http://wilcopub.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=prod_crj_experience
[ QUOTE ]
Flight Simulator has taught me alot, maybe not in the sense of flying but in the sense of terminology, and were things are located
Example put me into a CRJ and put a person who wants to be a pilot but has no training, I bet I find the APU faster than that person with out the training since I have MSFS
[/ QUOTE ]
Now here is where you start to get into trouble, are you sure about all that stuff?
Is the Flight Sim CRJ cockpit EXACTLY the same as the real one? I have no idea, but I highly doubt it.
Did they set up the FMC computer to work EXACTLY like the real one? Again, doubtful.
Most experianced pilots can sit in a jet cockpit for the first time in their lives, and figure out where everything is in about 10 minutes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well of course it will NOT come absolutely close to the multi million dollar machine, I mean it is a $50 dollar program the aircraft I am talking about, the crj, is not from Microsoft but from a company by the name of WILCO PUB they make aircraft for MSFS, some are crappy, some are great, here is the CRJ I was talking about, I think it is pretty real looking. They have a real CRJ pilot on their forum and says teh aircraft is very very close to the real thing...
http://wilcopub.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=prod_crj_experience
Sprint100
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Flight Simulator has taught me alot, maybe not in the sense of flying but in the sense of terminology, and were things are located
Example put me into a CRJ and put a person who wants to be a pilot but has no training, I bet I find the APU faster than that person with out the training since I have MSFS
[/ QUOTE ]
Now here is where you start to get into trouble, are you sure about all that stuff?
Is the Flight Sim CRJ cockpit EXACTLY the same as the real one? I have no idea, but I highly doubt it.
Did they set up the FMC computer to work EXACTLY like the real one? Again, doubtful.
Most experianced pilots can sit in a jet cockpit for the first time in their lives, and figure out where everything is in about 10 minutes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Some of the add-on aircraft have very realistic panels. What really sucks is that some of the features may not be useable.
[ QUOTE ]
Flight Simulator has taught me alot, maybe not in the sense of flying but in the sense of terminology, and were things are located
Example put me into a CRJ and put a person who wants to be a pilot but has no training, I bet I find the APU faster than that person with out the training since I have MSFS
[/ QUOTE ]
Now here is where you start to get into trouble, are you sure about all that stuff?
Is the Flight Sim CRJ cockpit EXACTLY the same as the real one? I have no idea, but I highly doubt it.
Did they set up the FMC computer to work EXACTLY like the real one? Again, doubtful.
Most experianced pilots can sit in a jet cockpit for the first time in their lives, and figure out where everything is in about 10 minutes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Some of the add-on aircraft have very realistic panels. What really sucks is that some of the features may not be useable.
SmitteyB
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Flight Simulator has taught me alot, maybe not in the sense of flying but in the sense of terminology, and were things are located
Example put me into a CRJ and put a person who wants to be a pilot but has no training, I bet I find the APU faster than that person with out the training since I have MSFS
[/ QUOTE ]
Now here is where you start to get into trouble, are you sure about all that stuff?
Is the Flight Sim CRJ cockpit EXACTLY the same as the real one? I have no idea, but I highly doubt it.
Did they set up the FMC computer to work EXACTLY like the real one? Again, doubtful.
Most experianced pilots can sit in a jet cockpit for the first time in their lives, and figure out where everything is in about 10 minutes.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, but do you have an experience with FlightSim in a complex environment? You say you highly doubt that the cockpits are exactly the same...do you have experience?
About the FMC, the good addons are created by airline pilots or with the help of captains with over 1000 hours in type. Take for example the ATR-72-500 by Flight1....It was created with the help of and approved by ATR, the real company.
About FS not having value, that is absolute garbage. Great for private stuff, great for instrument manuevers, and great for getting used to how things work at or around an airport. Let's be realistic, please.
www.precisionmanuals.com 737- created by an 73 captain
www.flight1.com - ATR, 767, and DC-9
www.wilcopub.com - CRJ, ERJ created by captains of both airplanes
[ QUOTE ]
Flight Simulator has taught me alot, maybe not in the sense of flying but in the sense of terminology, and were things are located
Example put me into a CRJ and put a person who wants to be a pilot but has no training, I bet I find the APU faster than that person with out the training since I have MSFS
[/ QUOTE ]
Now here is where you start to get into trouble, are you sure about all that stuff?
Is the Flight Sim CRJ cockpit EXACTLY the same as the real one? I have no idea, but I highly doubt it.
Did they set up the FMC computer to work EXACTLY like the real one? Again, doubtful.
Most experianced pilots can sit in a jet cockpit for the first time in their lives, and figure out where everything is in about 10 minutes.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, but do you have an experience with FlightSim in a complex environment? You say you highly doubt that the cockpits are exactly the same...do you have experience?
About the FMC, the good addons are created by airline pilots or with the help of captains with over 1000 hours in type. Take for example the ATR-72-500 by Flight1....It was created with the help of and approved by ATR, the real company.
About FS not having value, that is absolute garbage. Great for private stuff, great for instrument manuevers, and great for getting used to how things work at or around an airport. Let's be realistic, please.
www.precisionmanuals.com 737- created by an 73 captain
www.flight1.com - ATR, 767, and DC-9
www.wilcopub.com - CRJ, ERJ created by captains of both airplanes