Favorite way to navigate

[pilottj]

Hey folks, the last poll I did we found that most people in this club prefer analog instruments, whichs is great. Now lets see what everyones favorite way to navigate is.

[Daveroo]

gps.......

[pilottj]

lol i forgot, consider an E6B for usage in option 2 lol....any pilot cant forget his trusty E6B :)

[robert41]

I fly mostly vintage aircraft. Using old time navigation adds to the enjoyment greatly.

[Brett_Henderson]

No real favorite for me.. It's airplane, mission and weather specific.

Short flights in light GA makes for fun dead-reckoning and pilotage.. longer flights might make radio-navigation fun.. IMC makes for very fun and rewarding, complete instrument flight .. including published approaches..

GPS (to me), defeats the whole purpose to sitting in front of a monitor and simulating being a pilot.... there's no navigational aspect to following a magenta line on a moving map...

[peter12213]

Mixing for me!

[ryanbatc]

Everything except the 2nd option... I'm not that into flight sim lol

[Piglet]

IFR.
I
Follow
Roads

[Dain Arns]

1 & 4
I used to know how to do 2 & 3, but that was a couple FS versions ago. :icon_lol:

[skyblazer3]

#2

http://cdn2.ioffer.com/img/item/846/801/96/POH059.jpg

[fliger747]

With FSX or Pacific Fighters, a favorite was toget my dad's WWII USN MK IIIA plotting board out and play find the carrier..... Takeoff form the moving carrier, fly to an Island, have lunch, and then find the carrier.....

Cheers: T

[Bone]

With FSX or Pacific Fighters, a favorite was toget my dad's WWII USN MK IIIA plotting board out and play find the carrier..... Takeoff form the moving carrier, fly to an Island, have lunch, and then find the carrier.....

Cheers: T

Those guys had balls.

http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/wwii-navy-pilot-navigational-plotting-board

[Lewis-A2A]

With FSX or Pacific Fighters, a favorite was toget my dad's WWII USN MK IIIA plotting board out and play find the carrier..... Takeoff form the moving carrier, fly to an Island, have lunch, and then find the carrier.....

Cheers: T

You will be surprised by how many fly IL-2 that way. Way back when I was active in a vSqn we flew an in the SEOW online wars and one was a pacific theate war. It was grand being able to takeoff go into combat with all human pilots and then try and find the carrier relying on the ole compass and protractor etc. It was made totally interesting when having to go home alone as you were damaged and or got lost from the main group. Seeing your escort in the form of another vsqn turn up and help you home was briliant. Some of the most immersive times ive had in a Flight sim were flying il-2/pacific fighters in that large online campaign.

[Dain Arns]

Must have been thinking about it after I answered last night.
I realized this morning, I haven't used these at all with FSX.
They've just been sitting on the desk here, collecting dust. :frown:

[Brett_Henderson]

Must have been thinking about it after I answered last night.
I realized this morning, I haven't used these at all with FSX.
They've just been sitting on the desk here, collecting dust. :frown:


A good chunk of piloting happens before you even step foot in the cockpit... flight-planning !

-loading
-fuel requirements
-route-planning
-nav-aid planning
-alternates
-weather
-track and ground-speed
-etc etc etc..

[Dain Arns]

A good chunk of piloting happens before you even step foot in the cockpit... flight-planning !

-loading
-fuel requirements
-route-planning
-nav-aid planning
-alternates
-weather
-track and ground-speed
-etc etc etc..

Yep. But I've gone totally digital.
Didn't really think about it, it just sorta happened over the years...

SkyVector.com (http://skyvector.com/)
AirNav.com (http://www.airnav.com/)
Fuel/Load Calculator/Excel Spreadsheet
Weather via Internet and Active Sky Evolution now since it now collects AIRMETS, METARS, and PIREPS, plus voiced Flightwatch by tuning to 122.00
Plan-G in moving map mode.
etc, etc.

Still, when the batteries are dead, you can't beat the functionality of a E6B (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E6B). :icon_lol:

[Pepere]

You didn't put the choice of "Flight Plans - IFR". I like Small tubliners 737, 727, Airbus 318 etc etc..

David

[Overshoe]

1 & 4

[Bjoern]

GPS.

VOR -> VOR is also an option.

[stiz]

its a mix for me, coastlines etc for places i know and gps for the places i'm not so sure on :)

[pilottj]

You didn't put the choice of "Flight Plans - IFR". I like Small tubliners 737, 727, Airbus 318 etc etc..

David


Flying IFR you still use various means of navigation :) Perhaps an enroute chart and following an IFR plan using VORs or a GPS. You might enjoy using an FMS in a 737 or A318 :) With the older airliners you might enjoy working with an INS system :).

Any of you guys remember Loran C? :)

Cheers
TJ

[MarkH]

Of course...

mc1x9G3XoXs

[idancesafetydance]

Being a real-world glider pilot, and a big fan of sailing in FSX, just give me a few roads or some crops that make parallel section lines, and I'm good.

[ryanbatc]

A good chunk of piloting happens before you even step foot in the cockpit... flight-planning !

-loading
-fuel requirements
-route-planning
-nav-aid planning
-alternates
-weather
-track and ground-speed
-etc etc etc..

Brett we're talking Flight Sim here :icon_lol:

[Roadburner440]

Really depends on what I am flying to be honest, and the means of navigation I have available to me. If I am flying a modern commercial airliner I use VOR/NDB/ILS/DME.. If I am flying say an A2A bird I use landmarks/roadmaps/coastline. I like to mix it up though and do a bit of it all.

[Brett_Henderson]

Brett we're talking Flight Sim here :icon_lol:


Exactly.. simulating being a pilot. :cost1:


I don't just fire up the sim.. pick an airplane, and takeoff.

Every flight has a simulated mission to it. The bigger and faster the airplane, the more complex the mission. It can be as simple as simulating flying a buddy out for a $100 burger in a C172... or as complex as simulating getting four paying passengers up to Mackinac Island in a Seneca. Recently, I've been simulating scheduled cargo runs in a C130. And I've got a multi-leg, 'around the country' tour going in a C206.

I wouldn't anymore take to the air in a sim plane without a thorough, realistic flight-plan, than I would a real airplane. And if the weather looks less than cooperative, the planning is more complex... ala .. simulating a filed instrument flight-plan.. with alternates, and all nav-aid info written down for in-flight reference.. and a meticulously planned fuel-consumption schedule.

I do this for a couple of reasons. Mainly, it keeps my interest-level high, and complacency low... and keeps the piloting part of my brain sharp between real flights.

Even when I'm testing a model in the works.. I go through a realistic checklist and start-up routine.

[Roadburner440]

I admit Mr. Hendersons last post was spot on for me. There is no point in FSX than to simulate being a pilot, and do your own little "missions." Usually I am able to create stuff based on what is going on around me whether it be hurrivac, transporting people somewhere, or just flying back to my hometown (which Aerosoft just released for the US Cities X so have to pick that up). For me it is about doing all the things I would do if I had all these aircraft. Which means abiding by FAA rules, and creating flightplans, etc. Also concur with testing new models. Always good to be familiar with where everything is before it hits the fan. Then again that is for people that fly with the failures and such on. As time goes on I find myself getting more into it such as learning restricted airspace, looking up NOTAMS, etc. Really it is all what you make of it and that is why it is a sandbox. Anyone can do what they want with it, and as long as we each enjoy what we make of it that is all that counts.

[Bone]

Real world: FMS/GPS. Sim world: pilotage over photo real scenery...and low level.

[Daycab]

Personally, I prefer the Jimmy Stewart Method. Stick your head out the window and yell at some farmer on the ground 'WHICH WAY TO AARRREEELLAANNNDDD!'

[skyblazer3]

There is no point in FSX than to simulate being a pilot,

I guess this is why I've poured thousands of hours into the sim and still haven't beat the game. I've been flying around looking for a boss to defeat :wiggle:.

It would also explain my inability to find cheat codes...........

[Bone]

I guess this is why I've poured thousands of hours into the sim and still haven't beat the game. I've been flying around looking for a boss to defeat :wiggle:.

It would also explain my inability to find cheat codes...........


Since it's a simulator and not a game, there's really nothing to beat. You learn skills and then maintain proficiency. There is no finish line to proficiency, unless you just quit.

[PRB]

Well, 90 percent of my flights in FS are short hops around the field. Take off, then land. So I don't do much navigating. But (but), when we are having a multi-player, on-line race/event, the navigation rule is usually NDB, DR, and IFR3 (I Follow Roads, Rivers, and Rails) only, i.e., no GPS allowed, which is quite a lot of fun. If you still have FS9 installed you can get really wild and crazy and navigate by means of that long lost Golden Age of Flight system known as the four course radio range. That's cool. Too bad it doesn't work in FSX!

I voted "mix".

[Hurricane91]

If there is a need to navigate, I'll hire a navigator. I hear this Gatty fellow is pretty good.

[ryanbatc]

Exactly.. simulating being a pilot. :cost1:


I don't just fire up the sim.. pick an airplane, and takeoff.

Every flight has a simulated mission to it. The bigger and faster the airplane, the more complex the mission. It can be as simple as simulating flying a buddy out for a $100 burger in a C172... or as complex as simulating getting four paying passengers up to Mackinac Island in a Seneca. Recently, I've been simulating scheduled cargo runs in a C130. And I've got a multi-leg, 'around the country' tour going in a C206.

I wouldn't anymore take to the air in a sim plane without a thorough, realistic flight-plan, than I would a real airplane. And if the weather looks less than cooperative, the planning is more complex... ala .. simulating a filed instrument flight-plan.. with alternates, and all nav-aid info written down for in-flight reference.. and a meticulously planned fuel-consumption schedule.

I do this for a couple of reasons. Mainly, it keeps my interest-level high, and complacency low... and keeps the piloting part of my brain sharp between real flights.

Even when I'm testing a model in the works.. I go through a realistic checklist and start-up routine.

To each their own lol.... it's flight sim because I can just get in and go when I want, where I want :jump:

[Brett_Henderson]

To each their own lol.... it's flight sim because I can just get in and go when I want, where I want :jump:

Yup.. you gotta sim in a manner that you enjoy..

What I enjoy, is the levels of realism.. realistic models, with realistic performance, in a realistic environment.... I prefer to carry the realism into how I use the sim, too :salute:

[skyblazer3]

I completely agree with Henderson. My comment about flying around looking for a boss to beat and cheat codes was obviously a joke.

After having flown flight sim from 1995, Mig Alley, Falcon 4.0, lots of Janes fighter games, Wings over Europe and Vietnam, and IL2 and LOMAC -- FSX is by far the closest i've come to feeling like real flight. The level of immersion is incredible -- and I think it comes from being able to realistically plan most phases of flight.

There are moments in FSX while flying a well planned and immaculately briefed formation flight under realistic ATC that I forget I am in a sim (especially if flying over photo-real terrain). Those brief moments where my disbelief is suspended -- that's why I fly this simulator. I haven't felt it in any other game.

Chris

[Javis]

Personally, I prefer the Jimmy Stewart Method. Stick your head out the window and yell at some farmer on the ground 'WHICH WAY TO AARRREEELLAANNNDDD!'

:jump:

cheers,
jan

[Javis]

Personally, I prefer the Jimmy Stewart Method. Stick your head out the window and yell at some farmer on the ground 'WHICH WAY TO AARRREEELLAANNNDDD!'


:jump:

cheers,
Jan

[Javis]

One word missing here... : Jeppesen

Used to be a magic word to me. Used to be a great hobby on its own, trying to collect as much as possible out of date High and Low Altitude Enroute charts and Terminal charts, understanding them and learn how to use them with FS.

Now, i haven't done a VORDME Approach with correct IAF and Procedure Turn using a Terminal chart for years, let alone a NDB approach with 11NM DME Arc ( very proud when i managed that the first time.. :) ) My whole collection of Jeppesen charts ( and complete set of NOAA IAP booklets to cover the US ) is gathering nothing but dust for years now, sad really....

I felt much more like a pilot then than i do now.... :)

I ' blame' FSNav for that ( like one of our famous soccer player Johan Cruyff's unmistakable sayings : Every advantage has its disadvantage ). But i do know one thing, i shall never use GPS. I understand it's the bees knees in the RW ( love it in my car ) but i don't see any fun in navigating my computer plane via a computer, that's just one computer too much. I guess i don't have to say what i think about FMS ( although i did learn to use it... ) :p:

cheers,
Jan 'Vordme' Visser
old fart

[wiltzei]

It depends on my mood and the aircraft.

Usually, when checking out new sceneries, I usually fly around and then select a "Direct to" route to a landing place.

Hardcore IFR navigation is also fun. Yesterday I planned a flat-out Superbug flight from Darrington 1S2 to Wrangell PAWG, first checking out some WAC and enroute charts and finally doing a LOC-DME approach. It was fun, especially in the Bug.

I just flew a fully IFR flight from Luxembourg ELLX to Rotterdam EHDR with the Simcheck A300 B4. Cloud base was around 1000AGL and seeing the runway pop into view was surprising, to be honest. Using all the navigation aids and the INS is rewarding if you get it right.

[centuryseries]

No has mentioned using a sextant in FSX yet...... :jump:

We're the Fakawee

[pilottj]

Lol yeah a sextant would be another choice. Is FS astrologically accurate? Could one navigate by the stars? I've never tried it, sounds interesting:applause:

[wiltzei]

Is FS astrologically accurate?
There´s a program called AutoStar.

Here´s a direct quote from AVSIM library: "AutoStar is a program that allows new features to be added to the night sky. It adds the brighter planets in the correct position for any date. Optionally it can add comets, images or user objects such as a lunar eclipse or Messier objects. The program can import the SAO star catalogue, thus allowing the number of background stars to be significantly increased."

I´ve tried using it a couple of times, but only gotten really strange objects which seem to have been painted using MS Paint to the sky...

[CybrSlydr]

When I flew, I'd always do a GPS course. Reason being is I flew for the scenery, sightseeing. It wasn't getting somewhere, it's what I saw on the way. :)

GPS is great so I'd just hit the "on" switch, change out to an exterior view or the 3D pit and I'm set. :)

[HighGround22]

Real world: FMS/GPS. Sim world: pilotage over photo real scenery...and low level.Reminds me of a *really* nifty hoplist I've done a couple of times.

It's one of Red-Dog's magnificent collection. Starts down in southern New Mexico and it follows the rocky, vertical real estate all the way up to Alaska, hopping from one distant airfield to another.

I'd set FSX to 31 January and the weather to Winter Wonderland, and select Piglet's wonderful OV-1 Mohawk.

Fly the entire route Nap-Of-The-Earth, no higher than 100 feet, and what with the snow squalls, scud clouds, and sometimes flying almost straight up or straight down, it made for some real exciting flying.

But when you add-in navigation, well . . . it made for decidedly busy times! I'd typically wait for momentary open stretches with reasonable visibility, where I'd check my headings and distance to go, etc. Then back to big eyeballs out the windscreen.

Some of the best fun I've had, sitting-up, ay-gawd!

[Bone]

Reminds me of a *really* nifty hoplist I've done a couple of times.

It's one of Red-Dog's magnificent collection. Starts down in southern New Mexico and it follows the rocky, vertical real estate all the way up to Alaska, hopping from one distant airfield to another.

I'd set FSX to 31 January and the weather to Winter Wonderland, and select Piglet's wonderful OV-1 Mohawk.

Fly the entire route Nap-Of-The-Earth, no higher than 100 feet, and what with the snow squalls, scud clouds, and sometimes flying almost straight up or straight down, it made for some real exciting flying.

But when you add-in navigation, well . . . it made for decidedly busy times! I'd typically wait for momentary open stretches with reasonable visibility, where I'd check my headings and distance to go, etc. Then back to big eyeballs out the windscreen.

Some of the best fun I've had, sitting-up, ay-gawd!

I'll have to try this, sounds fun. As much as I like Piglets OV-10, I may have to do it in his A-29 Tucano.

[HighGround22]

. . . As much as I like Piglets OV-10, I may have to do it in his A-29 Tucano.Yeah, it wouldn't matter since the really BEEG factor is that the aircraft has bags of power available.

All too often, you find "cumulo-granite" embedded in a snow squall. Having popped into a squall, it turns-out to be fairly large, so things are white out there for an uncomfortably long time. But then suddenly it gets kinda dark outside, so it's hard-back on the pole, full throttle and straight up!

Woo-hoo! It's a real rush, seeing a vertical chunk of mountain go whizzing-by in the murk, just a few feet away! Like I said, it was the most fun I've had sitting-up.