Is basic flight simulators fun or boring?

[David Loftus]

I find flight sims to be invaluable for several things. Flying IFR in hard IMC takes practice and repetition to do well. Using cockpit automation (especially something as capable as a G1000) efficiently to help reduce pilot workload is important, but very time consuming and expensive to achieve in the real aircraft to be highly competent. Before I go fly practice approaches under the hood, I routinely fly them on the flight sim (I used to use FS-X years ago, then X-Plane 11, but now MSFS 2020 with Working Title G1000 for the past 2 years) just to get the waypoint sequence, coordination between G1000 and Foreflight, and the G1000 button-pushing practice (even if virtual with mouse clicks). I even verbalize the plate in a mock briefing sometimes to keep sharp. By the time I get to the plane, I know the plates well and I'm already comfortable with the necessary steps to execute a smooth approach. Loading in cross-winds with low ceilings on a sim can even help hand-eye coordination when it comes to hand-flying an ILS to minimums. Keeping the needles centered takes practice (as least for me ;-) Not exactly the real world feel, but very helpful for process.

As stated above, a big consideration is your setup. You will never get any benefit for the feel without some decent (in my case moderately priced) equipment. I have a Saitek Cessna flight yoke (from my 172 rental days), Cessna rudder pedals, and throttle quadrant. I switch the yoke for a good flight stick that I keep centered like the DA40. Flying a sim with mouse and keyboard will give you very little benefit for the feel.

The other thing I find incredibly useful is flight planning to new destinations, especially for mountainous terrain. While XP11 and FS-X don't share the same photo-realism of FS2020, they are all remarkably close to actual terrain, ie height of peaks and valleys, etc. Just working with Foreflight is a bit more difficult, even with my 3D subscription. All of these are light-years ahead of flight planning with a VFR chart. When I lived in California, I took a rental 172 over to Yosemite, Tahoe, etc. While the POH says its ceiling is 14K MSL, that is generous for most rental aircraft. Once you get a rental above 12,000ft your climb rate is maybe 100-200ft/min. So you need to understand the terrain you will encounter extremely well. I must have flown practice routes to Yosemite Valley 20 times (a great thing about flight sims is you can speed them up by 2X, 4X, 16X, etc) continually tweaking my routes. Each time, I am pausing the sim, rotating about the aircraft, to look at clearances, bailout points, etc. All the while adjusting the route in Foreflight to perfect it. By the time I took the actual flight, I knew all the major obstacles and had a great flight plan with over 25 waypoints that steered me along the most scenic but relatively safest paths. It was amazing how close the terrain heights in the flight sims were to the actual world.

Last August, my son and I flew our DA40 about 6000 miles from Atlanta to visit a bunch of national parks out west, ie Grand Canyon, Zion, Bryce, Arches, Yellowstone, Tetons... Loading my flight plans into Foreflight then into XP11 and MSFS helped me plot the ideal routes and even gave me a feel for some tricky airfields along the way, ie Sedona.

Flight sims will NOT improve your feel of an actual aircraft. But they are extremely useful in training and flight planning.

 

[coma24]

I maintain flight simulators for the airforce. Every night I have access to a 270 degree HD visual with a full mock up of a military trainer complete with control loading and all. It's a very very expensive video game. I used to fly them all the time, now eh....I will shoot an approach every now and then otherwise it's just work. So I would imagine a cpu based flightsim would get boring pretty quickly. But that's just me and again I have access to a $4mil simulator soo.....haha

I've flown the T-6 and T-38 sims that you're likely referring to. It's less about the equipment and more about what you're doing with it. The sim by itself isn't necessarily exciting. I had never flown the T-38, so there was a decent amount to learn, but the T-6 was very familiar from other sim work. Without an IP there to give me tasks in the T-6, or imparting new knowledge, there wasn't a ton to do. As long as there is a mission or sense of consequence, almost any sim can be an engaging tool, as long as it's not distractingly inaccurate or hard to fly.

 

[Profileclimb]

Have been thinking if I should get a flight simulator, something basic for home, but I’m also thinking it would be boring. Any thoughts on those who have flight simulators at home?

They are fun toys, but useless for serious training. The G1000 has maybe 5% functionality, RNAV approaches don’t work most of the time, the left turning tendency is backwards, its a work in progress, but I don’t see it ever being a serious sim, the best training is in the class room and the real airplane.

 

[Andrew]

The G1000 has maybe 5% functionality, RNAV approaches don’t work most of the time

Not sure which sim you're using, but this isn't accurate for all current, updated sims. Mine work pretty well, including letting autopilot fly the approach.

Far more than 5%.

 

[haruky]

Has anyone tried using VR in a sim? Does it make a big difference?

 

[Baked Potato]

Has anyone tried using VR in a sim? Does it make a big difference?

It depends on what your priorities are. For learning instrument procedures or anything IFR, likely not.

But for acclimating yourself to the look and feel of a specific cockpit, learning the sight picture for various maneuvers and crucial phases of flight, practicing VFR cross-country flights, there's nothing like it (short of actual flying). I think that the real-life size and depth perception counts for a lot.

However for me the biggest impact that switching to VR made (other than on my wallet) are things that are not applicable to GA flying. I fly in DCS a lot, and due to the depth perception that you get in VR that you don't get with monitors, it made formation flying, air-to-air refueling, and gunnery much easier. And the immersion is amazing. Nothing like executing a Case 3 trap in an F-14 in VR, since there is a less than zero chance I'll ever get to do that in real life.

Also keep in mind that you won't get as high a resolution using VR as you will on a monitor with the same hardware. And the performance widely varies from application to application.

So I guess the benefit depends on what your goals are, but I'd say it adds a whole lot of immersion and maybe just a little bit of realism.

 

[Andrew]

Has anyone tried using VR in a sim? Does it make a big difference?

Yes - extensively. Agree with Potato. There is no equivalent to the immersion; further, if you ever use any racing simulators... same thing. As noted, the resolution isn't as good, so you'll have to lean in closer to the instruments sometimes to read the fine print. That said, there are newer headsets with greater resolution, but require a more powerful computer or lower in-game graphics settings.

I have tried it with IR, and frankly, it's pretty fun - and immersive - but the trouble came for me when I needed to write things down (PilotEdge) and/or use my iPad. So I just peeked out when I had to do that.

That said - it did a really good job of conveying the can't-see-out-of-the-cockpit environment, and using it for shooting approaches, if you can reference a chart in the cockpit, was really nice.

Using if for VFR is kinda the same if you need to look at a chart.

The place I've used it the most, though, by far, is in Condor. I wore it a few times for a couple of hours on long flights. Since the environment is a lot simpler, and there are far fewer controls, it's easier on framerates, and frankly it seems like it was pretty flawless & bug-free. FWIW FS 2020 officially has sailplanes as of today (as well as some other classic stuff for the celebration of its 40 year anniversary).

I'll be trying VR soon with FS 2020, which obviously has an amazing environment. Flying IFR (really, just using whatever the real weather is) has been amazing, e.g. an early morning climb under a solid dark overcast, getting lighter climbing through the cloud layer, then breaking out into a pretty convincing on-top environment... well, if that can be done in VR, and the framerates are acceptable, I'll have to find a way to use charts/write things down without taking the headset off.

But I should also add: Exploring other applications via VR can be an amazing experience. Google Earth provides an unsurpassed experience of exploring the globe; at times - such as when visiting old familiar places, it can actually get pretty emotional.

Other things are simply compelling, like Wrench, in which you experience building a car & engine in VR! :

(No question VR/AR is the future of training with this type of thing... think AP...)

And of course it goes without saying that gaming in VR is quite a different experience as well - even chess takes on a new... oh, you know.

 

[ArrowFlyer86]

I think flight simulators are both a lot of fun and a good tool for getting your "process" down, but not substitutes for the real thing. For instance, having my foreflight up just like I would in a real flight, and getting the ATIS when I'm a ways out, lowering to pattern altitude, dropping the gear, handling flaps, etc. I also enjoy going into a panel-only mode and flying mock IFR (really just seeing how well I can track a VOR or fly an approach - and not get distracted). It's not the real thing, but it's better than nothing. And on days when you can't actually fly in real life -- it can still be fun. I also do multiplayer mode with friends and we'll try ridiculous crosswind landings, or short field for giggles. Plus, where else can I hop in an A320 and fly from O'Hare to Midway while still reaching 20000' enroute? Ridiculous flying, I know, but fun none the less . The scenery is also really cool.

The actual flight models leave something to be desired though. I've found them all to be overly sensitive to control inputs (regardless of sensitivity settings) which results in unrealistic performance of the plane. In XPlane I felt like even the slightest notch of elevator trim would jerk your plane around and produce a disproportionate result. In MSFS it's better, but the flight model's sensitivity in pitch axis in absurd. For instance, I was just flying a piper arrow a couple days ago with the honeycomb setup and was able to achieve sustained climb rates of more than 2500 fpm (doesn't matter what joystick/yoke you have). You can easily sweep through 100 feet of altitude in like half a second in a simulator with only a slight change in pitch (no effect from weather or anything). That's obviously completely unrealistic compared to flying the real thing (if I lost 200 feet in 1 second in my arrow -- it's almost certainly lights out for me). Also, you can also snap roll a lot of the planes as if everyone one of them is an Extra 300. Pretty unrealistic. Lastly, it's hard to model turbulence without physically getting bounced around, but that's also a weak spot of sims. I usually play without any turbulence b/c it's really just a nuisance that doesn't help you adjust to it in real life.

 

[haruky]

It depends on what your priorities are. For learning instrument procedures or anything IFR, likely not.

But for acclimating yourself to the look and feel of a specific cockpit, learning the sight picture for various maneuvers and crucial phases of flight, practicing VFR cross-country flights, there's nothing like it (short of actual flying). I think that the real-life size and depth perception counts for a lot.

However for me the biggest impact that switching to VR made (other than on my wallet) are things that are not applicable to GA flying. I fly in DCS a lot, and due to the depth perception that you get in VR that you don't get with monitors, it made formation flying, air-to-air refueling, and gunnery much easier. And the immersion is amazing. Nothing like executing a Case 3 trap in an F-14 in VR, since there is a less than zero chance I'll ever get to do that in real life.

Also keep in mind that you won't get as high a resolution using VR as you will on a monitor with the same hardware. And the performance widely varies from application to application.

So I guess the benefit depends on what your goals are, but I'd say it adds a whole lot of immersion and maybe just a little bit of realism.

What I'm really wanting to explore is the immersion aspect which sounds like VR does a great job at. Which headset do you use? Any recommendations?

 

[Baked Potato]

What I'm really wanting to explore is the immersion aspect which sounds like VR does a great job at. Which headset do you use? Any recommendations?

Yeah, I use the HP Reverb G2. The resolution is great and I can read instruments without having to zoom in, which I couldn't do with an older Samsung Odyssey. It's quite comfortable, and I like the off-ear headset so that I can still hear my wife/kid if they need me.
One bad thing is the sweet spot - there is a narrow area of the lens where the image is sharpest, so you've really got to dial in the IPD and straps so that it's in the right place, or else the image is blurry. But I do recommend it for flight sims, especially if you can get one on sale since it's been out for a couple of years.