Accurate flight simulator?

T

TDent1

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
10
Location
Anchorage
Display Name
Display name:
Tyler
First of all, do they exist? I realize that on a high-dollar commercial/military level they do but obviously I don't have access to those. I've owned FSX for years and it doesn't feel very realistic. I spent an hour in a 172 and the real thing is not anywhere close to FSX. I don't expect to boot up my computer and feel like I'm really flying but how close can I get? Right now I just have a cheap joystick, but is it really worth getting a 200-300 dollar yoke/rudder combo? FSX is turned up to full realistic but any plane at 10,000 feet with the mixture at 100% feels the same as the same plane at the same altitude with the mixture at 50%. Are simulators too good to be true? I can land a 737 in FSX pretty easily.... Something tells me I wouldn't be able to pull that off in person.
 
It sounds to me like you're talking about two different aspects of realism: control feel and simulation integrity, right?

Cheap control feel can definitely be addressed the more you shell out. There are lots of high quality yokes/joysticks/pedals, etc on the market but the price does rise commensurate to the build quality and feel.

But, as far as the integrity of the sim - it really depends on the addon manufacturer and the sim itself. I, personally, use FSX and there are some very quality payware GA addons out there and some not-so-quality but all are better than the default MS planes. (Forget about using default anything if you're after realism.). Since you mentioned the 172, you should check out A2A simulations. They recently released a 172 that is modeled to the extent of tracking and simulating maintenance. It's quite remarkable.

Other sims are definitely better than FSX when it comes to realism of the physics of flight - P3D (just wait for version 2!) and XPlane are supposed to be much better in these aspects but I have limited or no experience with them (yet).
 
TDent1 said:
First of all, do they exist?
Click to expand...


Yes.

n5296z.jpg


100% complete and accurate.
 
According to mxsmanic Microsoft Flight Simulator is 100% accurate and realistic.




(Sorry - couldn't help it)
 
Very nice, Warthog. Very realistic! :DI guess my real question is, if I do dish out the money for better hardware do I stand to gain any real improvement from it?
 
Depends on what you're trying to do. You will never get a good control feel or a correct sight picture or flight forces (even with full motion, you can't pull 2 g's in a 60 deg steep turn like a real plane does). You might get a setup where you can get a good instrument scan and control input without playing with the hat switch all the time. That's going to require more than just yoke and pedals.
 
Aint no such thing at the consumer level.
 
Yes, flight simulators which provide realistic physical controls, control responses, motion, and aircraft characteristics do exist. They are called "full flight simulators", and the airlines and military use them all the time. Only problem is they cost more than the planes they simulate and need a facility the size of a high school gym.
 
OK, now for the real answer.

At the consumer/FBO level, no. What you can get is a very good procedures/IFR trainer; however, it will not come anywhere close to what the real thing feels like.
 
I figured as much but thought I'd ask anyway. Thanks guys.
 
I posted another thread that I just flew the 737NG sim at flight experience. It is a full 737 cockpit, FMS, etc. I would say it flew better than the Redbird or Frasca sims I've flown, BUT I believe sim flying makes crappy pilots. I watched this "instructor" do some straight crazy things, because it's a sim.

They have there place, professional quality sims operated by real world experienced pilots for the most part.
 
The A2A 172 is a pretty big step up in terms of realism, particularly with engine management, you should check it out.

What is it you're hoping to do with the simulator?
 
coma24 said:
What is it you're hoping to do with the simulator?
Click to expand...

Exactly, your questions have little meaning without context. What is your mission? Better entertainment? Better training? Or do you want a trill?

Set your iphone on vibrate and put it under your balls and it will feel real enough. everything else is pretty accurate already.
 
The Redbird sims which are desktop computer based with and without motion are reportedly fantastic but not really reasonable for personal use.

I use Microsoft Flight Simulator X Acceleration Gold and as others have said, if you invest in good payware aircraft (A2A, Iris Simulations, some of the Carenado birds) you can get a good baseline for systems operations, speeds, handling etc., but force feedback controls at the consumer level are poor.

Best thing would be a quality yoke, throttle quadrant and rudder pedals if you want basic training, or a quality joystick and rudder pedals if you fly planes with sticks - the rudder pedals will reinforce the muscle memory to use your feet, at least with the better plane simulations.

For basic training I would recommend anything by A2A in the past 2 years or so (Piper Cub and new C-172), the Skyhawk is getting rave reviews from lots of guys whose judgement I trust.

For aerobatics the IRIS Simulations Pro Series Christen Eagle is hands down the best option out there (fairly accurate handling and performance up to and including gyroscopic maneuvers). Compares favorably to my limited real-world experience in the Christen Eagle II.

For the warbird experience A2A's P-51 (military and/or civilian versions) and the Ant's Airplanes T-28D Trojan are delightful and reasonably accurate from a systems and performance standpoint. Pilot's with real-world experience in these two birds speak highly of the sims.

For military jets, the Lotus Simulations L-39C Albatros is actually recommended by a real-world L-39 instructor to prepare for his course and then to stay frosty when you can't fly the real bird (one of my favorite sim birds ever, simply fantastic). The Virtual Reality Simulations F/A-18 SuperHornet is also highly regarded (not my thing though). IRIS Simulations makes a great A-10A, and there is also the Mudhen F-15C - both are study level sims in terms of systems integration. I have also found Dino Cataneo's F-35, F-14D and T-45 to be excellent sim's and they are freeware.

Lots of options for heavy iron but that is not my thing.

'Gimp
 
I went down to SimCom last month to spend a few hours in their full-motion 421 sim. That was a reasonably close to real life experience, at least as best as you could expect from something built in the 70s or 80s. It didn't fly great at all, but it flew well enough for me to feel like it was real-ish.

Typically, flight sims are more about procedures and situations/decision making rather than stick and rudder skills. So for example, we did a lot of engine failures right after the gear came up. Mostly this is about identifying the engine and feathering it very quickly. What was the most useful was the relative understanding of doing this with a liftoff at Vmc (red line) vs. a liftoff at Vyse (blue line), and how much easier the failure was to handle at blue line vs. red line.

If you're looking to improve stick-and-rudder skills, fly a plane. If you're looking to improve procedures, then consider a sim, and understand the difference.
 
I think I'd prefer something that can help me with instrument familiarization and navigation. Being a complete novice these are the areas I know NOTHING about. Controlling an airplane, at least in theory, is simple. I realize it's not that black and white but hopefully you guys understand what I mean. Getting from point A to point B is where I'm clueless. And learning to run an engine correctly at varying altitudes and situations seems pretty complicated. Doing it all while controlling the plane seems like it can get overwhelming fast. Realistic feeling is a huge plus, but if I had to chose areas I think I'll need help on I'd say instruments and navigation are what I'd like to focus on.

That being said, I'll probably check into A2A and download at least the Cessna.
 
TDent1 said:
I think I'd prefer something that can help me with instrument familiarization and navigation. Being a complete novice these are the areas I know NOTHING about. Controlling an airplane, at least in theory, is simple. I realize it's not that black and white but hopefully you guys understand what I mean. Getting from point A to point B is where I'm clueless. And learning to run an engine correctly at varying altitudes and situations seems pretty complicated. Doing it all while controlling the plane seems like it can get overwhelming fast. Realistic feeling is a huge plus, but if I had to chose areas I think I'll need help on I'd say instruments and navigation are what I'd like to focus on.

That being said, I'll probably check into A2A and download at least the Cessna.
Click to expand...

1) Learning to control the engine on a single engine trainer is very simple- there is the throttle, the mixture (which you set and forget), and (maybe) carb heat, which you pull at low power settings or in case of ice.

2) The current consumer sims- FSX and X-Plane- are wonderful procedures trainers, especially with a good payware plane. They are even good for learning navigation, as long as you realize the topography will be right but the scenery and airport looks will be off unless you pony up for payware scenery for your local area. This is more of a factor for pilotage than VORs, though.

3) A lot of what you'll be missing will be the feel of the plane, flying by looking outside and to the sides, and judging the "right" setup for each particular plane. This will all be pre-solo though, so your instructor should help you with this.
 
You can get a very, very realistic simulation experience through the use of X-Plane and the Saitek gauges and controls. Unfortunately, there's no FFB on the Saitek yoke, but its still about a million times better than CH Products.
 
i have a yoke and rudder pedal and MS flight simulator X. the controls do not feel anywhere near the same as the airplane. however i find that it is extremely useful for ifr procedures, approaches, holds, and x country planning. you can set the weather to your liking and fly approaches and if you mess up, just reposition yourself and try it again. it really helped me out a lot actually as i would practice approaches before i would do the actual approaches in the plane
 
AcroGimp said:
The Redbird sims which are desktop computer based with and without motion are reportedly fantastic but not really reasonable for personal use.
Click to expand...
Reportedly fantastic by whom? Redbird themselves?

The flight model is lifted (arguably in violation of FAA guidance) straight from the Microsoft toys. The avionics simulation of things like the G1000 is so far removed from reality to be useless to actually counterproductive for training.
 
flyingron said:
Reportedly fantastic by whom? Redbird themselves?

The flight model is lifted (arguably in violation of FAA guidance) straight from the Microsoft toys. The avionics simulation of things like the G1000 is so far removed from reality to be useless to actually counterproductive for training.
Click to expand...

While they are great for procedures and failures training, they aren't very good for realism and feel for the airplane, even with the motion.
 
Got the seitch yoke/throttle and rudder pedals off craigslist for about 80 bucks, downloaded FSX, it's good for IFR procedures but for stick and rudder you arnt going to find it outside of the real deal.
 
I have been using sims for the better part of 28 years. I currently run X-plane 9 with Vatsim and use Saitek yoke, throttle and rudder pedals. My X-plane 10 should arrive any day now. I opted for x-plane's regional version since it was half the price and I only sim to fields nearby. I can say that operating the sim has been very useful for me, personally. It helps you practice your scan, practice navigation including approaches, x-c flights and dead reckoning using landmarks.

I wouldn't use the sim as a replacement or alternative to actual hours, but it can help keep the rust off. The custom 172 that I use in the sim does not reproduce actual takeoff and landing behavior perfectly, but it does so well enough to keep it familiar. When I returned to flying after a 20 year hiatus, I only required 2.5 hours to pass a BFR, including a separate night flight for nighttime stalls and maneuvers required by my club, due largely to the fact that I never stopped flying my sim.

Most of my flights last around 30 minutes, so the misses doesn't mind them and it doesn't encroach on family time (most of my flights start at 9pm when the kids are asleep). I don't believe that you need to spend a fortune on elaborate equipment, but a decent investment can help you with muscle memory and it's easier to remember working the mixture when it's not hidden on the screen.

IMO, If used for the right purpose, sim'ing can be effective and enjoyable.
 
A2A has been mentioned a few time above. Here are a couple of videos from A2A showing the realism of their C172. It look like a great procedural trainer.

Video 1 of 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YQjabJiFt4&feature=c4-overview&list=UUnK85B5INN2pRnAbdZ4tYaQ
Video 2 of 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEiF7lA58l8&feature=c4-overview&list=UUnK85B5INN2pRnAbdZ4tYaQ
Video 3 of 3 in progress

These guys take their detail seriously. For example, the engine oil gets dirty as you accumulate hours; the battery is weak on cold days. etc
 
Last edited:
johnrweb said:
A2A has been mentioned a few time above. Here are a couple of videos from A2A showing the realism of their C172. It look like a great procedural trainer.

Video 1 of 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YQjabJiFt4&feature=c4-overview&list=UUnK85B5INN2pRnAbdZ4tYaQ
Video 2 of 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEiF7lA58l8&feature=c4-overview&list=UUnK85B5INN2pRnAbdZ4tYaQ
Video 3 of 3 in progress

These guys take their detail seriously. For example, the engine oil gets dirty as you accumulate hours; the battery is weak on cold days. etc
Click to expand...

Looks really interesting but the videos are kind of pretentious. Anyway I'm looking forward to Part 3 which will supposedly feature stalls and spins. It would be nice to have a proper simulation of spins, as when I tried them in both MSFS and X-Plane with the default aircraft, the results were bizarre.
 
dmspilot said:
Looks really interesting but the videos are kind of pretentious. Anyway I'm looking forward to Part 3 which will supposedly feature stalls and spins. It would be nice to have a proper simulation of spins, as when I tried them in both MSFS and X-Plane with the default aircraft, the results were bizarre.
Click to expand...
None of the default planes in either sim platform spin well, and even the 'aerobatic' defaults are poor analogs to their real world counterparts.

While I am a huge A2A fan (I have both the military and civilian versions of their phenomal P-51), I am not a C-172 fan and don't have their Skyhawk but guys I know do and they are raving about it, as is the Sim press.

For fairly accurate spins in a 'training' type plane in FSX I recommend the RealAir Simulations Decathlon, it comes with a Citabria and Scout version so you can really have fun with it. Earlier this year I put together an overview video of the IAC 2013 Power Primary sequence using this plane (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKB468w8QQY&feature=youtube_gdata_player).

Image credit RealAir Simulations
Decathlon_zpsbebfda78.png


If you want hard core competition style aerobatics in a simulation that recreates a real-world aircraft in appearance, performance and accuracy to a very high degree I recommend the IRIS Simulations Christen Eagle, it is the best aerobatic plane in simulation. I posted a review of the Sim version (http://acrogimpfsf.wordpress.com/20...t-iris-simulations-pro-series-christen-eagle/) and the real-world plane (http://acrogimprwf.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/gimpy-pilot-report-christen-eagle-ii-aerobatic-biplane/) in my blog.

Me performing an accurate Torque Roll in FSX using the IRIS Christen Eagle II
eagle6_zpsbcc617ff.png


I have customized the Christen in FSX with the equivalent of several real-world mods to create my FrankenEagle, a 240 hp Unlimited Competition/Airshow Biplane.

ge4_zpsf80a751f.png


While no substitute for real air under your butt, when the triple paradox of time, weather, money doesn't come together for real world flying, you can keep a lot of skills from getting rusty using a quality sim setup.

'Gimp
 
Last edited:
Don't sweat the takeoffs and landings. Don't rely on engine leaning procedures unless the underlying simulation handles it accurately. Use the sim for course tracking, pilotage, XC procedures, emergency procedures and comms (if you augment the sim with a system such a PilotEdge, VATSIM, BVATC, etc).

I personally found X-Plane to be very helpful for crosswind landings, and I think it gets a lot of things right in the last 10 feet before you touchdown that I haven't experienced with other sim platforms.

It's a mistake to assume that an FAA certification translates to realism of flight models or systems. There are terrific non-certified rigs out there and there are FAA certified systems that are useless for just about anything.

+1 on the A2A 172...I haven't flown it, but people who have who are real 172 pilots are very happy with it.

If it helps, here's a workshop on the use of sims with primary and instrument training: http://www.pilotedge.net/workshops/flight-simulation-for-primary-and-instrument-training
 
I'm aware that sims have their limitations ... especially with "feel" but as far as practicing procedures, they are better than nothing. I still would like to hear more suggestions on which sims offer the best IFR experience .... without breaking the bank.
 
Tuckster said:
I'm aware that sims have their limitations ... especially with "feel" but as far as practicing procedures, they are better than nothing. I still would like to hear more suggestions on which sims offer the best IFR experience .... without breaking the bank.
Click to expand...
How big is your bank? Do you need a generalized device for training on different aircraft types, or a type-specific device for one particular aircraft/avionics combination?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top