After investing in a nice simming computer I thought it would be fun to try out some of the rl flight school flight simulators and much to my suprise I found them more more difficult to "fly" on the computer than our beloved FS2004. Take ASA's ON TOP/IP TRainer/Elite. With the 172, holding a 20 degree bank while trying to maintain a lvl altitude is something you must work at while in FS, say flying the Flight 1 172, it is very easy, you wont even feel the need to "trim" to perform this yet on the RL trainers if you do not add power and trim you will notice very quickly that it will not maintain altitude. This is only one example since every flight aspect "feels" different than it does in FS 2004 and a bit harder to nail. I suppose I question this difference (not related strictly to flight 1's 172 but all GA aircraft in FS) because of the FAA approved status and FS 2004's "game status". So which aircraft are closer to their real counterparts? Someone please enlightlen me ;-)[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]AMD 64 4000+|ASUS K8V DELUXE|SAPPHIRE ATI X800XT PE|MUNCHKIN 3200|80 gig SATA|DELL 1905FP 19" LCD|TRACKir PRO|PFC JEPPESEN MOONEY YOKE|CH PRO PEDALS|

Less to do with the flight model (which can be made quite good in FS) than with the hardware.Consumer grade controls for PCs have rather weak springs and don't mimmick the force of the airflow around the fuselage on the flight control surfaces.Therefore far less force is needed to reach a set deflection.If you apply the same force you would with say a CH Pro yoke on a yoke in a real 172 you'd be all over the place (and most likely completely out of control in no time) :)

That makes sense but I have a PFC Mooney yoke and do feel more resistence than a CH yoke albeit I am sure nothing like reality ;D. While I find the trainers interesting I find FS flying easier. I suppose I like the way I can limit the trim input in FS so that it is more precise which makes holding a constant attitude less stressful, something I have not been able to do with the other sims yet. I'm still confused as to why I cannot mimic performance in these sims with FS even with the same aircraft..[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]AMD 64 4000+|ASUS K8V DELUXE|SAPPHIRE ATI X800XT PE|MUNCHKIN 3200|80 gig SATA|DELL 1905FP 19" LCD|TRACKir PRO|PFC JEPPESEN MOONEY YOKE|CH PRO PEDALS|

Hi Randy,I've never tried the Elite training software, however... When flying a real world C172, you wouldn't need to retrim or add power when entering a 20 degree banked turn from cruise. Such a shallow turn doesn't even require much back pressure.On the other hand, it would require a significant amount of back pressure (and you might add a little power) for a 45 degree steep turn, but you still wouldn't need to retrim.

The validity of the product as a training device doesn't seem to have much to do with the quality of the product. Only whether they've paid the money to have the accreditation. I work in an industry which is exactly the same - we can put the opposition down because it doesn't have the accreditation, even though it's half the price and twice the capability of the ones we sell. But our money went into compliance, not development.I know several fellow pilots who prefer the `realism` of FS or X-Plane flight modelling to officially approved training devices from various manufacturers. The only real difference seems to be whether the hours on the PC can be added to the logbook or not. Nothing wrong with that, but these `simulators` have, I think, now been surpassed by the latest developments in gaming sims because they don't face the same pressures to constantly innovate and update, as the rules they cater to don't change much.I am curious as to why the new Sport Pilot licence in the USA hasn't yet given the incentive to FS developers to develop the `FS/Sport Pilot` software suite? What FS is really good at is teaching the basics. MS have really missed a trick if they're talking to Boeing about Dreamliners and not Zenith, Skystar, Rans or Tecnam about making a pro trainer that is LSA training compliant for the huge growth in pilots likely to be brought about by the new rules. Allcott

I can tell you this much- I have flown two flight sims built by "pro" companies before, the lower rated sims. The Frasca GA model sim blew me away. I feel that it was a piece of junk. Hard to believe it was FAA certified. Yes, the gauges looked and move correctly and all that, but the rudder pedals felt like toys. Was advised by the instructor that Frasca wanted $5000 a week for a tech to come do some upgrades and maintanence on it. What a rip. And by the way, FS seems much more realistic in feel just like what others said. The other one was a Beech King Air 200 sim. Not sure who built it, but it was a substantially better sim.

Hello Randy,although I have never produced a FM for a C172, I think what you are talking about is how well the FM is implemented. FAA certification is at different levels and may emphasise some aspects such as long and short period longitudinal stability and oscillation period.The default MSFS flight models are not particularily good. The add-on flight models vary from extremely bad to high fidelity.I know the T-37 had a quite accurate flight model and was used by the USAF for supplementary training in addition to the stand alone sim provided in dedicated hardware. Many students used this MSFS model to improve their passing out grades significantly using machines with MSFS installed at the airfield.Other transport FMs have been made to a high standard before submitting to testers and managers of commercial teams and typically have been de-tuned and dampened down in their responses to presumabily increase their ease of flying for the inexperienced and to increase the sales for the commercial manager.These models can still be "fixed" back to a realistic flight model if you were to have the knowledge of how to do it, or obtain a copy of a better flight model form the original author, as the clues must be but not necessarily always are published in the list of credits.Ian

From: http://www.generalaviationnews.com/editori...column&-nothingFinally, don't expect too much from any PC-based controllers. No one has figured out how to make really realistic flight controls for PC simulations at prices that home users are willing to pay. If you want yokes that reproduce varying control loads and precise transfer of inputs (especially in pitch), you'll have to spend many hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars for specialty components. And even then, you're likely to notice significant differences between a real airplane and the simulator. I often fly a new, expensive Frasca simulator at the flight school where I teach, and it's a wonderful training device. But it doesn't "feel" much like a real airplane.

<>With respect, I would disagree. The Skyhawk I owned and all light singles that I have flown would require back pressure on the yoke in order to maintain altitude in a 20 degree bank.Often the turn doesn't last very long as in a base-to-final turn and so the pilot would just hold a little manual back pressure and not re-trim. But the laws of aerodynamics are that the down wing produces less lift and the load factor will increase due to centrifugal force thereby requiring the aircraft to lost altitude.Those forces are not huge at a 20 degree bank angle but are certainly measurable. NOT applying back pressure in such a turn is the classic cause of "death spirals" and therefore, should be recognized and understood by all pilots.Regards,Jim

I find most manuevers are more difficult in the sim, then in real life.Jeff

<<<>With respect, I would disagree. The Skyhawk I owned and all light singles that I have flown would require back pressure on the yoke in order to maintain altitude in a 20 degree bank.>>Hi Jim,I don't think you're disagreeing with me unless you retrim or add power when you perform a 20 degree banked turn. If you do, then yes, we disagree.

> After investing in a nice simming computer I thought it would>be fun to try out some of the rl flight school flight>simulators and much to my suprise I found them more more>difficult to "fly" on the computer than our beloved FS2004.>Take ASA's ON TOP/IP TRainer/Elite. With the 172, holding a 20>degree bank while trying to maintain a lvl altitude is>something you must work at while in FS, say flying the Flight>1 172, it is very easy, you wont even feel the need to "trim">to perform this yet on the RL trainers if you do not add power>and trim you will notice very quickly that it will not>maintain altitude. This is only one example since every flight>aspect "feels" different than it does in FS 2004 and a bit>harder to nail. >> I suppose I question this difference (not related strictly to>flight 1's 172 but all GA aircraft in FS) because of the FAA>approved status and FS 2004's "game status". >>So which aircraft are closer to their real counterparts? >Someone please enlightlen me ;-)>[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4] FAA requirements for basic PC "Flight Training Devices" require little more then certain instruments and an aircraft that goes up-down, and sideways in the right direction when you move the JS. There are typically NO requirements for FM accuracy. They are mainly for training in using the insturments, etc. A PC Training device might purposely dumb down the flight model. That way, the student can concentrate more on the instruments, navigatiion, etc. At any rate, if there are no FAA requirments on the flight model, why work at making it realistic? Just advertise the package as "FAA Approved". That is enough to impress the ignorant.RAF