Hello and new here. Looks like a great place. I just bought a steam gage ifr equipped RV9A. I want a decent flight sim. With the experts here...should I get X-Plane or FSX? Processor speed is a non issue for my home pc.

I want to fly simulated IFR cconditions prior to my formal IFR training, as well as keeping sharp inbetween times. I do have the iFly 720 which I'm pretty sure can be coupled with x-plane...unsure of fsx.

Thx for the advice...DM

As far as I'm concerend, decent flight sims that I use are Microsoft's FS9, FSX, and X-Plane 9. I'm still just using the XP-10 demo. I also built & owned an RV6A. Since I do like 2 place aircraft with "canopies", I really enjoyed the RealAir Marchetti SF260 for FS9 & FSX, as well as a Baytower RV-7 for FSX, and the payware Falco for X-Plane. Actually, all of these are payware. IMO. regardless of what is said, and the fact that I've used flight sims for many years..........there is no over all winner with flight dynamics. Just get some good payware (and a few free ones) that that actually mimic real aircraft, as much as possible. X-Plane will have smoother six pac instruments, than stock FSX. But numerous FSX addons also have smooth running instruments too.

As far as I'm concerned it's just faulty reasoning to stick with just one sim. There are just too may interesting additions that keep coming out, to not want to check them out. Microsoft may not be making flight sims anymore, but excellent addons are still being released almost every day.

drmax

The most unbiased and best thing to do is to go to X-Plane.com and download the XP10 demo. It's limited to the Seattle area and will stop working after 15 minutes, but it will give you a very basic idea of what X-Plane feels like out of the box.

Do not expect ultra realistic default aircraft. That just doesn't happen with ANY sim. Approach it with an open mind, ask questions, read reviews, and then take it from there.

but it will give you a very basic idea of what X-Plane feels like out of the box.

 

And...............it does take a bit of time to adapt to desktop controls, in order to get a sense of feel. It's kind of like jumping into R/C models, if you've just flown the full size stuff. But since a pilot knows what particular modes of flight feel like...............the brain can do a pretty good job of filling in the gaps. After all, flight simulation "feel" is just from sight & a bit of joystick spring resistance. However, some of the better models do a great job of allowing the brain fill those gaps.

It's kind of like jumping into R/C models, if you've just flown the full size stuff

 

You've got to be kidding!!!

I want to fly simulated IFR cconditions prior to my formal IFR training, as well as keeping sharp inbetween times.

 

If you want to practice instrument failures scenarios (especially with steam gauges), X-Plane is miles ahead of FSX.

 

Marco

If you want to practice instrument failures scenarios (especially with steam gauges), X-Plane is miles ahead of FSX.

 

Marco

Thank you. I'll go the x-plane route and put this to bed. Any particular joystick come to mind that you would recommend? (durable/reliable...i'll never fire missles.....(-: )

You've got to be kidding!!!

 

Do keep in mind, that I also flew R/C aircraft & helicopters for many years, in addition to the full size stuff. Most reference is to "over control", lack of feel.

 

But since it's brought up.............I always disagree with those who say that the sense of control will be way off with a desktop control because of the size and travel of sticks/yokes in one direction or another. Afterall, those R/C sticks are only around 2" long.............and we control them just the same. It's just a matter of getting use to it.

 

If you want to practice instrument failures scenarios (especially with steam gauges), X-Plane is miles ahead of FSX.

 

 

Getting a bit off the original topic...................but in this day and age, partial panel instrument flying, is really a thing of the past. If IFR is your thing, then there are plenty of backup systems that are comparatively inexpensive. With so many electronic backup systems being available, including simulated six pacs standard on a handheld GPS.............you no longer have to worry about a vacuum pump shredding itself while in IMC. And for many cockpits, a vacuum pump isn't even used anymore.

 

One more thing............why is XP miles ahead? I don't think it is.

Getting a bit off the original topic...................but in this day and age, partial panel instrument flying, is really a thing of the past. If IFR is your thing, then there are plenty of backup systems that are comparatively inexpensive.

 

The OP said he has a steam gauge equipped a/c and wants to practice for IFR training.

 

With so many electronic backup systems being available, including simulated six pacs standard on a handheld GPS.............you no longer have to worry about a vacuum pump shredding itself while in IMC. And for many cockpits, a vacuum pump isn't even used anymore.

 

One more thing............why is XP miles ahead? I don't think it is.

 

You may no longer worry about a vacuum pump, but aircrafts have static and pitot systems. Even your super-fancy glass cockpit is gonna get air data from those sources. Different failure combinations of static/pitot produce different behaviors of altimeter/airspeed indicator. All of this is not modeled in FSX (where indicated airspeed goes simply to zero in case of failure).

 

Also, try to compare the failure options of X-Plane with those of FSX and you see why X-P in this area is miles ahead.

 

EDIT: also, regarding twins, I haven't found any twin in FSX (RealAir Duke included) where you experience the vicious loss of control below VMCA with OEI. In X-Plane at least it's there, although in many cases (I didn't try them all, of course) the actual airspeed where one loses control is a bit different than the VMCA of the corresponding real aircraft.

Afterall, those R/C sticks are only around 2" long

 

My point exaclty!

Different failure combinations of static/pitot produce different behaviors of altimeter/airspeed indicator.

 

Both sims, FSX and X-Plane10 behave similarly in the pitot blocking area... Both fail, for instance, to simulate the situation when just the pitot drain hole becomes blocked.

 

A nice web simulator on these effects can be found here

 

ELITE simulator simulates all of this failure types :-)

 

I've asked Austin to include also the pitot drain hole failure, independetly from the ram port ;-)

Both sims, FSX and X-Plane10 behave similarly in the pitot blocking area... Both fail, for instance, to simulate the situation when just the pitot drain hole becomes blocked.

 

A nice web simulator on these effects can be found here

 

ELITE simulator simulates all of this failure types :-)

 

I've asked Austin to include also the pitot drain hole failure, independetly from the ram port ;-)

 

I confess,

 

I just don't care much about simulated "failures"....

 

Why? Because I'm the one that installs heated pitot tubes along with the static source, and an alternate static too. I check the oil screens for any form of metal, tear apart the oil filter to check for any metallic particles, as well as adjust the magneto timing, check compression, wire & calibrate the auto-pilots, electrical systems, etc. By doing that, and checking items constantly as we do with our real airplanes, the idea is to minimize failure. Therefor, when flight simming, I just prefer to have a "safe" flight, and not worry about simulated failure, that's going to need to occur much more frequently than real life. If it didn't, some people wouldn't appreciate going for thousands of hours, with no failure...........had it been programmed in. If a real plane failed every hundred hours or so.............I'd stay a good distance away...

 

Of course, opinions will vary on this subject. My point is from the "experimental" builders view.

 

L.Adamson -- Van's RV6A

 

Note: If one wants to have simulated twin engine failure, then great. But I think that dual engine controls, and rudder pedals are a must.