What is the best ifr training simulator ? (for PC)
Frederic Monestel
My aim is to have ifr training on my PC.
Is FliteSchool a good choice ?
What would you advise to me ?
Thanks for your help.
Fred.
Scott Moore
I have flightpro, which is an IFR simulator. Its ok, is connected to
a sectional level map, has a good list of automatic failures, ties
to external optional equipment, and has good panels.
Its only drawback is the external graphics suck. I like flight unlimteds
ability to have the destination runway appear out of the fog, but FU
lacks several of flightpro's good qualities.
Frederic Monestel wrote:
--
Scott A. Moore is sam...@cisco.com
N733HZ Cessna 172
tscottme
> Does anybody knows a jeppsen simulator called FliteSchool ?
> My aim is to have ifr training on my PC.
> Is FliteSchool a good choice ?
> What would you advise to me ?
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Fred.
If you want the best, I'd recommend ELITE. The flight model is the
best, it runs even on my puny P166 with 32MB and factory video. It has
all the features you need for IFR training. I think anyone worrying
about the outside view graphics in an *IFR* program is wasting their
time. The whole point of IFR is to stay inside the cockpit until 200
feet above touchdown.
By the way before you ask, you can only log time toward your IFR ticket
on a PC when using a PCATD setup, pretty expensive, and when an
instructor is present. Even then, you can only log time toward the
initial ticket and not any toward proficiency requirements after you get
the license. That said, I use my ELITE and even without a CFII drilling
me, my airplane skills are very sharp when I "fly" it. I always say
ELITE is the best money I've ever spent in aviation.
--
Scott Methvin
My President sold our nuclear secrets to
Communist China and all I got was this Sig file.
Dennis
<frederic...@libertysurf.fr> wrote:
>Does anybody knows a jeppsen simulator called FliteSchool ?
>My aim is to have ifr training on my PC.
>Is FliteSchool a good choice ?
>What would you advise to me ?
Fred, I've recently tried Jeppesen FlitePro which comes with an
abbreviated version of FliteSchool ... I think this is what you mean.
I'm also a MS Flight Sim 2000 user, and find the "toy" is a better
simulator than Jepp's! The C172 model in FlitePro is way off ...
power settings don't result in expected performance. The C172 flight
model I acquired for MSFS2000 performs nearly exactly like a real
Skyhawk.
FlitePro has a nifty feature that overlays your track on a sectional,
enroute, or approach chart that you don't get in MSFS2000. Both will
allow you to track your course and print it out. Both allow you to
start, stop, and save your simulation at any point.
The FliteSchool that is packaged with the sim is a teaser, containing
only some of the IFR question pool, and frankly, is less useful than
the shareware one you'll see announced in this newsgroup weekly (but
be forwarned, the shareware from Dauntless, when I last looked at it,
was incomplete until registered).
FliteSchool is short on "eye candy", the graphics are VERY simple, but
who cares about that if IFR practice is the purpose. I found MSFS2000
very accurately simulates the image one gets when transitioning from
VMC to IMC and back in a scattered layer ... really cool!
FliteSchool will run fine on most Pentium machines, while the MSFS2000
product requires a very high horsepower computer to run smoothly.
All that said, I'm using MSFS2000, and FlitePro is on the shelf.
Dennis (4B8)
PP-ASEL
Adrian Cybriwsky
: the shareware one you'll see announced in this newsgroup weekly (but
: be forwarned, the shareware from Dauntless, when I last looked at it,
: was incomplete until registered).
Yes, apologies for this. Still, the upside is you get to try it before
you buy it, unlike the others. We don't make any significant money from
dauntless, but the fact that we do get a modest number of registrations
helps us give it the time and effort that we need to make it a valuable
resource for all.
next stop for all of the Dauntless Softwre FAA test preps are integrated
figures. This is already present in the Canadian and FCC test prep
software we have.. the FAA figures currently need to be downloaded
seperately. The problem is that the download size necessarily balloons--
we're working on fixing this, and our recent experience in developing
the SimPlates product (now available) has given us good insights into how
to squash images to previously unheader-of small sizes :)
(by the way IFR folk, do check out SimPlates.. it's good stuff).
cheers,
Scott Moore
> Frederic Monestel wrote:
>
> > Does anybody knows a jeppsen simulator called FliteSchool ?
> > My aim is to have ifr training on my PC.
> > Is FliteSchool a good choice ?
> > What would you advise to me ?
> >
> > Thanks for your help.
> >
> > Fred.
>
> If you want the best, I'd recommend ELITE. The flight model is the
> best, it runs even on my puny P166 with 32MB and factory video. It has
> all the features you need for IFR training. I think anyone worrying
> about the outside view graphics in an *IFR* program is wasting their
> time. The whole point of IFR is to stay inside the cockpit until 200
> feet above touchdown.
>
I have seen the value in a more realistic simulation (using FU), coming down
to the Tacoma Narrows airport, I was having a hard time keeping the ILS.
I saw the runway appear out of the fog (which is set to 200 ft), and dropped
watching the ILS to go for it. Coming down, I noticed it lacked edge lights.
Sure enough, it was a road. Score one for realisim, that could definately occur
in real life.
>
> By the way before you ask, you can only log time toward your IFR ticket
> on a PC when using a PCATD setup, pretty expensive, and when an
> instructor is present. Even then, you can only log time toward the
I would recommend heartly to stop worrying about if your setup can be
logged as time. If you practice, you are going to shorten the time you need
to pass the IFR test. So that simulator setup will pay for itself without
any certification whatever.
Peter R. Sobel
much correlation between modeled behavior and the behavior one would expect
in actual flight or from a pilot operating handbook?
tscottme wrote in message <38590F63...@blahblah.net>...
>
>If you want the best, I'd recommend ELITE. The flight model is the
>best, it runs even on my puny P166 with 32MB and factory video. It has
>all the features you need for IFR training. I think anyone worrying
>about the outside view graphics in an *IFR* program is wasting their
>time. The whole point of IFR is to stay inside the cockpit until 200
>feet above touchdown.
>--
>Scott Methvin
Rob Coppock
I strongly recomment "ONTOP" by ASA, you can download a working demo from
their site, It is almost as good as Elite and far less expensive. I find
it very useful to keep the IFR skills honed.
Click the link above to visit the site
Rob
Frederic Monestel <frederic...@libertysurf.fr> wrote in message
news:3857F5E4...@libertysurf.fr...
tscottme
I have most of my experience in a couple of C-172 models and also in a Piper
Arrow IV (PA-28RT-201) and the ELITE aircraft for these two are spot on with
one exception, the ELITE 172 seems to be overpowered by about 100 RPM. I have
noticed that in many FRASCA and some other real training devices, the sim is
overpowered compared to the aircraft. In all other aspects of operation, the
ELITE models seem uncannily accurate to the aircraft I've flown and
maintained. The ELITE Arrow even has the same hard time slowing down. I don't
have much experience in Mooneys, the Bonanza or the TBs, but I haven't heard
too many complaints. I assume they are equally as accurate.
One terrific aspect of ELITE over the Microjunk products is that the program is
bullet-proof. I think in over 3 years of use, the program has crashed maybe
twice. MS products seem to crash every time the neighbors change TV channels
or each time a Sparrow flaps a wing. I've had a handful of the MS products and
won't be buying anymore of their PC hardware training devices disguised as
flight sim software. I learned more about frame rates and other tweaks trying
to use their junk than any real IFR skills. If the program runs you can pick
up some idea of IFR procedures, but the $30 little nav-tutors give just as much
usefulness and are much less frustrating to use.
panos bilios
There is a very accurate IFR simulator named RTSPRO, currently it has two
planes
a twin Baron 58, and a Bonanza. From my own flying experience I can tell
that the handling of
the planes are very realistic. The panels are photorealistic,(Elite like)
and there is,
contrary to many other IFR
simulators, scenery. The scenery is textured with true elevation points,
currenty France is available, the
rest of Europe is out within the coming weeks.North America, japan and
Australia are due shortly
You can execute visual
approaches as well. The visibility
parameters are very good. The transition from imc to vmc conditions, are the
most realistic I have seen
in a simulator. there is also an database editor giving you the ability to
manipulate any object, and to enhance the appearance of the airports with
added taxiways, towers, approach lighting systems etc.
To my opinion this IFR simulator is worthing the investement from anyone who
wants to study IFR maneuvers
They have a site at www.rtspro.com
Panos
Frederic Monestel skrev i meddelandet <3857F5E4...@libertysurf.fr>...
Marcelo Pacheco
Do you realize that it's a Cessna Skylane (182) instead of a 172 that
microsoft has ?
Which airplane have you flown in real life.
Marcelo Pacheco
Dennis wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Dec 1999 21:11:20 +0100, Frederic Monestel
> <frederic...@libertysurf.fr> wrote:
>
> >Does anybody knows a jeppsen simulator called FliteSchool ?
> >My aim is to have ifr training on my PC.
> >Is FliteSchool a good choice ?
> >What would you advise to me ?
>
> Fred, I've recently tried Jeppesen FlitePro which comes with an
> abbreviated version of FliteSchool ... I think this is what you mean.
>
> I'm also a MS Flight Sim 2000 user, and find the "toy" is a better
> simulator than Jepp's! The C172 model in FlitePro is way off ...
> power settings don't result in expected performance. The C172 flight
> model I acquired for MSFS2000 performs nearly exactly like a real
> Skyhawk.
>
> FlitePro has a nifty feature that overlays your track on a sectional,
> enroute, or approach chart that you don't get in MSFS2000. Both will
> allow you to track your course and print it out. Both allow you to
> start, stop, and save your simulation at any point.
>
> The FliteSchool that is packaged with the sim is a teaser, containing
> only some of the IFR question pool, and frankly, is less useful than
> the shareware one you'll see announced in this newsgroup weekly (but
> be forwarned, the shareware from Dauntless, when I last looked at it,
> was incomplete until registered).
>
Aaron Kiley
time MS Flight sim user, but also have Jepps FlitePro, and "Fly". also
tried the demo of On Top and IFR Trainer (both ASA I think)
Someone was correct in saying FlitePro has a bad 172 model. You almost have
to totally cut the power to descent 500fpm at 90 knots with 10 degrees
flaps, where in the real 172 it's about 1900 rpm. Also the ailarons were
much too sensitive with settings to full slow response. But, FlitePro has
some good stuff. I like to do a hold in a 30 knot crosswind which isn't
that uncommon at altitude. Then look at the path it creates over the
chart. Good equipment failure stuff, nice charts with IAP's overlaying the
low alt charts. Ok price, horrible graphics.
I end up going back to MS flight sim a lot. It has an amazing weather
generating system, excellent graphics, every approach in the US seems to be
in place and pretty accurate so you can fly the approaches that you do in
your real neighborhood. There is such a sim following with Flight sim98 and
2000 that there are tons of add-on aircraft panels and models. I downloaded
and cherokee and 172 to practice with.
The one area that seems lacking in just about every sim is ATC. Flight sim
2000 only has ATIS. Fly has a sort of half baked one. FlightPro is ok in
this area, but the one thing I think is the best is an add-on to Flight
Simulator98 make by Flight Safety called AviatorPro98. (they are working on
one for flight sim 2000) It's basically an entire IFR flight with charts
and plated included. (several different flights included) You have to
taxi, set radios before takeoff, do checklists, enroute, and approach. It
has full ATC with a clearance, vectors, handoffs etc.
The other thing about Flight Simulator is there is a huge web community
where two free add-ons put you in communication with other simmers that do
radar and ATC. They are starting to use microphones over the net instead of
typing command. If you get a good controller, it's very realistic with
Flight Simulator getting actual METARS off the web and loading it into the
sim. See it in action with the web site of who is flying a sim where.
http://www.satnet.satco.org/atcdisplayjar.html
Bottom line. I feel good graphics makes the whole sim thing much more fun.
Getting a few different sims works well because there cheap. Make sure you
fly with you left hand with your right on the throttle or you will later
regret it! ... Aaron
Frederic Monestel wrote in message <3857F5E4...@libertysurf.fr>...
>Does anybody knows a jeppsen simulator called FliteSchool ?
>My aim is to have ifr training on my PC.
>Is FliteSchool a good choice ?
>What would you advise to me ?
>