A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Simulators
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

FS2004 approaches, ATC etc



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 31st 03, 01:22 PM
henri Arsenault
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default FS2004 approaches, ATC etc

I played around some more with FS2004 last night. The ATC is much
improved, and you can now see approach plates in the GPS moving map
display.

However the approach plates are not complete. For example, the
approaches to LAX do not have all of the legs of the approaches shown in
the plates, and some are absent. Instead of the names that they have on
the plates, they are named by the first waypoint. For instance, the
Northeast approach to LAX is FIM, and begins at the FIM waypoint. This
is a minor quibble, there are enough wayponts for a realistic approach;
but one should get the plates if one wants to practice the whole
approach thing like in the real world.

The online documentation does a pretty good job of explaining how to use
the GPS and the approaches, but newbies may find it tough sledding and
should consider learning about approaches from another book before
delving into this.

You can call up the approaches fromthe GPS, where the legs are displayed
on the moving map (you need good eyes, it is small and you can't scroll
the moving map). You can add the approach to your flight plan before
takeoff or on the fly, but here it gets a bit confusing if you are using
the autopilot. If you use the GPS to follow your flight plan, you have
to manually shift to the approach at some (any) time during flight, and
if you are using the autopilot, you have to remember to change the
autopilot from "nav" to "heading", otherwise it will not follow the
approach. The GPS will not land you, so if you want to follow the
glideslope in, you have to switch back to "apr", change the switch from
"GPS" to "CDI" (or whatever).

In the meantime the runway frequency has not been entered automatically
into the CDI, so you have to do that manually (If you are using ATC,
that can be done automatically in the usual manner by acknowledging the
ATC instructions - but I am not sure if the ATC will or will not follow
your flight plan-probably not).

It is also unclear to me that if one is flying autopilot (not GPS) and
adds the approach to the flight plan, will the autopilot follow the
approach by itself when it reaches that point, or does one have to do it
manually? The easy way would be if the autopilot just keeps following
the waypoints added to the flight plan, then all one has to do is to
press the "apr" button at some point to lock on to the glideslope (after
adjusting the correct frequencies and bearing).

The above should make it clear why correctly flying IFR requires years
of training...

The ATC is improved, but has at least one of the irritating bugs of
FS2002, namely the multiple handing off back and forth between the same
two controllers after takeoff. Anyway now the ATC will vector you around
your destination in a ralistic way, and there are additions like the
ability to request a different runway or a different altitude.

To get around the unrealistic idea of having a moving map GPS display in
the Spirit of St louis, there are two versions of the Garmin, the normal
one and the handheld one, for use in older aircraft. So if you are so
inclined you could fly Lindberg's flight to Paris with the help of a
handheld GPS device.

Holy mackeral! I never realizd that the top speed of the Piper Cub was a
measly 85 mph! That's slower than a car, and it could be embarrasing to
fly a Cub along an autobahn in Germany with cars zipping by...

What is missing in FS2004? Well, the 3D scenery is still inferior in
accuracy to some addons for FS2002, and I am sure that updates of these
programs like the one that has true altitudes for North america (forgot
the name) will have FS2004 versions out soon. The panel for the heavy
metal is still the same generic one, which doesn't bother me too much (I
bought the detailed 747 and 767 ones for FS2002 (forgot the name again),
but found them too complex and didn't use them much. For modern planes
there are no new ones that were not in the FS2002 Pro package; seems to
me thay could have added at least one medium size short-haul commercial
turbojet.

As far as I could detemine, there is no tutorial for using approach
plates. Perhaps it was considered that this would be too complex and is
better learned from a book. The excellent addon FS2000 book by the guy
with the Chinese name (forgot the title-sorry) or the thick Flight
Simulator 2000 Handbook can be used for that. There are also good
tutorial sites on the web, but I have forgotten their names also.

Henri
Ads
  #2  
Old July 31st 03, 07:16 PM
akiley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It's an incremental upgrade, but I think it's worth it. It provides a lot
of fun and practice in between the times when I can afford a real plane. It
costs me 54 bucks just to think about renting the real thing. ... Aaron

"Fred Abberline" wrote in message
...
On this day of our lord, 31 Jul 2003 09:06:54 -0500, "Dr. Speedbyrd:"
quilled:


Doesn't sound like this 'long awaited' release is much different than

FS2002 which had a
minimum of problems. Didn't even require a patch.


Uh-huh, remember I told you this when I said FS2004 isn't worth 3+gb
of HD space? I was right.



  #3  
Old July 31st 03, 07:45 PM
Marco Leon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Shhhh! You should have let them keep thinking that...it makes us
instrument-rated folk look better!

Marco



"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"henri Arsenault" wrote in message
...
The above should make it clear why correctly flying IFR requires years
of training...


Huh? My instrument rating took three months, start to finish. There are
some folks who complete the flight training in 10 days (though they do

spend
additional days or even weeks prior to that studying the books). Years of
training? I don't think so.

Pete





Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
  #4  
Old July 31st 03, 10:00 PM
Jankins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Doesn't sound like this 'long awaited' release is much different than

FS2002 which had a
minimum of problems. Didn't even require a patch.


Uh-huh, remember I told you this when I said FS2004 isn't worth 3+gb
of HD space? I was right.


Hmmm - 3GB Hard Drive space is 'bout $4 and FS9 is about $2.25 per month
(assuming 24 months until next release). . .Yep - I think $2.25 per month is
more than a fair price for FS9.


  #5  
Old August 1st 03, 06:47 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"henri Arsenault" wrote in message
...
Hmmm, OK...How long does it take from scratch for a pilot to train as
an passenger airline pilot for a major airline?


It varies widely. Some of the bigger flight schools have two-year "ab
initio" programs, I believe. Some airline pilots take a less structured
route, and have as much as a decade of flying (or more) under the belt
before an airline hires them.

Not that airline pilots have anything to do with your comment.

How many hours of training does it take a novice before he is qualified
to solo in the worst IFR conditions?


You have to define "novice". A private pilot in the US needs only 40 hours
of instrument training before they are granted a rating that allows them to
fly in the worst IFR conditions. You can, of course, debate whether they
are truly "qualified", but once you start equivocating on that, you've gone
down a very slippery road.

The fact remains that plenty of people "correctly" fly IFR with much less
than a year of training.

Pete


  #6  
Old August 2nd 03, 04:18 AM
Aaron Kiley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Years of training is abour right. Most of the people I know who have got
instrument ratings (me included) took at least a year. We have jobs and
can't afford to do it all at once. Then once you get your checkride over
you usually have minimal experience in actual IFR conditions. It takes
years to get good at it no doubt. To get proficent at IFR also requires you
get your pilots licence first which takes just as long as the instrument
rating. ... Aaron




"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"henri Arsenault" wrote in message
...
Hmmm, OK...How long does it take from scratch for a pilot to train as
an passenger airline pilot for a major airline?


It varies widely. Some of the bigger flight schools have two-year "ab
initio" programs, I believe. Some airline pilots take a less structured
route, and have as much as a decade of flying (or more) under the belt
before an airline hires them.

Not that airline pilots have anything to do with your comment.

How many hours of training does it take a novice before he is qualified
to solo in the worst IFR conditions?


You have to define "novice". A private pilot in the US needs only 40

hours
of instrument training before they are granted a rating that allows them

to
fly in the worst IFR conditions. You can, of course, debate whether they
are truly "qualified", but once you start equivocating on that, you've

gone
down a very slippery road.

The fact remains that plenty of people "correctly" fly IFR with much less
than a year of training.

Pete




  #7  
Old August 2nd 03, 05:21 PM
akiley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

How bout we compromise, it takes months of training. I guess I have the
perspective of my flying club. It gets hard to even schedule an
instructor/airplane more than two times a week in the busy season. I have a
job/family/kids which adds to the scheduling problem. Some parts of the
country have VERY little actual conditions available for logging IMC. After
getting my ticket, there was no way I was going for weather down to
minimums. I've been gradually picking good days where I can bite off more
and more weather.

I suppose you can correctly fly IFR with weeks of training, but I would be
very surprised if that was the national average. The IFR rating is
considered to be one of the harder ratings to obtain. ...Aaron

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Aaron Kiley" wrote in message
...
Years of training is abour right. Most of the people I know who have

got
instrument ratings (me included) took at least a year.


And most of the people I know (me included) didn't take nearly a year.

And
yes, I was employed full-time (and then some) throughout my training. As
for "minimal experience in actual IFR conditions", again you need to

define
"minimal". I had twenty hours of actual when I completed my instrument
training, and in my opinion I was "correctly flying IFR" at least from the
time I received my rating. Yes, more experience results in even better
flying. But that's not the question.

In any case, even if you were right, that has nothing to do with the
training itself. It only comments on individual situations. There is
nothing inherent about instrument flying that requires years to obtain
proficiency or "correctness".

[...] To get proficent at IFR also requires you
get your pilots licence first which takes just as long as the instrument
rating.


In the US, you need to be 16 years old before you're permitted to fly

solo.
That doesn't mean it takes 16 years to learn to land a plane. Likewise,

the
prerequisite to have a Private Pilot certificate doesn't mean those years
are to be included when discussing how long it takes to fly *IFR*

correctly.

But again, even if you were right, your point doesn't stand inspection,
since the Private Pilot certificate doesn't take even a year either. It

can
theoretically be completed in a matter of weeks, and many people (even

those
with full-time jobs) finish it up in a few months. Even including ALL of
the training required to be a pilot, one could obtain an instrument rating
in less than six months, never mind a year. While holding down a

full-time
job.

Pete




  #8  
Old September 21st 03, 12:25 PM
Mark Cherry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In ,
Skyhawk wrote:

After a day with FS2K4 I would say it is worth $50. If for no other
reason than the huge difference in the weather, improved ATC, the
Garmin 500/295, and the new aircraft. The DC-3 and R-22 are great!
No, I do not work for MS! I will not remove FS2K2 from my system
mainly due to the instructor station in the Pro version. There are
faults with FS 2004, mainly the bridge problem and all of the water
(oceans, lakes, rivers) seem to be the wrong color of blue. Much too
light.



Now that's another debate in its own right. (So I've changed the thread title)

Living in the UK, where the sea is usually a pale, murky, grey-greenish colour,
I was always foxed by the deep cobalt-blue shade which versions up to FS98 used
(I can't speak about the more recent versions until I get my new PC and install
2k2Pro, next week). I always wondered what part of the world the sea actually
looks like that.

I'm not one for browsing holiday brochures but I've seen plenty of holiday
adverts for various parts of the world and the sea colour never seems to be
quite the same from one region to another.

I bought and installed England & Wales VFR scenery for FS98 and it used a pale,
blue-green colour (reminiscent of "duck-egg blue" - that's the nearest
description I can manage which others might be able to relate to) which I found
much more acceptable. Not quite as dark a shade as I would consider realistic
but the contrast between the land textures and the sea looked about right.

However, it requires using a batch file to substitute the MS sea texture with
its own one, so you get this sea surface all over the world, *except* when you
get into regions with synth-block coastlines. The coast tiles with convex or
concave curves to them are part land and part original MS-sea colour, so the
combination is a bit ugly...

So my basic point is, "who's to say what colour the sea should be?"

--
regards,

Mark



  #10  
Old September 21st 03, 06:03 PM
Alan White
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:25:34 +0100, "Mark Cherry"
wrote:

I always wondered what part of the world the sea actually
looks like that.


The north west of Scotland?

--
Alan White
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow.
Overlooking Loch Goil and Loch Long in Argyll, Scotland.
http://tinyurl.com/55v3
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Closest SDF, LDA and LOC-BC Approaches Andrew Sarangan Instrument Flight Rules 17 June 5th 04 03:06 PM
Where is approach good about multiple approaches and clearances in the air? Andrew Gideon Instrument Flight Rules 29 February 14th 04 03:51 AM
Bridges in FS2004 Kevin Reilly Simulators 18 October 2nd 03 11:00 PM
Logging instrument approaches Slav Inger Instrument Flight Rules 33 July 27th 03 11:00 PM
Garmin Behind the Curve on WAAS GPS VNAV Approaches Richard Kaplan Instrument Flight Rules 24 July 18th 03 01:43 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.