All smaller default aircrafts. For exemple, Cessna 172.

X Planes Planemaker program is extremely flexible, so in saying that, it is very easy to make an aircraft without adding the intricacies of the flight characteristics of an aircraft. None of the default aircraft fly exactly like their real world counterparts. They need a very large amount of tweaking. But they do come reasonably close and are made to only get you into the air and flying. What you are describing, with the lack of continuous roll, if I am understanding it correctly, has mainly to do with the radii of gyration. These can be left at default values for X Plane to figure out for itself or they can be added in by the developer. If the correct figures are added, the flight model can be incredibly realistic when it comes to rolls, yaw and pitch. The problem is, it isn't an easy thing to get right. There are other things that contribute to this, but this is the main part that will "fix" the problem. I use the word "fix" for want of a better word because it isn't really broken. It's just been left out by the default aircraft author.

To answer the ops original question, I have used flight sims since I started training in 1989 for every rating I have gotten, and found them most useful and quite a money saver-so yes I would invest in a good yoke and rudder pedals as a start.

I partially agree. I felt that the aspects of learning Navigation by use of NAVAIDS was very helpfull, with cross-country training, but that is where it stops. There is no true feel of aircraft control, stall performance, ground ref maneuver s or pilotage in the sims. Also, Simmers tend to stair at the six-pack too much, which when starting flight training is a bad idea, and bad habbits tend to follow.In short, to learn how to use VOR's, NDB's and such, it's great. For flight, it's not. But it's still fun.

I guess I will have to disagree-for me all aspects of flight are in the mind and anything you can do to reinforce this is extremely helpful and time saving-especially when you can take a pause and have time for introspection. To do a good lazy 8 the procedure must be firmly in the mind first. One can read about it all one wants, and one can get in the real aircraft and in a flash realize one did it right or not and become overwhelmed that the mind was behind-but when one can practice it over and over on a sim even without totally correct sensation or even 100% fidelity but clear it up in the mind then one truly processes an advantage. I practiced 1000 fold engine out procedures in twins on the sim I ever did rw-I never had a rw one- but I'll bet if I had had one I was much more prepared than a pilot that never used the sim-as I practiced multiples on a daily basis on the sim.I have always found a time saving/money saving use for the sim. Right now nice I have started flying a dual G1000 equipped aircraft it is mastering these instruments while simming-the stagnant g1000 trainer by Garmin just doesn't do the same...

I partially agree. I felt that the aspects of learning Navigation by use of NAVAIDS was very helpfull, with cross-country training, but that is where it stops. There is no true feel of aircraft control, stall performance, ground ref maneuver s or pilotage in the sims. Also, Simmers tend to stair at the six-pack too much, which when starting flight training is a bad idea, and bad habbits tend to follow.In short, to learn how to use VOR's, NDB's and such, it's great. For flight, it's not. But it's still fun.

All kinds of flight related items are possible:You can practice manuvers, as in this video. The sims, with rudder pedals included will do quite well.

You can practice the basics of maneuvering out of a spin...........even if the sim doesn't portray the spin exactly. Just read & study first. Same with simple aerobatics, as in the above link.Simple tasks such as use of the aux. fuel pump can be ingrained into the mind.I used flight sims extensively for pre-flying to unknown airports, to get use to the runway/taxiway layout, and surroundingtopography.Personally, I don't give much credence to the six pac & head being stuck in the cockpit theory. The habit can be broken quickly, if it's there. Besides, six pacs are on the way out, just as VORs.L.Adamson

All kinds of flight related items are possible:You can practice manuvers, as in this video. The sims, with rudder pedals included will do quite well.

You can practice the basics of maneuvering out of a spin...........even if the sim doesn't portray the spin exactly. Just read & study first. Same with simple aerobatics, as in the above link.Simple tasks such as use of the aux. fuel pump can be ingrained into the mind.I used flight sims extensively for pre-flying to unknown airports, to get use to the runway/taxiway layout, and surroundingtopography.Personally, I don't give much credence to the six pac & head being stuck in the cockpit theory. The habit can be broken quickly, if it's there. Besides, six pacs are on the way out, just as VORs.L.Adamson

Those are some good uses for flight simming, I will agree. I too, have used FSX to pre-fly to unknown airports. As I mentioned above, simming is best suited for learning Navigation. I still dissagree about the flight aspects of simming, Even though you can accomplish some basic, or even more advanced maneuvers, it's certainly not going to prepare a low-time student for what's to come. So much relies on feel, while properly scanning and keeping your eyes outside the window. Not to mention, the flight dynamics of the sim are a far cry from real. I will also agree, which I missed, that sims are good for some emergency proceedures, but only a few. Lets face it, there are reasons in which flight schools don't require or use Flight Sims for training, until you begin you IR. Learning the "Flight" aspect of training is fine on a sim, but IMO, dosn't help in the air, where confidence is really learned.

Those are some good uses for flight simming, I will agree. I too, have used FSX to pre-fly to unknown airports. As I mentioned above, simming is best suited for learning Navigation. I still dissagree about the flight aspects of simming, Even though you can accomplish some basic, or even more advanced maneuvers, it's certainly not going to prepare a low-time student for what's to come. So much relies on feel, while properly scanning and keeping your eyes outside the window. Not to mention, the flight dynamics of the sim are a far cry from real. I will also agree, which I missed, that sims are good for some emergency proceedures, but only a few. Lets face it, there are reasons in which flight schools don't require or use Flight Sims for training, until you begin you IR. Learning the "Flight" aspect of training is fine on a sim, but IMO, dosn't help in the air, where confidence is really learned.

I have to say, being a non- pilot when I flew Crazy Horse (TF-51D Mustang) I don't think I would have done as well as I did without my simming experience. In fact the pilot, Lee Lauderback, which is the leading Mustang instructor in the US if not the world, said, he normally demonstrates maneuvers to non pilots, but the way I was flying he felt all he had to do was walk me through the maneuvers. He said the average non pilot, tends to jerk the plane around, not realizing how sensitive the controls were, where I made smooth control movements throughout. The biggest problem I had was trim, no matter how much forward trim I inputted this bird still wanted to climb. I don't think I would have been as smooth without my simming.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoUF2MfDSiI

A few thoughts on this.I've used both X-Plane and FS for a long time now. I got my PPL at the end of September, have begun my instrument rating, and having used both:1) FSX is currently my go-to sim for training. Granted - there are some trade-offs, but I feel they are worthwhile. For VFR I used FSX with everything turned up pretty high on my Mac (a much newer machine than my old Optiplex 330 PC) and ran TileProxy, which puts satellite imagery on the ground. If you are flight training, I STRONGLY recommend using that (can be a pain to set up) or, what I'm probably going to get next, Sim-Savvy's Massive Scenery. Trust me when I tell you that once you're at 2500 feet, poorly sized autogen houses to little to help you navigate. (Looks like Larry just re-did his site as well.) Flying around your home airport with true-to-life ground imagery is astounding.I have also used Flight 1's Instant Scenery (exceptionally easy) to add buildings and trees around the airports I frequent. By the way - with TileProxy - you can place buildings, trees, etc. in place RIGHT ON TOP OF THE IMAGE so that you can be pretty precise.In addition, on my Mac, I also have RealityXP's Garmin 430 installed, and it works almost exactly like the one in the Diamond I fly.On my Optiplex - well, let me say that it's quite an older, slower machine - BUT - I've done a few things there, too.I use two monitors. First, I have a decent graphics card and can run ground textures high, so TileProxy works great. I have also installed the RealityXP 430 but also have installed their N and T line gauges. In case you're unfamiliar with these, they replace the "basic" performance and nav instruments, and are SMOOTH SMOOTH SMOOTH. They can be installed in any aircraft pretty easily. I am currently using this rig for my instrument training, and have a setup with the main monitor showing only the panel instruments and a few extras (clock/timer, trim, flaps) and on the 2nd monitor have the radio stack, Garmin 430, and a small out-the-front view. I can run this at 20fps no problem.I have tried to get into X-Plane multiple times, and am always thrown off by the flight model. While the more fluid motion may or may not be more realistic, any weather with crosswinds or turbulence just makes it feel like they've programmed it to bounce around for the sake of bouncing around. Lack of satellite scenery severely limited its use for me as far as VFR goes. (With FSX and satellite imagery, I can fly somewhere and get a pretty good idea what to expect to see on the ground.)2) For what it's worth, you're not sitting in a full-motion sim. Either sim will teach you the rudiments of flight control. If the flight model supports the other things you're doing well enough, which one is "better" is irrelevant. You're going to go through the same flight control routines in FSX or XP. For me, I don't mind the standard 172 in FSX - it's pretty stable, and does not distract me from learning. The standard 172 in XP was distractingly bad for me. (I realize there are add-ons).In my experience, utilizing sims for the BASICS of control is fine, but they really shine when it comes to learning navigation, wind correction, flight calculations, and basically "getting around". X-Plane works fine for this too if you don't need to see realistic ground reference, though I think there are some areas that are covered.Good luck,Andrew

A few thoughts on this.I've used both X-Plane and FS for a long time now. I got my PPL at the end of September, have begun my instrument rating, and having used both:1) FSX is currently my go-to sim for training. Granted - there are some trade-offs, but I feel they are worthwhile. For VFR I used FSX with everything turned up pretty high on my Mac (a much newer machine than my old Optiplex 330 PC) and ran TileProxy, which puts satellite imagery on the ground. If you are flight training, I STRONGLY recommend using that (can be a pain to set up) or, what I'm probably going to get next, Sim-Savvy's Massive Scenery. Trust me when I tell you that once you're at 2500 feet, poorly sized autogen houses to little to help you navigate. (Looks like Larry just re-did his site as well.) Flying around your home airport with true-to-life ground imagery is astounding.I have also used Flight 1's Instant Scenery (exceptionally easy) to add buildings and trees around the airports I frequent. By the way - with TileProxy - you can place buildings, trees, etc. in place RIGHT ON TOP OF THE IMAGE so that you can be pretty precise.In addition, on my Mac, I also have RealityXP's Garmin 430 installed, and it works almost exactly like the one in the Diamond I fly.On my Optiplex - well, let me say that it's quite an older, slower machine - BUT - I've done a few things there, too.I use two monitors. First, I have a decent graphics card and can run ground textures high, so TileProxy works great. I have also installed the RealityXP 430 but also have installed their N and T line gauges. In case you're unfamiliar with these, they replace the "basic" performance and nav instruments, and are SMOOTH SMOOTH SMOOTH. They can be installed in any aircraft pretty easily. I am currently using this rig for my instrument training, and have a setup with the main monitor showing only the panel instruments and a few extras (clock/timer, trim, flaps) and on the 2nd monitor have the radio stack, Garmin 430, and a small out-the-front view. I can run this at 20fps no problem.I have tried to get into X-Plane multiple times, and am always thrown off by the flight model. While the more fluid motion may or may not be more realistic, any weather with crosswinds or turbulence just makes it feel like they've programmed it to bounce around for the sake of bouncing around. Lack of satellite scenery severely limited its use for me as far as VFR goes. (With FSX and satellite imagery, I can fly somewhere and get a pretty good idea what to expect to see on the ground.)2) For what it's worth, you're not sitting in a full-motion sim. Either sim will teach you the rudiments of flight control. If the flight model supports the other things you're doing well enough, which one is "better" is irrelevant. You're going to go through the same flight control routines in FSX or XP. For me, I don't mind the standard 172 in FSX - it's pretty stable, and does not distract me from learning. The standard 172 in XP was distractingly bad for me. (I realize there are add-ons).In my experience, utilizing sims for the BASICS of control is fine, but they really shine when it comes to learning navigation, wind correction, flight calculations, and basically "getting around". X-Plane works fine for this too if you don't need to see realistic ground reference, though I think there are some areas that are covered.Good luck,Andrew

Why do I feel like I just read an ad for a bunch of FSX payware products?

Just to debunk the impression one could receive from the above post, that X-Plane has not the capacity to match those features:1) In X-Plane EVERY gauge (including default ones) is "SMOOTH SMOOTH SMOOTH" (actually even smoother), not just some payware 3rd party gauge;2) There is the analogous of TileProxy for X-Plane, it's called G2XPL (free) (some videos of G2XPL in action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cVUuRMj9l0 , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKuSWCvr3H8);3) Admittedly, the over-sensitivity of many aircrafts in X-Plane (among them the default ones) is well known, but you can find more and more quality 3rd party aircrafts overcoming this problem.4) There are a couple of aspects of training where X-Plane shines, namely the accuracy in modeling failure of instruments (ASI, etc.) useful for IFR training.5) Also, X-Plane is much less forgiving in crosswind taxiing/takeoff/landing, e.g. you have to taxi with the correct flight control positions when having strong winds on the ground, otherwise your aircraft could tip-over (especially tailwheels, as in real life). ALTHOUGH in this case you'll need quality aircrafts if you want to have a certain degree of accuracy, since the ground friction model is not perfect and aircraft authors have to tweak the model to give a more realistic behaviour.Marco

• I never said X-Plane's gauges weren't smooth... default in FSX obviously suck. RXP gauges are fantastic. If I remember correctly, RealityXP also makes a 430 add-on for XP. I haven't tried making a gauges-only primary view in X-Plane with full scale gauges and have my radio stack, GPS and small out-the-window view on a 2nd monitor in X-Plane.• G2XPL... I never got it to work when I tried. Looks like lots of people having the same trouble - TileProxy, well... I got it to work just fine. Massive Scenery has got to be even easier, and for the pilots flying in the US, nothing needs to be compiled.• System failures are pretty helpful in VFR too, point to X-Plane. You could buy it even just for that.• Taxiing/Crosswind - I have not found either to be particularly realistic, at least with default aircraft.

Speaking of gauges-I like them to look exactly like their real world counterparts if I am gonna stare at them for ifr practice. Until the Carenado f33 came out for xplane I had a hard time using xplane because of that. Now I am happy! I am still frustrated that the reality xp 530/430 can't be put in the panel though.

turner, as you have a Mac, try this instead of GXPL: http://members.ferra...cavicchi/GMaps/or this:http://www.x-aviation.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=24or this:http://zonephoto.x-plane.fr/

Thanks -I've seen those... for me, it's just far easier to run FSX in Bootcamp and probably move to Massive Scenery since most of my flying is done in the US. GMaps looks interesting but kinda unstable.Andrew

perfectly stable, fast and easy to use - imho:http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=35887&view=findpost&p=404252

Hey I know I a chiming in late here to the authors original post. But I'd like to say that xplane was great for practice while getting my tail wheel endorsement. Flying a tail wheel plane is not that different from a tricycle gear plane in flight, but the take off, landing, and taxi is a whole new challenge and it's really nicely done in xplane, the default xp9 Stinson was a great way to practice. When I was doing my ifr classes, I did use fsx and some of the realair planes for practice.