Main gripe IMO, with every simulator for PC is the lack of feel. This is main problem with combat simulators. Even if you have force feedback, you have none or very artifical feel about the aircraft. In a dogfight it is often very difficult to fly, when you don't have the proper response to your stick and how the plane is handling when pushing it to its limits: how near it is to stall, is it trimmed in the optimal way etc. For example, I find my aircraft often very suddenly stall in a tight turn, because I have no response to my controls. I have to learn the simulator behavior to know how the plane is doing in different situations, I'm not learning the plane as to say.

This at least ameliorates the feel of the taxiway, engines, etc.:http://www.thebuttkicker.com/gaming/index.htm

This at least ameliorates the feel of the taxiway, engines, etc.:http://www.thebuttki...aming/index.htm

Yes, but it doesn't simulate stick forces which is most important. Buttkicker is another artificial "feedback", which doesn't do more than shaking in some situations, like FFB joysticks do. And going to more detail, it doesn't simulate G-forces, which are crucial factor doing "butt feel" flying. Those two inherent specs, or lack thereof, of simulation are the ones _I_ think, that finally takes us simulator players away from true pilots. Sure, I can say for a certain probability that I could probably do basic flying with one or another aircraft I have for a simulator, but when I'd have to put the aircraft to the limits or severe true weather, I would be in trouble. With simulator, I also have not fear for my own or other people's life, which gives me the possibility to fly as I want: I can always restart a flight.I have played a lot of simulators during the last 25 years, but I still don't consider myself as an expert in that area either. For example in FSX I like warbirds, because with those it doesn't take half an hour to get your plane to take off ready (warm up may take time of course). And even If I would handle PMDG:s 737 fully, I wouldn't compare myself to real life pilot. Yes, I could do probably mechanically all or almost all the things the pilot does, but even with that aircraft I would be missing many factors related to real one. There is a reason, that pilots go through very profound certified training programs with true aircraft.At least, that's how I see it.

In my view sim's are great for IFR training (what a cheap training device!), and maybe some basic instrument familiarization.But for "Attitudes and Movements" stick and rudder stuff, they're of no value, and a liability to a degree.You'll pick up too many bad habits, which you'll have to unlearn (ie., head-down in the cockpit too much), and there are just too many little nuances that can't be simulated on a computer, especially without a proper set of controls that actually feel and respond right.

Sims been round a lot more than 20 years - google link trainer if youre interested. Shows that flight sim has been perceived as useful training even when gear was positively prehistoric.Bryan, i think you can learn a lot more than what you suggest from a well set-up fsx-based flightsim.E.g. I use a piece software called 'fdc livecockpit' with the ngx to practice checklists.... .... ....With these discussions, some of the opinion variance may be related to users setups ie. if youre flying default fsx with a cheap joystick, yes its probably not much good for more than entertainmentBUTWhat about ngx+weather software+an electronic flightbag prog+something that encourages you to do checklists+full photoscenery coverage+yoke and pedals+enough other hardware to avoid the need for mouse and keyboard.1. What procedures and skills couldn't you practice with that? It should be useful for crm, systems, failures. I'm guessing its rarely done (not faa approved, licence doesnt allow it), but im remember reading a comment a while back about an airline using the leonardo maddog for systems familiarisation. And the new generation of software (eg ngx) has much greater verisimilitude than anything weve had before.2. The main objection seems to be training for vfr/stick and rudder. I accept that its probably not very useful for that, but isnt it some use if you use it right eg make sure you look out the window if that's what youre meant to be doing, trim it like a real plane even though you dont have to etc

In my view sim's are great for IFR training (what a cheap training device!), and maybe some basic instrument familiarization.But for "Attitudes and Movements" stick and rudder stuff, they're of no value, and a liability to a degree.You'll pick up too many bad habits, which you'll have to unlearn (ie., head-down in the cockpit too much), and there are just too many little nuances that can't be simulated on a computer, especially without a proper set of controls that actually feel and respond right.

I disagree with the "old time" concept of too much time in the cockpit and all the bad habit nonsense. My wife, who has flown right seat with me for many years............was able to pick up quite a bit of knowledge from desktop simulation, in regards to what the controls actually do. Of course I can coach her, but on the other hand, there is much available information and videos over the internet, which serves for the coaching element.

Main gripe IMO, with every simulator for PC is the lack of feel. This is main problem with combat simulators. Even if you have force feedback, you have none or very artifical feel about the aircraft. In a dogfight it is often very difficult to fly, when you don't have the proper response to your stick and how the plane is handling when pushing it to its limits: how near it is to stall, is it trimmed in the optimal way etc. For example, I find my aircraft often very suddenly stall in a tight turn, because I have no response to my controls. I have to learn the simulator behavior to know how the plane is doing in different situations, I'm not learning the plane as to say.

Sometimes you'd be happy that a sim doesn't provide all the sensations of feel. Just get some food poisening and spin around on a chair to get into the mood...As far as stalls go, R/C aircraft don't provide feel either. But you hopefully learn what causes the stall. In a real plane, chances are, you won't be feeeling much on the verge of a stall either................until the airplane gives an indication of what's about to happen. This can actually be simulated with movement, words to the effect of stall, airspeed indications, AOA, and a bit of noise change, if required.One thing for sure, is that you probably won't yank and bank the real airplane as much as a simulated one. There is a noticeable and uncomfortable feeling to the stomach and head..........that a sim just doesn't provide. You have to get use to it. Yet, a sim can provide some sensations, if the brain can feel in the gaps. This is where pilots, have an advantage, because they know what the movement is suppose to feel like.

There are bound to be limits to the realism of any computer simulation. Even with payware addons, FS can't properly simulate icing, contaminated runways, microbursts or wake or building-induced turbulence,

Isn't disorientation an issue in RW flight - there's a theory that this is what happend to JFK, Jr's plane - whereby tactile sensory input is so light in a RW aircraft that the pilot doesn't even know the orientation of his aircraft? He could even be upside down and not know it? And, I've always felt stick shake is a (more or less) redudant warning system . .

for instance. Its management of other traffic is pretty ropey and unless you fly online there is no fully realistic ATC.

Does real world ATC become non-existent immediately after takeoff (when you fly into a non-covered

There are bound to be limits to the realism of any computer simulation. Even with payware addons, FS can't properly simulate icing, contaminated runways, microbursts or wake or building-induced turbulence,

Isn't disorientation an issue in RW flight - there's a theory that this is what happend to JFK, Jr's plane - whereby tactile sensory input is so light in a RW aircraft that the pilot doesn't even know the orientation of his aircraft? He could even be upside down and not know it? And, I've always felt stick shake is a (more or less) redudant warning system . . .

for instance. Its management of other traffic is pretty ropey and unless you fly online there is no fully realistic ATC.

Does real world ATC become non-existent immediately after takeoff (when you fly into a non-covered zone in VATSIM zone or area)?

Isn't disorientation an issue in RW flight - there's a theory that this is what happend to JFK, Jr's plane

John Jr. most certainly lost control of his aircraft because he had lost any visual reference to the horizon. I have flown at night over land and sea... it is very easy to lose your perspective of the horizon (where it really is - for various reasons) and that is with very good visibilities (10sm +). It's a very sick feeling and you HAVE to go to your instruments momentarily in those cases to verify you really are "Up".I have never experienced this "illusion" (loss of horizon) in FSX.Him flying in marginal VFR conditions over water at night was bad, bad, bad... The conditions John Jr. was flying demanded instrument proficiency.

whereby tactile sensory input is so light in a RW aircraft that the pilot doesn't even know the orientation of his aircraft?

I have absolutely no clue what you are trying to say here... tactile sensory input?One can easily become disoriented in an aircraft due to conflicting / misinterpreted information - from the sensory output coming from the inner ear. There are a number of illusions that can occur... that is why e.g. when flying on instruments you trust your instruments because you are NOT going to be able to determine your "attitude" based on "sensory input".Google "AC 60-4a" (Pilot's Spatial Disorientation) excellent info there... and you should search the NTSB Accident Database (bracket the date of the crash, 07/16/1999, and search for fatals) and you will find an outstanding narrative about that accident because to me, this describes a "classic" case. How tragic and it could have been (like so many accidents of this nature) ...been avoided.

Does real world ATC become non-existent immediately after takeoff

If you depart from an airport with no operating control tower and are headed to another airport w/o a CT you could very well never have to talk to ATC. Many aircraft do not have radios. Zach's Cub probably does not (altho he might have a Hand-Held unit for it).

whereby tactile sensory input is so light in a RW aircraft that the pilot doesn't even know the orientation of his aircraft?I have absolutely no clue what you are trying to say here... tactile sensory input?

Heeheehee . . .Ozzie: you couldn't even deduce what I was saying? (LOL) I was actually asking a question: the ongoing debate in this thread is how MSFS lacks "feel control" and what I was asking is: is that really a big issue in RW flight. I'm not really sure why you got sidetracked into a 4 or 4 line eplanation about JFK, Jr.'s death, and personal experience about loss of horizon . . . :-)I was really just trying to further the discussion, and ask do the afore mentioned questions and supposed "shortcomings" really matter all that much? (Not a statement of fact ... an honest question.)

Heeheehee . . .Ozzie: you couldn't even deduce what I was saying?

No I couldn't... shame on me... :( not the first time someone asked something that I had no clue what they meant and won't be the last (I hoped you would infer I would have appreciated a re-phrasing of the question). Mis-communication is an Aviation Topic unto itself. And those of us who actually teach people how to fly know we do not always answer "the best way" to the person asking.That is why I sometimes hear the response, "I have no clue what you are trying to say." Or the Scooby-Doo: "Huhhhhhhh?"

the ongoing debate in this thread is how MSFS lacks "feel control"

you mean what TheGrunt is saying? (btw TheGrunt... glad to see another grunt here)

I'm not really sure why you got sidetracked into a 4 or 4 line eplanation about JFK, Jr.'s death,

Pretty simple really... the reason why - it goes back to the "person" who brought up JFK, Jr.'s death:

Isn't disorientation an issue in RW flight - there's a theory that this is what happend to JFK, Jr's plane - whereby tactile sensory input is so light in a RW aircraft that the pilot doesn't even know the orientation of his aircraft? He could even be upside down and not know it?

As far as an "explanation"... what I said was by no means an explanation... that is why I directed your (anyone's) attention to the NTSB report(s) and the FAA Advisory Circular on "Spatial Disorientation".