Use a simulator? If so, which one?
Jeffrey Osier-Mixon
now and then, and during lessons. Anyone have any opinions (duck!)? The most
popular ones seem to be:
MS Flight Sim 2000 or 98
Flight Unlimited II or III
Fly!
I'm leaning toward Flight Unlimited II because I live in the SF Bay Area (the
only area modelled in that sim) and because apparently the weather, ATC, and
flight models are as good as or better than MS Flight Sim, the standard.
Thanks for any input
Scott
starting training. For quite some time my instructor had to keep yelling at
me to look at the window and stop concentrating so much on the instruments.
The bonus, however, was that I was immediately quite familiar with the
instruments and my hood work not only went very well, but was extremely
enjoyable. My instructor said I was the only student she had that would ask
for hood time...
--- Scott
john price <jm.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:398B8F4E...@worldnet.att.net...
> Jeffrey...
>
> Save simulator practice for when you start working on your
> instrument license... Every student I have that plays
> with one has to be retrained in the airplane... They think
> everything happens on the instrument panel or out the
> front window... It's almost impossible to get them to
> scan for traffic or use visual references for attitude
> control
>
> John Price
> CFI/AGI
john price
John Rice
john price wrote:
>
> Jeffrey...
>
> Save simulator practice for when you start working on your
> instrument license... Every student I have that plays
> with one has to be retrained in the airplane... They think
> everything happens on the instrument panel or out the
> front window... It's almost impossible to get them to
> scan for traffic or use visual references for attitude
> control
On the other hand I have found that flying a real plane has really
improved my FS2000 flying skills! Ummm. Come to think of it, I don't
think that helps students much though :-).
Happy Flying,
John
zac...@my-deja.com
with VOR and NDB navigation. Any of these simulators are good at
letting the student practice cross country navigation for free. Say
what you want about GPS, but its still based on headings, bearings,
track and CDI. The same things you'll learn with the VOR. You can
even turn on course tracking and see how straight you're flying.
I find simulators most useful in instrument scan and navigation, but of
limited value in primary training. For now I'd save my simulator money
and spend it on the lessons, too.
Zack Jones ><>
In article <398B8F4E...@worldnet.att.net>,
jm.p...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Jeffrey...
>
> Save simulator practice for when you start working on your
> instrument license... Every student I have that plays
> with one has to be retrained in the airplane... They think
> everything happens on the instrument panel or out the
> front window... It's almost impossible to get them to
> scan for traffic or use visual references for attitude
> control
>
> John Price
> CFI/AGI
>
> Jeffrey Osier-Mixon wrote:
> >
> > I'm starting lessons next week and was thinking of using a
simulator between
> > now and then, and during lessons. Anyone have any opinions
(duck!)? The most
> > popular ones seem to be:
> >
> > MS Flight Sim 2000 or 98
> > Flight Unlimited II or III
> > Fly!
> >
> > I'm leaning toward Flight Unlimited II because I live in the SF Bay
Area (the
> > only area modelled in that sim) and because apparently the weather,
ATC, and
> > flight models are as good as or better than MS Flight Sim, the
standard.
> >
> > Thanks for any input
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
ArtP
<jm.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Save simulator practice for when you start working on your
>instrument license...
I like my FS2000. It is some help with landings, great for
instruments, and now I find it most useful for VOR approaches. It is
good practice to go to a new airport, pick a runway based on the wind
(or at random if the wind is not present), and set yourself up for
entry to the pattern. After a couple of real life botches including
JGG which I kept losing, I did some work with FS2000 to developed
standard procedure which will work at any airport (that allows flight
1000' above the traffic pattern).
Art
Stephen Ames
procedures...Learning procedures(checklists, partial panel etc) and
developing basic motor skills is about all this one is good for...
Blue skies,
St Stephen Ames
PP-ASMEL - IA
My flying site: http://www.stephenames.com/flying/flying.html
I live to learn as I learn to live...
"John Rice" <jr...@globaldialog.com> wrote in message
news:398C5DF5...@globaldialog.com...
>
>
> john price wrote:
> >
> > Jeffrey...
> >
> > Save simulator practice for when you start working on your
> > with one has to be retrained in the airplane... They think
> > everything happens on the instrument panel or out the
> > front window... It's almost impossible to get them to
> > scan for traffic or use visual references for attitude
> > control
>
>
Kevin Graeme
say that the sims all require more time spent looking at the instruments
than is appropriate for VFR. Keep in mind also that the controls are going
to be wrong. Whether you are just using a joystick, or spend the $200 or so
to get a yoke/rudder setup, all planes are different, and they all have
different controls. I have all of the sims you mention. Here's my take:
Flight Unlimited: could never get it to run.
Fly2K: Generally pretty good for the areas they have mapped. I like the use
of ATC. And the cockpits are pretty accurate. It's also possible to "sit up"
and look over the dash. You just move the mouse cursor up to the top and the
POV changes so you get a better view. The airplanes seem to need lots of
attention or they will get out of control. Whether it's the wind physics or
what, they are really hard to keep on course. They don't have all the
airports in areas that they have mapped and they aren't all up to date.
Chicago is missing Meigs field (which may happen soon in real life), and
Madison, WI has old runways. The city of San Fran was just a big
multicolored splotch, no buildings. I've also noticed that they don't always
use the real radio freqencies, so if you try to fly into an airport that you
know and tune in the radio, you may be in for a surprise. The airports don't
have runway/taxiway lighting. Every once in a while the controls for certain
things just quit working, like the ability to turn your head to look at the
runway while on the downwind. There is no lake at Lake Tahoe, a big
disappointment after I struggled to get the 172 over the mountains. And the
172 performance feels more like that of an overloaded 152. It doesn't climb
worth a damn. I listed problems, but generally I still like it.
MS Flight Sim 2000 (Pro): I just got this one, so here's my initial take. I
like the feel of the planes. Once they get trimmed, they fly like I think
they should. For the cities they have modeled, they look nice, though
sparse. But that's to be expected from any flight sim. (I expect it but
don't have to like it.) The airports seem nice, there's runway lighting
which is a big plus. I haven't started playing with the radios, and it's not
readily apparent that I'm supposed to (unlike Fly! which can take you
through all the controlled airport radio procedures.) The cockpits don't
seem as nice and possibly not as accurate as in Fly! and looking over the
dash is harder, thus emphasizing instument flight. The selection of planes
is interesting. They have a mix from the singles to airliners (and one
helicopter), but the singles are on the high-end. The lowliest plane is a
Cessna 182. No Cessna 152/172 or Piper Arrow/Archer trainers here. Of
course, there is a huge market for add-ons that support FS2K, much more so
than any other sim, so you can get new planes, more detailed cities and
landscape, etc. In fact, I find that you could spend as much on add-ons as
you do on flight lessons.
ProPilot 99: You didn't ask about it, but I have it so I'll mention it.
Don't bother. It's 3D rendering is limited to 3dfx cards, and the company
that makes it is gone, and so are all the support web pages.
I don't actually spend a lot of time flying sims, so take my observations
for what they are. I don't know the programs inside and out, I'm not part of
a sim flying club (yes, they exist). I spent as much for all these sims as I
do on one or two lessons, so the cost to me was a non-issue. The real thing
is better, but on rainy days like today, I can pretend. Just don't think
it's going to help you as a pilot.
Kevin Graeme
Scott
is still in business and has been since 1979. They are owned by a company
called Havas Interactive who in turn is owned by Vivendi. Vivendi is the
company that just bought Seagrams who also owns Universal Studios.. Sierra
did get out of the flight sim business, however.
--- Scott
Kevin Graeme <kgr...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:8mi2nd$ofs$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
Kevin Graeme
Flight Unlimited III.
Kevin
"Scott" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:398c9fdf$1...@news.nwlink.com...
Scott
made good product beyond flight sim.
--- Scott
Kevin Graeme <kgr...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:8mibq9$m00$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
Gary Drescher
simming. Still, I suspect that a simulator can be good preparation for
learning to fly for real, if it's done the right way. I'd recommend
trying a flight sim in conjunction with a book on real flying
(Kershner's _Student Pilot's Flight Manual_ is one good choice). Use
real-life techniques, and use visual references more than instruments
(in FS2K, you can render the instruments inoperative to force your
attention outside). For this to work, you need a point-of-view switch
on your yoke or joystick, so you can quickly look to the side as well
as straight ahead. (You also need a computer that's fast enough not to
switch views instantly; if your machine is too slow, using FS98 may be
preferable to FS2K.) It's important to have rudder pedals so you can
learn coordination and learn to do slips, especially for crosswind
landings (but beware, I've yet to see a PC sim that adequately models
the need to apply right rudder in a climb, so that'll be different when
you fly for real). Since there are no force-feedback yokes on the
market yet (last I checked), I'd recommend a force-feedback joystick
rather than a no-feedback yoke; in FS2K/FS98, that'll reproduce the
different feel of the control wheel at different airspeeds (firm and
responsive when fast, mushy when slow), which to me adds more to
realism than having the yoke look more real than a joystick. Fly with
your left hand on the joystick, and use your right hand for the
throttle and everything else. Good luck!
--Gary
JTP
checklists, navigation). Don't count on any simulator to teach you how to
fly (at least not the simulators you mentioned).
You've got to get the "feel" of the plane and the controls and you can't get
that on any of those.
John
Adrian Cybriwsky
: Jeffrey...
: Save simulator practice for when you start working on your
: instrument license... Every student I have that plays
: with one has to be retrained in the airplane... They think
: everything happens on the instrument panel or out the
: front window... It's almost impossible to get them to
: scan for traffic or use visual references for attitude
Undirected simulator use will doubtlessly do exactly as you say.
I direct my students simulator use and find that this helps greatly,
even in primary training. While I don't demand simulator use by
any means, I encourage it strongly for the 18-35 year old males /
computer savvy people. The students of mine who use simulators
(for most FS98 or 2000 is good) learn the local area, learn a little
something about paying attention to time/distance calculations,
learn how to use VORs and other instruments, and so forth. In the
air, it's 90% outside 10% inside because from day one (or two)
that, and routine covering up of instruments and concentration on
flying the airplane is stressed (I do dutch rolls right after the
four fundamentals).
The sim is not good for teaching how to flare. But it is useful for
a lot more than just instrument flight... when the student is properly
directed... which means that the insturctor needs to know the limitations
of the PC-sims. Put another way, it's not for every combination of
student and CFI, but it has its place. I estimate that each student
who uses MSFS in a directed manner saves about $300 in training costs
overall, but clearly this is by no means any sort of scientifically
determined number.
cheers,
adrian
faatest.com <- neat aviation stuff.
Jeffrey Osier-Mixon
on eBay for $6, but I'll be very cautious using it...
Dan Girellini
aviate (or communicate for that matter), but I found fs98/2000 to be
great naviation practice. After doing my flight plan for an x/c, I
tried flying in fs98. Turns out I forgot to correct for magnetic
deviation and wound up off course. I was able to use my chart and
visual landmarks, though, to figure this out (vor would have been just
as easy). Of course it is not nearly as fun as a _real_ x/c, but you
can always 'fast-forward' the boring parts.
dan.
Edward A. Falk
Jeffrey Osier-Mixon <je...@transmeta.com> wrote:
>I'm starting lessons next week and was thinking of using a simulator between
>now and then, and during lessons. Anyone have any opinions (duck!)? The most
>popular ones seem to be:
Flight simulators are of zero value for primary training, and may
even teach you bad habits. Stay away.
PC flight simulators are of *limited* usefulness in IFR training,
but they can't be logged.
--
-ed falk, fa...@falconer.vip.best.com. See *********************#*************#*
http://www.rahul.net/falk/whatToDo.html #**************F******!******!*!!****
and read 12 Simple Things You Can Do ******!***************************#**
to Save the Internet **#******#*********!**WW*W**WW****
som...@somewhere.net
some things click and some don't.
I own a copy of Flight Unlimited 3, and the software has prepared me
time & time again for airport approaches, proper radio procedures,
weather, how to handle yourself in heavy traffic, and the like. And
besides, it's a cheap way to fly a BeechJet. <g>
I'd say don't use the software to replace your flight training, but
use it to augment the lessons you've learned from your flight school.
Of course, for someone else, the flight sim may be a confusing and
difficult prospect; as I said, it depends on the personality of the
student involved.
Happy flying!
------------------------
NO SPAM!
NoSPAM!
>
>I disagree; I believe it depends on the student. As with everything,
>some things click and some don't.
>
>I own a copy of Flight Unlimited 3, and the software has prepared me
>time & time again for airport approaches, proper radio procedures,
>weather, how to handle yourself in heavy traffic, and the like. And
>besides, it's a cheap way to fly a BeechJet.
Yep,
FU 2 or 3 will also help you learn VOR navigation and pilotage. They are VFR
sims (with 4 meter per pixel resolution on the ground) so pick up the
appropriate sectionals and/or TACs. (FU2 San Fran, FU3 Seattle) If you get
lost they will show you your location. Try that in your 152.
A force feedback yoke or joystick and rudder pedals are a MUST however.
Richad Kowalski