Realistic Instrument Training using MSFS 2004

I've been told that all sims have overly sensitive pitch. That has been my
experience with a Frasca, ASA's Instrument Procedure Trainer, and Elite. Hard
to understand why no one fixes it, but apparently they don't.

On 2/13/2007 6:43 PM, wrote the following:
Hi All,

I'm a longtime lurker here, but now I have a question I hope the group
can help me with. I am working toward my instrument rating (21 hours
so far), and want to use MSFS to practice (cheaply). I do fine with
holding a heading, but I find it very difficult to maintain an
altitude. The real plane is much much easier. I also noticed that
even when the scenery flies by smoothly (when I'm in VMC!) the
instruments seem to update at a slower rate. Not quite a slide show,
but harder than it should be to control. I've tried fiddling with
the realism and sensitivity settings to no avail. I have noticed a
number of folks posting on this group use this simulator to maintain
proficiency, and I was just wondering how you have it set up.

FYI...I'm using the CH products USB Flight Sim yolk, and the CH USB
rudder pedals. The computer seems plenty fast enough with a 256MB
graphics card. Like I mentioned before, everything is very smooth
except for the instruments refreshing.

Thanks everyone!

Steve

On Feb 13, 7:17 pm, Mitty wrote:
I've been told that all sims have overly sensitive pitch. That has been my
experience with a Frasca, ASA's Instrument Procedure Trainer, and Elite. Hard
to understand why no one fixes it, but apparently they don't.


I haven't tried those simulators, just MSFS. I would be willing to
pay the bucks if it would help. It's a lot cheaper than an extra
lesson (or two or three).

Steve

I've been told that all sims have overly sensitive pitch. That has been
my
experience with a Frasca, ASA's Instrument Procedure Trainer, and Elite.
Hard
to understand why no one fixes it, but apparently they don't.


I haven't tried those simulators, just MSFS. I would be willing to
pay the bucks if it would help. It's a lot cheaper than an extra
lesson (or two or three).

I have read that the old Link Trainers were very sensitive in pitch, and
also much more slippery than the aircraft they were intended to train
for--such as B17's. In the case of the Link, I presume that was by design;
however I have difficulty believing that MSFS would have been done that way
deliberately.

I have no experience in the Link, or in any of the PC based sims. I am
simply curious and inviting comment.

Peter

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message ...
I've been told that all sims have overly sensitive pitch. That has been
my
experience with a Frasca, ASA's Instrument Procedure Trainer, and Elite.
Hard
to understand why no one fixes it, but apparently they don't.


I haven't tried those simulators, just MSFS. I would be willing to
pay the bucks if it would help. It's a lot cheaper than an extra
lesson (or two or three).

I have read that the old Link Trainers were very sensitive in pitch, and
also much more slippery than the aircraft they were intended to train
for--such as B17's. In the case of the Link, I presume that was by design;
however I have difficulty believing that MSFS would have been done that way
deliberately.

I have no experience in the Link, or in any of the PC based sims. I am
simply curious and inviting comment.

Peter


Dunno what comments you're looking for, but I have Link time.
For flying, they were *at least* as bad as you said!
Stall/Spin events were an everyday occurrence.
But remember, their purpose was for procedures training,
not flight training. They were good for their purpose.

Keep the same attitude toward the PC sims, and you'll be OK.
Even FlightSafety's twin-Cessna full-motion simulator won't simulate landing.
FlightSafety instructors will issue a flight review in the simulator,
but only after the student certifies the required prior actual aircraft landings.

I've been told that all sims have overly sensitive pitch. That has
been
my
experience with a Frasca, ASA's Instrument Procedure Trainer, and
Elite.
Hard
to understand why no one fixes it, but apparently they don't.


I haven't tried those simulators, just MSFS. I would be willing to
pay the bucks if it would help. It's a lot cheaper than an extra
lesson (or two or three).

I have read that the old Link Trainers were very sensitive in pitch, and
also much more slippery than the aircraft they were intended to train
for--such as B17's. In the case of the Link, I presume that was by
design;
however I have difficulty believing that MSFS would have been done that
way
deliberately.

I have no experience in the Link, or in any of the PC based sims. I am
simply curious and inviting comment.


Dunno what comments you're looking for, but I have Link time.
For flying, they were *at least* as bad as you said!
Stall/Spin events were an everyday occurrence.
But remember, their purpose was for procedures training,
not flight training. They were good for their purpose.

Keep the same attitude toward the PC sims, and you'll be OK.
Even FlightSafety's twin-Cessna full-motion simulator won't simulate
landing.
FlightSafety instructors will issue a flight review in the simulator,
but only after the student certifies the required prior actual aircraft
landings.

I was mostly curious whether the pitch sensitivity and/or slipperiness of
the smaller sims was happenstance or by design.

Of course, you and many others have it exactly right--they are sufficient
for their purpose.

Peter

If you're near a college with an aviation department, see if there's
a way you can register for one of the sim courses. Local college here
has 12 Frasca, 4 ATP, an old DC10 that United donated over
10 years ago and 4 B1900 (don't know the vendor). Trust me, using a
Frasca is a couple orders of magnitude more effective than anything
MS sells. Plus, you get to count the hours towards the rating (which
you can't with MSFS).

Yes, it'll be mroe expensive but you won't pick up bad habits.

On Feb 14, 11:22 pm, Blanche wrote:
If you're near a college with an aviation department, see if there's
a way you can register for one of the sim courses. Local college here
has 12 Frasca, 4 ATP, an old DC10 that United donated over
10 years ago and 4 B1900 (don't know the vendor). Trust me, using a
Frasca is a couple orders of magnitude more effective than anything
MS sells. Plus, you get to count the hours towards the rating (which
you can't with MSFS).

Yes, it'll be mroe expensive but you won't pick up bad habits.

A few years ago I participated in a study at the University of
Illinois. They were seeing how long VFR pilots could last in IMC.
It wasn't a Frasca simulator (I don't remember what kind it was), but
the outside view was displayed by 3 projection screens.

Somehow I managed to live :-)

I didn't know that these simulators were open to the public. Do you
have to enroll in a class in order to use them?

On 02/13/07 16:43, wrote:
Hi All,

I'm a longtime lurker here, but now I have a question I hope the group
can help me with. I am working toward my instrument rating (21 hours
so far), and want to use MSFS to practice (cheaply). I do fine with
holding a heading, but I find it very difficult to maintain an
altitude. The real plane is much much easier.

This is definitely true. What I finally did was to make use of the
auto pilot. I can have it hold the altitude for me and I don't need
to worry about it.

At times, I'll use the auto pilot to hold the heading as well, but
this isn't as much of a problem in the sim, so I usually do that only
when it's a long flight along an airway and I want to just let it
go until things get interesting again ;-)

I also noticed that
even when the scenery flies by smoothly (when I'm in VMC!) the
instruments seem to update at a slower rate. Not quite a slide show,
but harder than it should be to control. I've tried fiddling with
the realism and sensitivity settings to no avail. I have noticed a
number of folks posting on this group use this simulator to maintain
proficiency, and I was just wondering how you have it set up.

I can think of a couple things. First, configure the weather to provide
you with white-out conditions at the altitudes you plan to fly. This will
reduce the work load on the CPU for drawing all the scenery.

Next, look into your graphics card. There may be upgraded drivers for
it that will improve the performance. If not, you may want to look into
a better graphics card.



FYI...I'm using the CH products USB Flight Sim yolk, and the CH USB
rudder pedals. The computer seems plenty fast enough with a 256MB
graphics card. Like I mentioned before, everything is very smooth
except for the instruments refreshing.

Are you seeing this problem with anything other than the AI? I
see this a little on the AI but not on anything else.


Thanks everyone!

Steve


I've found the simulator to be very good at keeping me sharp on the
procedures, etc. Of course, I'd rather be in a real plane, but just
can't get out as often as I would like.



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

On Feb 13, 7:22 pm, Mark Hansen wrote:
On 02/13/07 16:43, wrote:

Hi All,

I'm a longtime lurker here, but now I have a question I hope the group
can help me with. I am working toward my instrument rating (21 hours
so far), and want to use MSFS to practice (cheaply). I do fine with
holding a heading, but I find it very difficult to maintain an
altitude. The real plane is much much easier.

This is definitely true. What I finally did was to make use of the
auto pilot. I can have it hold the altitude for me and I don't need
to worry about it.

At times, I'll use the auto pilot to hold the heading as well, but
this isn't as much of a problem in the sim, so I usually do that only
when it's a long flight along an airway and I want to just let it
go until things get interesting again ;-)

I also noticed that
even when the scenery flies by smoothly (when I'm in VMC!) the
instruments seem to update at a slower rate. Not quite a slide show,
but harder than it should be to control. I've tried fiddling with
the realism and sensitivity settings to no avail. I have noticed a
number of folks posting on this group use this simulator to maintain
proficiency, and I was just wondering how you have it set up.

I can think of a couple things. First, configure the weather to provide
you with white-out conditions at the altitudes you plan to fly. This will
reduce the work load on the CPU for drawing all the scenery.

Next, look into your graphics card. There may be upgraded drivers for
it that will improve the performance. If not, you may want to look into
a better graphics card.



FYI...I'm using the CH products USB Flight Sim yolk, and the CH USB
rudder pedals. The computer seems plenty fast enough with a 256MB
graphics card. Like I mentioned before, everything is very smooth
except for the instruments refreshing.

Are you seeing this problem with anything other than the AI? I
see this a little on the AI but not on anything else.



Thanks everyone!

Steve

I've found the simulator to be very good at keeping me sharp on the
procedures, etc. Of course, I'd rather be in a real plane, but just
can't get out as often as I would like.

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA


You know using the autopilot in the simulator to just hold altitude is
one thing I haven't thought about. The only autopilot I have in the
'real' plane is a single axis (heading only) which I'm not using while
learning the rating. Very good idea!

You are right about seeing the smoothness problem mostly on the AI.
This happens with no scenery displayed (in the clouds). I haven't
checked to see if there are any updated drivers available for my video
card, but I will! With everything else so smooth, it seems odd that
the instrument display is the only thing that isn't.

Thanks for your suggestions.

Steve

This happens with no scenery displayed (in the clouds).


MSFS does calculate scenery even when showing whit. You need to turn
down the detail level (and dynamic scenery - very important!). Also,
check the realism settings. All but P-factor (totally unrealistic)
should be high.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)