PDA

View Full Version : OT. Real life easier than FSX



dandog
January 3rd, 2012, 20:37
Hello All,

Thanks to my lovely wife, I just completed 1.9 hours of my 40 towards a PPL. I must say that that flying in real life is easier than flight sim COF or FSX. Thanks to FSX and this forum for making my real life adventure that much more enjoyable. However, my CFI does have XPlane, not FSX or FS9. He did not make fun of my admission of being a MS Flight Sim junkie.

Daniel

mfitch
January 3rd, 2012, 21:09
Indeed in a real small plane you can feel a great deal in addition to the visual and instruments. Keep enjoying the process. In a couple weeks I will be starting instrument ground school to continue my training.

calypsos
January 3rd, 2012, 23:15
A lot of the difference is down to spacial awareness, even more evident if you ever go for a rotary wing PPL!
IFR flying is what MSFS is better at simulating as it's just a matter of numbers.....and PC's are good at that!

Francois
January 3rd, 2012, 23:48
Yes, a well known fact. Fortunately I meet more and more real life pilots who ALSO like FS(X) and confirm its usefulness for many parts of flight training, albeit it no substitute.

expat
January 4th, 2012, 01:00
Glad to hear your feedback. I am, despite my wife, painfully slowly builiding dual time toward a PPL (at this rate by the time I am 93) doing training when I am over in Florida and may actually solo in a month or so, depending on my instructor's mood. There is no question among real pilots familiar with FS that it is a help with respect to real flying.

Along with IFR it also helps for getting familiar with airport surroundings in VFR very well. Also just the operation of avionics: my instructor (ex USMC) was not familiar with MS and was blown away when, without prompting, he watched me set up the Garmin 430's and also later we had a Avidyne glass cockpit Warrior which he also could not believe I knew how to use, more or less. Some things, for me personally, are less easy IRL, like using the radios and speaking to the tower naturally (i.e. without being nervous or tongue tied).

Mathias
January 4th, 2012, 01:19
In real life you do a lot of those little corrections with the butt, so to speak, whereas in FS you always react on something you see on your 21' screen.
Makes it harder to fly intuitive without that butt feel.

TeaSea
January 4th, 2012, 10:55
Yep, easier in real life.....on the other hand when you screw up for real you don't get to hit the "reset" button.

I found FS9 and FSX especially helpful working my IFR ticket.

Bone
January 4th, 2012, 11:06
Some of it is, and most of it isn't...but then my frame of reference isn't about joyriding in a Cessna or Piper. That's pretty easy, if we're going to just generalize.

kilo delta
January 4th, 2012, 11:51
Have you tried the PMDG NGX, Bone? Maybe you could lobby them to do an RJ? :-P

Bjoern
January 4th, 2012, 12:21
Maybe you could lobby them to do an RJ? :-P

Why would he want to do that? He gets to fly the real thing day after day.


Also, Aerosoft already has a CRJ in the works.

Lotus
January 4th, 2012, 13:22
I fully agree that FS can be amazingly helpful throughout flight training, and well afterwards, it certainly was for me, and continues to be. Indeed, in many ways real flying is much easier. Real aircraft are much more forgiving of small mistakes, but less forgiving of large ones I think, hehe.

FS training can also have one other amazing and entirely unexpected side effect though, when it comes to emergencies.

I got my PPL in 2002, after about 13 years of almost daily flight sim use. During one very memorable flight, about 15 hours after getting my license, I experienced a complete electrical failure.... at night. One moment everything was fine, the next I was in complete darkness. No radios, no lights, nada.

For a relatively new pilot this is quite an experience to go through! Obviously my tension shot up immediately, but I turned on the flashlight that I hung around my neck on every night flight, and ran through the checklist. I cycled the master and battery switches several times, but to no avail. It became very clear to me that my electrics were not coming back. Happily the engine was continuing to run nicely and I had about 3 hours of fuel on board. Unhappily I was flying a Piper Arrow 3 with retractable gear, and would have no way to know if the gear was down and locked without the indicator lights. It also didn't help that I had my girlfriend and her best friend on board.

As I struggled to come to grips with this situation, something in my mind radically altered almost instantly. To this day I still can't properly describe how the mental change occurred, but my mind suddenly convinced itself that I was in flight sim, not in a real aircraft with two rather concerned passengers on board. The moment that change occurred all of my worry and tension vanished completely, and I was able to get on with the business of flying the plane with a cool head.

Since I had no transponder or radios (did not have a portable nav/comm at the time, but I do now!) I decided the only course of action was to orbit near my home airport and watch the traffic pattern and try to find a way to fit myself in. Without a transponder or radio, in pitch darkness, the tower wouldn't really know who or what I was. I performed the prescribed 120 degree turns in triangle formation several times and waited for a light gun signal, but none came over a 10 min period, so I decided that I had best get the thing on the ground somehow. I observed the planes in the pattern and slotted myself in closely behind one on downwind. The real butt clenching moment was lowering the gear. I thought I felt the nose pitch down and the wind noise increase slightly, but there was still no way to be sure without indicator lights, since in the Arrow you can't see any part of the gear at all.

The approach was certainly interesting, with the flashlight between my teeth illuminating the airspeed indicator and the flare was one of the smoothest and longest I've ever done, waiting for the inevitable crunch of prop vs pavement, but it never came. I was greeted with the surprising and very relieving chirp of the main wheels being whipped up to speed on the ground.

And then the most bizarre thing happened. The moment the nose gear touched down all the electrics came back on! If it wasn't such a dangerous situation it would have been hilarious. Murphy at his best. I quickly braked off the runway and tuned in to the tower frequency, only to land in the middle of a serious verbal reaming from them. After they stopped yelling at me I explained my situation and decisions. There was a long pause, after which they said "Under the circumstances, well done. Taxi to parking." I discovered from the mechanic the next day that the problem was caused by a broken grounding strap between the battery and airframe, due to metal fatigue caused by engine vibration, and that the jolt of the nose gear touching down had reconnected it slightly, allowing the alternator to function again.

Anyway, as soon as I shut the plane down and whipped off the seat belt, the FS world vanished, and the real world came back with a vengeance, along with a fair bit of shaking from the loss of adrenaline. I figured it was best that my girlfriend drive me home from that point, but not before we stopped at a bar and got me thoroughly trashed. ;)

So, long story short, extensive FS training can have one lovely and remarkable side effect, one which I hope to never need again, but I'm glad it's there. I also religiously check the condition of the grounding strap before every flight now.

Flight Simulator has had a special place in my heart from that day on. :)

Cheers,

-Mike

Barnes
January 4th, 2012, 13:30
I agree - anyone who can master a flight from A to B in FSX is well on the way to being a real life PPL A or H

Well done all those who are going through the real flight training.

Bone
January 4th, 2012, 14:40
Have you tried the PMDG NGX, Bone?


Nope. But I have considered getting it.




Why would he want to do that? He gets to fly the real thing day after day.





Well, I usually try to keep it at just four days a week, but they're long and tiring days. Anyone who thinks FS is harder than real life needs to do one of my days at work, they'll get their @ss kicked.






FS training can also have one other amazing and entirely unexpected side effect though, when it comes to emergencies.

something in my mind radically altered almost instantly. To this day I still can't properly describe how the mental change occurred, but my mind suddenly convinced itself that I was in flight sim, not in a real aircraft with two rather concerned passengers on board. The moment that change occurred all of my worry and tension vanished completely, and I was able to get on with the business of flying the plane with a cool head.

So, long story short, extensive FS training can have one lovely and remarkable side effect, one which I hope to never need again, but I'm glad it's there. I also religiously check the condition of the grounding strap before every flight now.

Flight Simulator has had a special place in my heart from that day on. :)

Cheers,

-Mike


After all, FS is a flight simulator, and what you experienced in situational confidence is one of the reasons simulators exist. Repition of procedures/tasks/emergencies under controlled circumstances (ie, in the sim) builds within you the ability to handle the real life events in the same way, and with a favorable outcome. Good job, BTW.

I think FSX is an incredible tool, and I feel very fortunate that it exists and that there are people who work tirelessly to make it better. I don't ever want to be without it. As good as it is, though, it still isn't flying. The physical world effects and random chaos make a huge difference.

PilatusTurbo
January 4th, 2012, 14:56
I, too, must subscribe to, and agree with this notion. :d It is easier in many ways; far better sense of motion, ease of awareness (head turning and peripheral vision), and a far greater requirement of heavy involvement. However, real flying has its difficulties. The sim and RL have ups and downs; obviously sim flying is not real flying. When I started learning to fly, though, even my father (a sim hater-thinks they're largely useless and teach bad habits) admitted that that sim with those pedals must've helped you know how to taxi a taildragger. Never had issues knowing how to use toebrakes, and never once came close to ground looping it. :)

I have never flown a helicopter, but years ago while learning to hover in the sim, I theorized that it must be a bit easier in real life. For the reasons mentioned above, at least, a small bit easier. Yes, helicopter hovering has been equated by heli pilots to trying to balance on top of a unicycle whilst on top of a basketball. However, hovering in the sim was just a damn headache, and still is quite difficult. In real life, you'd have your inner ear letting you know you're about to start drifting to the left or wherever, but in the sim, it's ALL eyeball perception. I've seen real heli pilots, after a lot of training, being able to hold a hover like a static object in the air. I challenge anyone to do this in the sim; I practiced this for many hours in FS9, and still can not hold a 100% static hover.

Sim flying is cool, because it's cheap, but it's no where near the real thing. Real flying is cool because it's something Da Vinci would've killed to do, and one of the most memorable things you can get to do in life. :ernae:

EDIT: Also, agreed on its usefulness for IFR. However, I use the simulator to keep my radio work sharp, since I've not flown since 2007. How, you ask? I turn off the pilot voice, and when I'm doing ATC stuff, I do not read the little script. I'll start the ship up, listen to ATIS, and tune to ground. It'll show the options to taxi to wherever, and I'll choose what I want to do with the numbers above. As soon as I hit the number with my choice, I'll close the window and actually speak the radio stuff. When I'm done, I hear back from ATC as if I'd really just radioed them; it's a remarkably useful radio training tool.

"Deer Valley Ground, Piper Two-Five Foxtrot Romeo, request taxi to the active with Tango, north departure."

"Piper Two-Five Foxtrot Romeo, Deer Valley Ground, taxi to and hold short runway seven left, via Alpha."

"Taxi to, hold short runway seven left, Piper Two-Five Foxtrot Romeo."

It's that easy, because I've been doing it in the sim since 2007. It took much longer to type that 'transcript' than it actually took me to imagine and plot out ATC comms. :ernae:

PRB
January 4th, 2012, 15:23
I keep hearing this and I don't get it. FS completely screwed up my ability to fly real planes, it seems. My brain cannot come to terms with “if you're low, increase power, if your fast, pull back on the stick” etc. In FS my brain thinks in opposite terms, but I end up doing the same thing. In FS, if I'm low, I pull up (duh) but I also know, without even thinking about it, that I will require an associated adjustment in power... They work together. But every time I try to learn to fly real planes, it seems I'm expected to “disconnect” the two responses and apply them individually, and it doesn't work. It's like the “rubbing your tummy and patting your head” problem. Why the heck is that? And, FS planes don't respond like real ones in several important ways. In real planes, increasing the power really does make you rise, much more so than in FS, so the real life technique does make sense. Try controlling your glide slope with just power in any FS plane. The response lags too much, it's sluggish. A real plane responds instantly. Try stepping on the rudder in a real plane as see what happens. It doesn't yaw, it rolls. Well, it yaws and rolls, but its almost like it rolls better with the rudder. Fliger747's F7F Tigercat and the MILVIZ F-5 are only FS plane that capture this effect well. Ok, so all this “expert” analysis is from a few hours in a Piper Cherokee. I'm sure I could “break though” to the light bulb moment with more practice, and money... :)

olderndirt
January 4th, 2012, 19:02
As a forty some year general aviation pilot - flight sim is good on procedures but not so good on flying.

ryanbatc
January 4th, 2012, 19:05
FS training can also have one other amazing and entirely unexpected side effect though, when it comes to emergencies...



Neat story Mike... so when do we hear about that new project :P ?

napamule
January 4th, 2012, 19:06
I think MS simulator can help develop your confidence in light of what must be one the most dangerous things you might want to do - FLY. When you learn WHAT to do to achieve a result (ie: land a 'sim object' that weighs tons) you gain the ability to cope with unusual 'scenarios' (weather, bird strikes, etc). Staying CALM is half the trick (performing while under fire). Keeping your cool implys you know what is happening and what to do. You loose your cool and bad things happen. Calm-cool-and collected. (Think landing Airbus in Hudson River...).

Flight Simulator has helped me with my freeware driving (4 lane traffic all going 80 mph and changing lanes, competeing, cutting people off, etc). I just stay calm-cool-and collected, stay in my lane, and ignore the morons. I stay with traffic and before you know it you are at your destination. Rested, relaxed, and smiling-NOT all stressed out.

You say: 'Try controlling your glide slope with just power in any FS plane.' It can be done IF you use your pitch trim to control your vertical descent, as you are NOT going to do it by using your throttle alone (ie: your have OTHER things to do while on approach which doesn't allow you to commit 100% of attention to the elevator and/or the throttle)). Use pitch trim instead. My 2 cents.
Chuck B
Napamule

warchild
January 4th, 2012, 19:12
As a forty some year general aviation pilot - flight sim is good on procedures but not so good on flying.


been working on that :).. problem is, you really dont have the "butt" feeling to go by. also, no matter how well you do the math, getting the base fluight model to match the actual aircraft is difficult at best. I dont think many fde engineers really put that much into it simply because it can take over a year to develope a good flight model, and even then, if the fde engineer hasnt flown the plane, we really dont know if its accurate or not.. We do our best, but, that will always leave something to be desired no matter how good we are..
Pam

BrittMac
January 4th, 2012, 20:36
Nice to hear how much FS can help. I really need to beef up my instrument knowledge/skills in FS. I started out as one of those "seat of the pants" FS flyers years ago, but don't get me wrong, I always used the primary instruments. Just never learned all the GPS units, G1000's, and some Nav instruments.

I will be starting my quest for my PPL this year, after years of waiting for the "right time". My goal last year was to save up a chunk of change that would enable me to carry through most, if not all, of the training without having to stop for months at a time to rebuild funds to fly more. There are still many hurdles to jump, but I am gonna do it one way or another. Just wish I could have done this 15+ years ago.

Ya know, back in the 90's, my parents said they would get me a car or flying lessons. No brainer, right? I wanted the lessons. I got neither(not that I was a bad boy or anything, just didn't happen). Sucks, because back then it was no where near the cost it is now.

Victory103
January 5th, 2012, 01:04
been working on that :).. problem is, you really dont have the "butt" feeling to go by. also, no matter how well you do the math, getting the base fluight model to match the actual aircraft is difficult at best. I dont think many fde engineers really put that much into it simply because it can take over a year to develope a good flight model, and even then, if the fde engineer hasnt flown the plane, we really dont know if its accurate or not.. We do our best, but, that will always leave something to be desired no matter how good we are..
Pam

Great point and especially true with the mythical world of FS helicopter dynamics. I tried a few years ago to help a developer with the H-60, it's difficult to bring all the numbers in a "plug n play" format for FS to understand and then replicate. Not to mention the complex systems that FS was not designed for, at least in the helicopter FS world(would love to see PMDG like system integration). Luckily for the rotorheads, one developer has FS helos heading in the right direction along with a few freeware guys finally cracking the code on FDE's.

Personally I use FS for fun, but as also as an IFR training tool to stay somewhat current. With the charts out, hand-flying even the simple C172 to minimums on an ILS can be fun. I just ordered Radar Contact, which I hope will fix the stock robotic ATC and allow me to fly SID/STARs. As mentioned on the Garmins and simulating menu pages/functions, I recently hoped a developer's FS version of the Collins Pro Line 21 glass panel would help prepare me for the real thing, again the limits of FSX are messing that up. I still recommend the "game" for anyone starting a PPL, learning basic radio navigation ahead should put a smile on your CFI's face. Also recommend "flying" your first solo x-country first in the sim.

TeaSea
January 5th, 2012, 04:27
I keep hearing this and I don't get it. FS completely screwed up my ability to fly real planes, it seems. My brain cannot come to terms with “if you're low, increase power, if your fast, pull back on the stick” etc. In FS my brain thinks in opposite terms, but I end up doing the same thing. In FS, if I'm low, I pull up (duh) but I also know, without even thinking about it, that I will require an associated adjustment in power... They work together.:)

Yikes! I had this hammered into me by my instructor during my initial PPL training. "To descend, reduce power, to speed up or slow down, change your angle of attack". any related adjustment to power or angle is to maintain whatever you just set up. He beat me up on this constantly despite my attempts to do the exact opposite. My epiphony came after linining up on final the day he said, "allright, have it our way, go ahead and try to land using the yoke".

Of course, that doesn't work.....You can run the airframe as close to the ground as you like, but it will not land if you're carrying excess power. Try as you might, you cannot defeat Mr. Newton or Mr. Bernoulli. So, after finally settling on the mains 3/4 of the way down the runway it all became clear.

After that it was easy....throttle controls altitude, angle controls speed. My experience is that you may be able swag this for your PPL, but when it comes to IFR approaches, understanding this is absolutley essential. By the time I hit the MM in stable air, I'm using only the throttle for altitude....not even touching the yoke.

Now, flight dynamics in FS are different, and since you don't get all the environmental cues, it becomes a little more difficult at times. On the other hand, after flying 6 hours for real, I'm absolutely exhausted....and cannot concieve on how folks who do this for a living don't just drop.

kilo delta
January 5th, 2012, 08:03
Nope. But I have considered getting it.


You should....it's EPIC...a BEAST! :sleep::icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol:

Bone
January 5th, 2012, 08:11
....it's EPIC...a BEAST! :sleep::icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol:

Lol. Killing me with "epic".

Bjoern
January 5th, 2012, 14:17
Well, I usually try to keep it at just four days a week, but they're long and tiring days. Anyone who thinks FS is harder than real life needs to do one of my days at work, they'll get their @ss kicked.

I think the "FSX is hard" part applies to the flying procedure itself and not on the physical exhaustion that comes with flying a real plane for a few hours.




Lol. Killing me with "epic".

Haha!

Bone
January 5th, 2012, 15:42
I think the "FSX is hard" part applies to the flying procedure itself and not on the physical exhaustion that comes with flying a real plane for a few hours.

Haha!

Well, it's all related. Fatigue is a big issue, but I'll try to explain in another way. With FSX, you can roll out of bed, saunter over to the computer, click click click and PRESTO you're flying in your skivvies. You can fly without moving your head, and only moving your hands a mere few inches. But, if you look behind you at the TV set because something interesting just came on, you might be a little out of control when you finally look back at the computer monitor, because models aren't as stable as the real thing.

Maybe "they" think FSX is harder because models are generally twitchy and easy to over control. Of course real airplanes are more stable, but a metric of "FSX is less stable" isn't enough to pass a verdict that it's harder than real. Yes models are more twitchy than real, but after you get used to it, it's no big deal. I don't have any issues with it, it's actually quite easy. I've never thought FSX was hard when it came to flying, only when it came to figuring out why it stopped working properly. There have been a HUGE number of times when I thought real flying was hard. FSX is just a molecule in the tip of the aviation ice burg.

I don't think I need to say anything more about this, whatever.

pilottj
January 5th, 2012, 16:03
lol when I was at ERAU, during my first year working on my PPL, my instructor jokingly told my roomate to delete my copy of flight sim...this was during the FS98 days with most of the flying done with 2D panels. He said it was causing me to stare at the gauges too much instead of looking at the big picture outside. Of course back then FS98 didn't have the beautiful virtual cockpits we have now which provide a better 3d view. Still tho you are looking at a large 3D world through a relatively small 2D screen.

I would suggest to those working on their PPL to limit their time in FS as to not form bad habits that might hurt one's peripheral instincts. I would also suggest using FS time limited to working on proceedure flows/navigation principles and such. Once you start working on IFR stuff tho, FS is great and you should spend a lot of time in it working on your instrument scans.

res non verba
January 5th, 2012, 18:50
Is undeniable the help that flight simulator can give you in preparing yourself for a flight license, makes the whole learning curve a faster and easier process. Everything can be experienced in comfort and without the fear of wreck the aircraft or yourself. Is too a double-edged sword, excellent to train and interiorize procedures for those who do them and create bad habits in those that shortcuts them.

I personally think the real thing harder, not in relation to the general handling, where the real thing is easier and smoother "in calm air" lol, but to fly it right and perfect. I can easy manage a perfect landing every time in fs, the models and the environment are much more predictable. But this can be explained by 20 years of sim and only 2 years of a ppl. http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/images/smilies/smile.png

We need more model producers flying the real thing! :wiggle:

:ernae:

napamule
January 5th, 2012, 19:44
Quote: 'We need more model producers flying the real thing!'

Nah. We needed more modelers to learn how to 'do' flight dynamics! Every model is different, too. I said 'needed' because it's (practically!) TOO LATE now (after 7 years) as 'Flight' is coming and with that you will only need MORE QUARTERS to drop in the slot. Flight Simulator will not progress any more that it has already, so if you haven't learned the 'reason it stoped working' (or why you can't land a tail dragger) by now, you MIGHT never get 'it'.
Chuck B
Napamule

N2056
January 5th, 2012, 20:01
Based on your statement I could counter by saying flight dynamics modelers could learn 3d modeling.

dandog
January 5th, 2012, 20:06
I can fly all right in FSX/FS9. I just meant to say that flying a real world airplane (at least a C172N) was easier. Its not as twitchy, and the flight dynamics are more spot on. Its amazing how 2 notches of flaps REALLY slows down AC in real life. And no, I was not busting my hump all day long flying. It was similiar to a good long FSX session. Lastly, do not discount FSX. The BETA version of MS Flight has been released, and there are still many questions to be answered. I know this first hand (which I believe is not contrary to MS Flight Beta terms).

Daniel

Bjoern
January 6th, 2012, 06:52
Maybe "they" think FSX is harder because models are generally twitchy and easy to over control. Of course real airplanes are more stable, but a metric of "FSX is less stable" isn't enough to pass a verdict that it's harder than real. Yes models are more twitchy than real, but after you get used to it, it's no big deal. I don't have any issues with it, it's actually quite easy.

As was already said in this thread, the lack of perception and lack of interaction ability makes FSX quite "hard" compared to the real thing.

E.g. if a FSX controller gives me a heads-up on traffic, I merrily ignore it, since 1680*1050 px and FSX's LOD system just doesn't cut it to see anything beyond a maybe 5 mile radius (unless it has a contrail).
In the real thing, it's (most likely) easier to watch for traffic.

Same for flying and at the same time flicking switches or tuning dials. I refuse to go way beyond default systems modeling for this reason (e.g. NGX), as you just can't multitask in front of a computer screen.




Nah. We needed more modelers to learn how to 'do' flight dynamics!

A waterboarding session is like Disneyland compared to making FDEs for MSFS.
The sim engine works in such a weird way that you just can't dial in real numbers and have a plane behaving within real specs, nooo, you need to tailor the real values to a number that makes the thing fly on the numbers in MSFS.

This is espcially bad with jet engine modelling. Getting the right fluel flow is possible, but you'll be damned if you ever need accurate EPR and N1 outputs...

Bone
January 6th, 2012, 08:06
As was already said in this thread, the lack of perception and lack of interaction ability makes FSX quite "hard" compared to the real thing.

E.g. if a FSX controller gives me a heads-up on traffic, I merrily ignore it, since 1680*1050 px and FSX's LOD system just doesn't cut it to see anything beyond a maybe 5 mile radius (unless it has a contrail).
In the real thing, it's (most likely) easier to watch for traffic.

Same for flying and at the same time flicking switches or tuning dials. I refuse to go way beyond default systems modeling for this reason (e.g. NGX), as you just can't multitask in front of a computer screen.





...



OK, I thought I was done here, but Ahhh, well, I guess it's another instance of how a person's frame of reference influences their perception. I have a 30 inch monitor running at a 2500x1600 resolution (1600P) with Track IR. I look and click on switches without any problem at all. But, you're right about traffic, which is why I have the traffic label function checked. Although I do have some strong opinions about certain things, I really am open minded and willing to entertain a new view point. So, I shrunk the FSX window down to simulate having a smaller monitor, and lowered the resolution. Then did it again, and then again.

You guys are absolutely right. FSX is harder than real life when you start shrinking things down, and with each step down it got harder. But the difficulty was in something wholly unrelated to flying. To tell you the truth, it wasn't anything like flying at all. It was an excercise in miniscule management, like trying to thread a needle with a frayed strand and blurry vision. My point of reference comes from somewhere completely different than the majority of flightsimmers, and doesn't really mesh very well alot of times around here. I have realized that for some time.

At any rate, regardless of a persons monitor size or resolution, flightsim is a great platform for learning, just like the "real" simulators.

Bjoern
January 6th, 2012, 08:28
I see you got my point. ;)

Anyway, I hope my MSFS skills and knowledge come in handy, should I ever choose to pursue a CPL. Especially in the ATC department.

Felixthreeone
January 6th, 2012, 09:20
Real life flying is MUCH tougher in one aspect....Paying the bill after a 2 or three hour rental flight (which for me in an SR20 or 22) can easily top $600. I need not worry about setting fot in the virtual FBO to pay after an FSX session lol :applause:

warchild
January 6th, 2012, 09:37
Cost is just one of the reasons many of us fly in fsx or fs9 rather than the real world. We simply will never be able to afford the real thing. Health is another issue. Of all the various challenges to flying in the real world, maintaining your health certificate appears to be one of the most stress inducing parts of it.. many of us would simply never be able to pass a health exam. Even such things as PTSD will disqualify you for flying. Guess they think we'll have a flashback and go nutso in the cockpit.
In a real world plane, something goes wrong and your head and hand snaps to the correct button or switch to counter the even. In FSX your head bobbles at a wonderful 15 degrees per second as you look for the correct switch to hit, and you only have one hand. in the meantime, you plane is falling in real time..
Yes, in the real world, planes dont normally have a tendency to pitch up 20 degrees in half a second. they have this little thing called inertia to overcome. Many fsx planes dont have that, though most of us newer engineers work hard on eliminating that inaccuracy.
Annnd, lets face it, Real flying isnt a matter of holding a stick or yoke in your hands and moving it all over the place. Its also a matter of micromanaging everything your aircraft is doing. Too not micromanage is an invitation to disaster. You CAN do this in fsx, but the amount of time you spend scrolling around the cockpit checking gauges, checking wind speed and direction etc etc, is abominable. In a real plane, its a quick glance..
Oh yeah, in real life flying, having seen a UFO is a one way ticket to nowhere.. In FSX, you can see all the little green men you want ...
Pam

Felixthreeone
January 6th, 2012, 09:54
LOL!! Totally agree, Pam...not to mention the BFR's, TFR's, insurance, etc....I probably spend an average of $5000usd a year on my real-world flying...and I don't even have my instrument rating yet. But, a commercial and CFI aren't that far off, so soon I wil be getting paid (a small amount) for my habit. There is imho nothing that can replace real-world flying in any way. But, FSX and flight sims do have practical applications, and in many cases CAN be more challenging than real world flying...but just barely so....

fliger747
January 6th, 2012, 10:35
Simulators, whether the $ 50 million vareity or the FSX type, do have relations. They can help make complex tasks more familiar and reduce the stress of real life "situations". Real life will always have a pucker factor that is not quite present in FS. Doing a CAT III B approach down to minimums (300' RVR, no cieling) in a half million pounds of airplane moving at 160 knots has a certain anticipation factor that a similar approach in FS does not. However FS can be real enough to get the heart rate up, such as a tight approach in something like the RTW race when everyone is counting on you.

FS is probably best as an instrument simulator, perhaps better in some ways as one can pause, and certainly be free of the many distractions of the ATC environment.

Real flying is generally more difficult as one cannot escape, pause or merely blow off the many duties and requirements of the real world. Flying the plane is usually the easy part. FS is great for doing the fun stuff!


T

Bone
January 6th, 2012, 10:55
Real flying is generally more difficult as one cannot escape, pause or merely blow off the many duties and requirements of the real world. Flying the plane is usually the easy part. FS is great for doing the fun stuff!


T

Well, I knew you would understand. And, yes, flightsim is a heck of alot of fun.

warchild
January 6th, 2012, 11:58
Wellll, seeing as there are few options for the future of simulated flight, I'm really hoping that one of the top end companies produce a flight simulator that can use some form of 3D/IMax to bring that next level of immersion to the sim..

napamule
January 6th, 2012, 13:05
N2056 said: 'Based on your statement I could counter by saying flight dynamics modelers could learn 3d modeling.'

Nah. Too many modelers already cranking out models. I still find some models from 2004 thru 2008 that I 'missed'. And they sure do need tweaking (of course). Airwrench (is/was) never 'the answer'-just temp patch work. There are not enough people (in Simming) that can wrap their head around the CONCEPTS relevant to flight dynamics.

You have to learn 3d modeling? Well, you ALSO have to 'learn' to do edits to flight dynamics. And they don't tell you everything-you just have to 'know' by experience (AND by trial & error). It's better if we specialize (re: Bob Chicilo). I don't think he can model anything (neither can I) but his 'updates' are invaluable. Details make it all so nice. Sloppy ain't going to make it. FS98, FS2000, FS2002, FS9, FSX-they all do 'things' different. So we 'manage' as best we can. I don't care about 'flaws' in model, as long as it performs like it should. It's all good.
Chuck B
Napamule

stansdds
January 7th, 2012, 04:36
Real life flying is MUCH tougher in one aspect....Paying the bill after a 2 or three hour rental flight (which for me in an SR20 or 22) can easily top $600. I need not worry about setting fot in the virtual FBO to pay after an FSX session lol :applause:

Many years ago I was all set to begin the journey towards a PPL... until I found out how much it was going to cost. I bought a house instead.

kilo delta
January 7th, 2012, 09:51
My FS expense sheet would probably add up to the equivalent of having shelled out for an ATPL license.:kilroy:


Unfortunately, I remain grounded as I'd never pass the medical exams...so I'll remain content to tinker with FS for the foreseeeable future.:)

warchild
January 7th, 2012, 10:16
You have to learn 3d modeling? Well, you ALSO have to 'learn' to do edits to flight dynamics. And they don't tell you everything-you just have to 'know' by experience (AND by trial & error). It's better if we specialize (re: Bob Chicilo). I don't think he can model anything (neither can I) but his 'updates' are invaluable. Details make it all so nice. Sloppy ain't going to make it. FS98, FS2000, FS2002, FS9, FSX-they all do 'things' different. So we 'manage' as best we can. I don't care about 'flaws' in model, as long as it performs like it should. It's all good.
Chuck B
Napamule

FS flight dynamics arent something anyone ever "knows" unless youve been doing them for a very long time. It helps to have a knowledge of fluid and aero dynamics, but FS is composed of limitations and alternatives. Take the A-10 for example. Its engines spew out their thrust at a ten degree upward angle from the centerline of the plane at a level that is four feet above the centerline.. FS has NO way to create that. SO we have to use something like pitch vs thrust to account for it. Thats one example.. Another would be the traveling center of lift. as a plane accelerates the break point for the boundary layer moves forward and so does the center of lift, but not in flight sim.. Theres no way to account for it either.. The SU-37 uses 3D thrust vectoring. It can shoot its exhaust in any direction up down or sideways. Mimicking that in FS is a major frikkin nightmare.

turning the tables and having FDE engineers learn 3D is just as bad.. One look inside Maya, Rhinocerous, or any of the offered packages is enough to scare hell outta almost anyone. Max is perhaps the most user friendly, and its still a two year learning curve to get up and running from not knowing a thing..

Your correct of course in your suggestion that we all specialize, which of course is the norm, Just as our real world counterparts dont try and do the others jobs, it works out pretty well ( I mean, could you imagine some prop specialist trying to fix your hydraulics?? )..