I've gone a full circle since getting my ifr 15 years ago. At that time I trained with ift pro-then decided the representation of instruments were too unrealistic and if I was going to stare for hours at a computer simulation I'd be better served using something that matched my real plane-both in looks and performance. When real weather came out Fs was the cinch!I did my plane for fs with photo real instruments (every instrument from photos from the aircraft-not the usual hand drawn perfection that is nice but a little unreal)-it was and is duplicated nearly 100% and was great for me-now that my plane is sold/gone it is still almost a 100% reality-a nice remembrance.However, now that I am flying a B55 Baron-nothing close in instrumentation out there, payware or freeware-and I am not willing to give another year and a half of every second of my life to develop one-even though this would be usefull ultimately.I tried Ip trainer a few days ago-loved it and bought it-and find it great. The graphics are like fs4-but the modules and smooth instrument performance/trim are now more appealing to me now than the twitchy trim response of fs and in general slow instrument response. Yes it would be nice to have live weather, beautiful clouds, and real terrain-but the smooth instrumentation, and serious critics from the virtual cfi that are harder to fly than real flying are compelling.I still think Fs is the best overall for everything-but for serious ifr practice I give the edge to Ipt 7.0 right now-even though certain aspects are "primitive" and you are forced to fly a c172.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

<>When did Disney move to Chicago, which is where O'Hare (KORD)Airport is??(-:

hi all .. just got back from a good night's sleep and look at all those replies .. thanks guys! I'll leave the handflying for the real plane and our sim at school as i've never been convinced on handflying in FS anyway .. but i'll take a look at the suggestions given, will help me polish my procedural flying .. gotta love the heading bug! ;-)Jan

Geofa;I was really happy to see your mention of IFT-Pro. I too used that sim for several years. I have purchased every version of MSFS since inception, but never really used them (too game/toy-like)until FS2002. IFT-Pro was excellent for it's time (1990-1993?) Realistic aircraft handling, the FIRST sim to incorporate the COMPLETE US navaid database. (Caused me to get a complete set of terminal procedures, and low and high altitude charts) It ran under DOS as I recall. Also, you could easily design your own aircraft, and it flew very realistically. I made a Beech Baron 58TC, and flew it for many years. (I uploaded it to IFT and it became one of their file aircraft.)IFT-Pro had only a horizon and a runway--no scenery at all, but it was a fantastic sim at the time. Remenber Roy Minier, John Trindle, Dolores Waltrip, etc.? Those people were always available by phone for any questions. Wonder where they all are now? I never used MSFS until the 2002 version. In that version they used the actual US/World navaid database. (Maybe earlier--I could have missed it.) That, plus real weather and the scenery caused me to move to MSFS. However, the aircraft handling was still toylike and a total aggravation. I am amazed, and profoundly grateful at the same time, that it takes 3rd party aircraft developers two to three years to create aircraft for MSFS that fly realistically after a new release of MSFS. I emphasize "grateful". I now have the PMDG Beech 1900's, EagleSoft Citation X, and the Dreanfleet Bonanza A36. The Dreamfleet A36 stands out for flying characteristics. (And I would reccommend it as a instrument training platform.) BUT, if you read the fine print, all these developers are running up against the limitaions of the FS flight engine. They have done a great job with what they were given by MS. Maybe the user survey, and the delayed release of the next MSFS has something to do with us "serious" simmers?Geofa; I hope you are participating the MSFS survey; where after each flight we can rate the flight and send in comments. I always comment on how well the 3rd party aircraft flew so well, or the superior instrument performance (RealityXP), etc. This is the first time we simmers have had a chance to respond directly to the MSFS development team. I actually e-mailed them a question last week to see if they were really there, and they were!Sorry for the long post a little off subject, but your mention of IFT-Pro brought back memories.Baron

Jan,If you are going to be doing a JAA IR then FS is not best tool for the job. There are two elements to an IR: instrument interpretation and general handling.For instrument interpretation, RANT cannot be beaten: http://www.oddsoft.co.uk/. It is particuarly brilliant because if functionally replicates (all the buttons work) a wide range of avionic sets properly (HSI, TACAN, VOR, EFIS, etc, etc). Key elements are that the ADF simulates dip (essential for the JAA student) and the avionics Where it scores is that it removes all hand flying from the equation and concentrates purely on training you to develop situational awareness and the mental capacity required to make the right decisions on time. This package was developed by Steve Oddy, a CAA IR Examiner. FS can cover the very basics, but refining your technique just isn't a practical proposition in FS.For general handling, you are looking at practicing partial panel (no vacum instruments - AI and DI) and your scan. The biggest problem with FS is that turn coordinators do not behave correctly. In reality, if you are in a turn without an AI and in IMC, to level the wings you need to go from a say a rate 1 left to turn to a rate 1 right turn and then centralise the controls. In FS the TC actually has lag so you need to level the wings before the TC is centred...completely unhelpful! As for the scan, FS is OK for that, but I just think it is all too jerky with graphical stutters every now and again, etc. I would recommend www.flyelite.ch (the Core package) as a solution.

Yes-one does wonder what happened to ift pro and all of their people..For some reason even though a beta tester for fs I did not get on the survey, but hopefully the comments will lead MS in the best direction.I still hope for more real instruments like Reality Xp's in the next version and better fm's/aircraft. What might be the ultimate is to have a powerful but easy to use fm editor, gauge maker, and 3d software that would take the art of creating complex and realistic aircraft from a few to many.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Yes-Amen Geofa.Don't know why you were not selected for the survey. Perhaps they bypassed the beta testers for us "unwashed masses"!! LOL Hope they are saving you to be a beta tester for the next release!As you said--more flexibilty for the user to design/modify aircraft, including the flight engine would be great. Will work that into my comments to MS when applicable.My last post said I designed a Baron 58TC for IFT Pro--correct nomenclature would be a Baron 58P.I have also turbocharged the Dreamfleet Bonanza A36--I just like the speed and reduced fuel consumption flying in the altitudes. Would like to persuade the Dreamfleet team to design a Baron--any vintage. If they can do the A36 as well as they did, the Baron would be a sure hit! (And include the RealityXP guages!)Always enjoy your posts.Baron

Hi Baron, (baron58tc)Please send me an e-mail at [email protected] the subject as "Baron", and I'll get it out of my spamblocker.Thanks! :-) Regards,http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...R_FORUM_LOU.jpg

>>By the way, do you own a flight yoke and rudder pedals? A>joystick just won't be the same for practicing IFR techniques.Does this mean we're screwed, if we want to fly the Diamond DA40 (IFR panel) with sticks? :-) He,he, just wondering??? :D I kind of prefer airplanes with sticks; the Diamond, Marchetti, my RV6A, and others.:D L.Adamson --- Saitek X45 stick & rudder pedals

A quick answer, and a comment.I have used the stock Mooney for IFR practice work quite a lot, as it is roughly similar to the Cirrus SR20 that I flew for a while (until I re-directed my $ focus to finishing my rotary wing commercial rating) in terms of performance and systems (although it is of course a retractable). I also like the RealAir Simulations SF.260 Marchetti, primarily because it has a great IFR panel but also due to its wonderful flight model. I often fly other add-on aircraft for IFR stuff but those two are what I used when I was working on that rating.My comment: I am amused by the apparent fact that the ADF is still a required part of IFR flight tests in some countries. AM Radio is SO 20th (19th?) century 8^) . I deliberately avoided it during my instrument flight training, by flying an airplane that didn't have an ADF. I admire folks that can fly an ADF-based approach - it takes a certain skill - but I have no plans to ever fly one. The fact that many ADF facilities in the US are being de-commissioned is a testament that it's a skill that most of us (in the US anyway) will never need.My underwear is Kevlar-reinforced, so I am OK with differing opinions about that 8^) .Fly safe,Dave Blevins

Hey,I use the Cirrus II set up from PFC www.flypfc.com its under PCATD's.It was not cheap but I feel worth it. I still must get thought my PP test (had some heart issues the past year, kind of gets your attention).But they sell quite a few of stand alone equipment. I fweel this really makes the aircraft feel so much more real. Take care.Mark.

Dave,Agree 100000%The UK CAA is run by a bunch of antiquated dogmatic old codgers who fear change. They still haven't approved GPS as a primary means of navigation. Once they accept that a proper GPS unit coupled with psudeolites, WAAS and dGPS is a gazillion time more reliable that chucking dodgy MF waves around the ether, we will have a proper IR skills test. Until that time we are stuck with learning stuff that is considered obsolete in most forward thinking countries.Whoa! That was a rant. Sorry folks :)

I always come back to the Archer when I need a good IFR platform to practice real world approaches. I would recommend avoiding the HSI at first. It's a bit of a crutch and most trainers won't have them. If you learn with the DG and OBS, an HSI will be an easy transition down the road. Ditto with the RMI. I use the Project magenta IFR panel on a second monitor and it greatly helps with fluidity. Unfortunately it does not support the GPS (default or RealityXP) yet, but Enrico is reportedly working on that. One thing FS still does not model well is the turbulence that usually comes with IFR flight (and most VFR flight in my experience!). Of course it would take full motion to feel the subtle bumps but as a rule FS planes are not greatly affected by turbulence IMO. A light plane on final requires almost constant attention to yaw and bank but FS planes are unrealistically stable in this regard.David