MS Flight Sim As a Training Tool

Can you log it? No, for one the flight models are rubbish.

Actually, I've found this is NOT true. What I *thought* were bad
flight models was actually the computer lagging just a split
millisecond behind my control inputs. It was imperceptible, and
everything *looked* smooth -- but it was obviously there.

When we hooked everything up to a truly world-class computer, the
impact was immediate and everyone noticed it. Suddenly, the "flight
models" were dead-on, because the controls were finally responding in
real time.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Really?

Spin the plane, stall it and put it in a spin... the models are not
full, it won't do a spin.

wrote:
Really?

Spin the plane, stall it and put it in a spin... the models are not
full, it won't do a spin.


I'm not a pilot, but there add-on aircraft that according to their
developers will spin. The description for the (free) RealAir Cessna 172
specifically states that "it will side-slip and spin".

fromTheShadows wrote:
wrote:
Really?

Spin the plane, stall it and put it in a spin... the models are not
full, it won't do a spin.


I'm not a pilot, but there add-on aircraft that according to their
developers will spin. The description for the (free) RealAir Cessna 172
specifically states that "it will side-slip and spin".

Great I'm getting into one of these arguments...

Anyway, the only readily available simulator that can be bought at a
store that simulates aerodynamics "properly" is x-plane, in fact the
engine that is used to simulate the physics of an airfoil does so
completley without using benchmarks of real world aircraft, just their
virtual models, and does it accuratley. X-plane is also endorsed by the
FAA as a PCATD... or something along those lines, I don't remember
exactly what, but it's a lot better (from a physics standpoint) than
Microsoft's release.

wrote:
Great I'm getting into one of these arguments...


I'm not trying to be argumentative at all. You said that MSFS aircraft
won't spin, and that isn't necessarily true. I even went so far as to
state that I'm not a pilot and so am only going off what the developers say.

Jon Kraus writes:

Oh really. Have you flown in any clouds so you can make that statement
honestly? In my always humble opinion there is a huge difference
between flying IMC for real and playing a computer game.

MSFS isn't exactly a computer game, although the latest version tries
to be.

If MSFS were "as real as it gets" then why can't your time playing
be logged?

For the same reason you can't just install any replacement lamp in
your aircraft.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Judah writes:

I think it's hard to simulate that without a full motion simulator...

For IFR, a simulator with no motion would also be useful. You may
have to learn to ignore distracting sensations, but it's also useful
to learn to fly with no sensations at all. After all, in IMC you may
not have distracting sensations--you may simply feel that your in
comfy, level flight, even as the plane turns or does other unwanted
things. I've seen a lot of discussion of spatial disorientation, but
none of simply losing all cues altogether, even though that would be
quite an issue in IMC flight.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"fromTheShadows" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Great I'm getting into one of these arguments...


I'm not trying to be argumentative at all. You said that MSFS aircraft
won't spin, and that isn't necessarily true. I even went so far as to
state that I'm not a pilot and so am only going off what the developers
say.

It's my understanding is that MSFS has no Physics engine it is table based
where as X-Plane does have a Physics engine. The better add-on planes for
MSFS just have more data in the tables but still there is no way a table
based simulator can have every possible combinations.

Even X-Plane's physics engine isn't as good as that in some of the more
complex games such as "Half Life." It really surprises me that someone
hasn't come along and used a modified Half-Life engine in a flight sim.

writes:

Can you log it? No, for one the flight models are rubbish.

This changes with a few expensive add-ons. The standard MSFS aircraft
are compromises, but you can but add-ons that are just like the real
thing ... so much better, in fact, that it's not unlike having a
completely new simulator.

Is it worth paying 5 bucks to a student who can take flight simulator
and see what they can do about flying approaches, especially DME arcs
etc on a sim, which they can pause and see whats going on, instead of
doing it cold turkey in an airplane the first time burning valuable
time and too busy doing the next thing before they grasp the last
thing? Yeah, the 5 bucks goes a long way.

You can also analyze your flights in MSFS, to see just how closely you
followed your intended course or pattern. I do that all the time.
You can see how consistent your climbs and descents are, how smooth
your turns are, how well you can stay in a holding or traffic pattern,
how well you can hold a course over a long distance, etc.

You can also dial up whatever weather you want, including weather that
would be far too dangerous to train in in real life. Want to see if
you can land in a 40-knot crosswind? No problem. Want fog so thick
you can't see the nose of your own aircraft? Coming right up. Have a
particular blend of IMC or VMC that you'd like to try out but that
never seems to actually occur in your neck of the woods? That's easy
to do, too.

Do you need to learn how to use a GPS? The GPS simulations in some
add-on aircraft are _identical_ to the real thing: you can literally
step away from the sim and use the real GPS on a real aircraft without
missing a beat. A great many other instruments behave identically.

Flight models can be very accurate if you purchase add-ons that are
optimized to match the real aircraft as closely as possible. If you
want to spend ten minutes starting the engines on a 737, that's
possible, too. If you like programming an FMS and then watching it
fly the aircraft for you, you can do that.

All of this would be cripplingly expensive and time-consuming--and
sometimes impossible--in a real aircraft. If you've spent tens of
thousands of dollars on real flight, why deprive yourself of
simulation that you could have for just a few dollars more?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Jay Honeck writes:

Actually, I've found this is NOT true. What I *thought* were bad
flight models was actually the computer lagging just a split
millisecond behind my control inputs. It was imperceptible, and
everything *looked* smooth -- but it was obviously there.

The sensitivity adjustments in MSFS produce a lag. That is, when you
set the control sensitivity low, what MSFS actually does is lag the
response to controls, so they seem less "sensitive." If you want
instant response, dial the sensitivity up to maximum on all controls.

When we hooked everything up to a truly world-class computer, the
impact was immediate and everyone noticed it. Suddenly, the "flight
models" were dead-on, because the controls were finally responding in
real time.

I suppose that's a factor, too. If you are getting less than 25
frames per second, the controls are probably lagging to some extent,
although the frame lag is worse.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.