ELITE or ON TOP for IFR training?

My $.02-- FS2004 is good enough for procedures and scan. Don't bother
buying a yoke or pedals. Use a cheap "gamepad" type controller with
thumb-joystick (instead of a grip/wrist joystick). Go to "user
controlled weather, advanced" and turn turbulence to max, both on the
clouds panel and the winds panel. Give yourself a 30 knot crosswind
while you're at it.

I also used X-plane and On Top, but settled on FS2004... no experience
with Elite though.

--
Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

John Clonts wrote:
My $.02-- FS2004 is good enough for procedures and scan. Don't bother
buying a yoke or pedals. Use a cheap "gamepad" type controller with
thumb-joystick (instead of a grip/wrist joystick). Go to "user
controlled weather, advanced" and turn turbulence to max, both on the
clouds panel and the winds panel. Give yourself a 30 knot crosswind
while you're at it.

agreed. If you already have MSFS, just stick with it. No need
to spend any more. I got a cheap joystick that I could
use with my left hand. Most are made fighter-pilot style using
your righthand. As for the turbulence and winds, save those
for later on. First get you scan going. My CFII had me
doing a clover leaf pattern (name?) at set airspeeds and
vertical speeds. This is what simulators are good for. The
one thing that MSFS is bad for is true power settings for a performance.
Generally, learn what power settings give you a performance and
then use it on the flight sim but not in the actual airplane. Doesn't
really matter in reality though on the simulator.

Gerald

Bruno,
We started with MS FS 2002/2004 then gave Xplane a try. After trying
out the Elite program when checking out a Flight school, we bought the
program along with the IFR training manual It was worth every penny and
more. We got our instrument ratings two weeks ago but still plan to
continue using it for practices before every instrument flight.
You can download the demo program (fully functional but with 5 minute
time limit) to give it a try. Aside from the IFR training syllabus,
Elite also offer Instrument approach scenarios which are also quite
helpful.
Regarding hardware, we started with a joystick and rudder pedals then
replaced the joystick with the CH flight yoke. The joystick worked OK
but the yoke seemed to be closer to flying our plane.
Hai Longworth

What about the fact that Elite uses an old GPS box that is clunky,
difficult to use, and not even on the market any longer?

Also, as I recall, all user waypoints are lost when exiting the program.

Sure, I realize they have a Garmin interface if you have all their
expensive hardware, but no one at home would have that stuff.

I find Elite, at least for home use, stuck in the VOR/ILS/DME daze.

" wrote:

Bruno,
We started with MS FS 2002/2004 then gave Xplane a try. After trying
out the Elite program when checking out a Flight school, we bought the
program along with the IFR training manual It was worth every penny and
more. We got our instrument ratings two weeks ago but still plan to
continue using it for practices before every instrument flight.
You can download the demo program (fully functional but with 5 minute
time limit) to give it a try. Aside from the IFR training syllabus,
Elite also offer Instrument approach scenarios which are also quite
helpful.
Regarding hardware, we started with a joystick and rudder pedals then
replaced the joystick with the CH flight yoke. The joystick worked OK
but the yoke seemed to be closer to flying our plane.
Hai Longworth

Tim,
I do not believe that having a more modern GPS is essential for
IFR training. My husband started IFR training a year before me. He
used MS FS in conjunction with a traditional training program. In
witnessing his slow progress, I decided to spend time with a good
simulator program like Elite before starting mine. The structured
training syllabus was of tremendous help for me to get a feel of
instrument flying. After spending two weeks finishing up all the
lessons on the simulator, I resumed my book learning for the written
test. We then doing some hoodtime serving as each other's safety
pilot. When we took the accelerated IFR training course with Bill
Zaleski, very little time was spend on his PCATD. After 5 days, he
talked us into trying for the checkride. I believe that our practices
on the Elite, the many great books that we read (Gardner's, Dogan's,
Sollman's, Butcher's etc.) along with our own practices in our plane
had prepared us well for the actual training.
Our plane currently does not have a certified GPS, we plan to add
it in the near future. In the meantime, the basic VOR/ILS/localizer
etc. serve us well in our instrument flying.

Hai Longworth

Bruno wrote:
Dear All,

I'm following an airline pilot course in Belgium, and I'm to begin with the
IFR training next week in a FNPT2 simulator.

Don't waste your money on On Top or IP Trainer like I did. The
products don't work on any of the PC's I've tried them on and ASA
tech support is non-existant.

Ron Natalie wrote:
Bruno wrote:

Dear All,

I'm following an airline pilot course in Belgium, and I'm to begin
with the IFR training next week in a FNPT2 simulator.


Don't waste your money on On Top or IP Trainer like I did. The
products don't work on any of the PC's I've tried them on and ASA
tech support is non-existant.
I continue to use IPTrainer and have bought several upgrades. Version
6.0c is more stable than earlier versions, especially the older ones
that actually used a DOS memory manager.

Flying the lessons with IPT is challenging because it doesn't allow even
momentary errors. If you slip up on a minor detail right at the end of
the lesson, you must redo the entire lesson from the beginning. That
leads to boredom and little training. I have never made it through
flying "Plan A". Has anyone gotten all the way through?

Stubby wrote:

Flying the lessons with IPT is challenging because it doesn't allow even
momentary errors. If you slip up on a minor detail right at the end of
the lesson, you must redo the entire lesson from the beginning. That
leads to boredom and little training. I have never made it through
flying "Plan A". Has anyone gotten all the way through?

I wouldn't know. It has never operated long enough for me to get
through more than the first few lessons. It's a piece of crap and
a waste of over $300 for the pair.

In article ,
Flying the lessons with IPT is challenging because it doesn't allow even
momentary errors. If you slip up on a minor detail right at the end of
the lesson, you must redo the entire lesson from the beginning. That
leads to boredom and little training. I have never made it through
flying "Plan A". Has anyone gotten all the way through?

I wouldn't know. It has never operated long enough for me to get
through more than the first few lessons. It's a piece of crap and
a waste of over $300 for the pair.

I've got On Top and IP Trainier (old old verisons, got them when winME
was new forget verison). I basically can't run them on my new system.
However, I have an old win98 system that I use for genlocking and they
both work fine on it.
Both programs really need to be updated to work with win32s, but they
can run under winXP/win2k. It just takes a lot of playing with the
settings.

I wonder why there is no third-party lesson package for MSFS? The Rod
Machado lessons are helpful, but limited in scope.

Amore complete package of pre-configured flights would be a useful IFR
training accessory. Such a package would be like the Machado lessons in
MSFS, only much more extensive, say 40 hours worth. It would follow a
logical sequence to step you through all the various types and
configurations of procedures, with instructor voice over and some sort of
graphics in the flight analysis view. The package would come with all
required graphics, charts, and plates in printable form. The entire thing
could be sold or distributed as an internet download, and could probably be
done quite cheaply, say $30.

I know MSFS isn't the best flight model, but there are some big economic
advantages to using it. Everyone and their brother owns MSFS already, so
most folks would only have to buy the preconfigured flight package. The
developer would be free to concentrate on the lessons and documentation.
MSFS is relatively bug free, has extensive documentation and support, is
updated and upgraded every year, and interoperability with new versions of
Windows will never be an issue. There's a huge community of add-on planes
and panels out there, so it would be easy to match your mount. The
integrated ATC is well done.

Speaking as a new IFR student just starting out, I don't really want to use
a computer to learn to fly by reference to instruments. I'd rather do that
in an airplane. What I want help with is learning all the procedural stuff
and developing my situational awareness, so I'm not trying to learn how to
interpret a pair of VORs and NDB at $130 an hour. I don't think the lower
flight model quality is an issue there. The integrated Garmin GPS is
another plus.

Anyone familiar with the MSFS SDK? How hard would this be?

"'Vejita' S. Cousin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Flying the lessons with IPT is challenging because it doesn't allow even
momentary errors. If you slip up on a minor detail right at the end of
the lesson, you must redo the entire lesson from the beginning. That
leads to boredom and little training. I have never made it through
flying "Plan A". Has anyone gotten all the way through?

I wouldn't know. It has never operated long enough for me to get
through more than the first few lessons. It's a piece of crap and
a waste of over $300 for the pair.

I've got On Top and IP Trainier (old old verisons, got them when winME
was new forget verison). I basically can't run them on my new system.
However, I have an old win98 system that I use for genlocking and they
both work fine on it.
Both programs really need to be updated to work with win32s, but they
can run under winXP/win2k. It just takes a lot of playing with the
settings.