DTG Flight School - Approach & Landing Lesson

[turner112 52]

 

 

Sorry, but I don't understand the point you were making about having to "hold a rough altitude." Holding your altitude is part of DTG Flight School. For example, in the landing lesson shown in our recent video if you drift too high or low you will fail the lesson. Is that what you mean?

Hi Martin,

Thanks again for the reply! (I know you've got more than your hands full...)

 

Yes, and by "rough altitude" I mean within certain limits (not sure what Flight School is set to). 

Haven't watched it again, but 250' AGL base to final is too low at this point in training and typically too low even for small, relatively slow aircraft. While at some point in the approach, obviously, you will be 250' AGL, typically it's 500' on the base to final turn, and 700' AGL downwind to base, passing through 250' while already established on final and in a (reasonably ) coordinated descent.

This of course will vary based on the aircraft, but usually doesn't drop below these altitudes...  the idea being, of course, that you can reach the runway from the pattern if an engine failure should occur, as well as that you would have some chance to recover from a progressing or active base-to-final stall.

Again, for obvious reasons, less critical in a simulator...
 

[DTG Martin 213]

 

Hi Martin,

 

Thanks again for the reply! (I know you've got more than your hands full...)

 

Yes, and by "rough altitude" I mean within certain limits (not sure what Flight School is set to). 

 

Haven't watched it again, but 250' AGL base to final is too low at this point in training and typically too low even for small, relatively slow aircraft. While at some point in the approach, obviously, you will be 250' AGL, typically it's 500' on the base to final turn, and 700' AGL downwind to base, passing through 250' while already established on final and in a (reasonably ) coordinated descent.

 

This of course will vary based on the aircraft, but usually doesn't drop below these altitudes...  the idea being, of course, that you can reach the runway from the pattern if an engine failure should occur, as well as that you would have some chance to recover from a progressing or active base-to-final stall.

 

Again, for obvious reasons, less critical in a simulator...

 

 

 

To be fair I am not a pilot and not in a position to really expand upon this. What I can say is that we are working with professional pilots and instructors to make sure that the instructions included in the sim are as accurate as we can make them in a given situation. 

 

- Martin 

[Paraffin 2,197]

To be fair I am not a pilot and not in a position to really expand upon this. What I can say is that we are working with professional pilots and instructors to make sure that the instructions included in the sim are as accurate as we can make them in a given situation. 

 

- Martin 

 

That may be so, but take another look at the video. I would think that an important consideration for a product labeled "Flight School" would be to avoid showing something that would be dangerous in real life. An altitude that low on base leg is risky. Not what you'd be taught at any flight school, I think.

 

Sure, I fly "cowboy maneuvers" all the time when I'm simming, but a flight school presentation should stay within accepted safe parameters.

[sightseer 895]

I think the appearance of the sky and clouds are very important - especially if you are trying to attract new people who are used to more modern games with modern graphics.

 

Surely it is true that people look to the sky and want to get up there amongst the clouds.  Surely that's why people fly.  if all anyone cared about were accurate aircraft cockpits and nice airport scenery then why leave the ground at all?

 

I like for all the scenery to be there and I love the navigation aspect and I feel that good graphics that are driven by the weather that challenge me in my efforts to take off from here and fly to there...that's called a good flight simulator.  and I really think the FSX engine can do pretty good with correct mods and thoughtful updating.  Outerra looks great but its not needed to greatly improve upon an FSX/ESP flightsim.  but people in charge of graphics should be as thoughtful and observant as the Outerra people appear to be.  otherwise we end up with sunset clouds with little color.

[DTG Martin 213]

That may be so, but take another look at the video. I would think that an important consideration for a product labeled "Flight School" would be to avoid showing something that would be dangerous in real life. An altitude that low on base leg is risky. Not what you'd be taught at any flight school, I think.

 

Sure, I fly "cowboy maneuvers" all the time when I'm simming, but a flight school presentation should stay within accepted safe parameters.

 

I have been following up on this for you. First off, the land mission we showed comes from the LAPL section of the sim. This is where you start to learn to fly if you follow the structure of the gameplay as we designed it. The LAPL is going to teach new simmers all of the basic they need to know. Our playtesting with new players taught us that when starting out people really struggled to hold the altitude along with everything else they needed to do. This resulted in a lot of frustration. Therefore, we relaxed the boundaries which you had to maintain in order to pass the lesson. We agree that 250 ft is a bit low and ideally you want to be about 500 ft. You can absolutely do that in the sim. The PPL which follows the LAPL is much stricter and if you tried to do the same thing again during those lesson you would fail. We have found that this creates a good sense of challenge and skill development for players.

 

Bonus fun fact - The voice of the instructor in the lessons is a real life flight school instructor who has been helping us make the sim!

 

- Martin  

[Paraffin 2,197]

I have been following up on this for you. First off, the land mission we showed comes from the LAPL section of the sim. This is where you start to learn to fly if you follow the structure of the gameplay as we designed it. The LAPL is going to teach new simmers all of the basic they need to know. Our playtesting with new players taught us that when starting out people really struggled to hold the altitude along with everything else they needed to do. This resulted in a lot of frustration. Therefore, we relaxed the boundaries which you had to maintain in order to pass the lesson. We agree that 250 ft is a bit low and ideally you want to be about 500 ft. You can absolutely do that in the sim. The PPL which follows the LAPL is much stricter and if you tried to do the same thing again during those lesson you would fail. We have found that this creates a good sense of challenge and skill development for players.

 

 

I do understand that you're skating a fine line here with something that's accessible and "fun," but I think you're backing yourself into a corner with this particular lesson. How do you explain in the later PPL lesson that what was shown earlier was unsafe, and didn't allow for an engine-out landing? 

 

It could maybe be handled by calling the initial lessons something like "Arcade Mode," so the parameters could be relaxed, and then transition to more real-life flight instruction with later lessons. "Now we're going to teach you how it's really done," or something like that. By presenting it with the overall vibe that this is actual flight instruction, I think it's potentially confusing if you do get into discussing and practicing EOL's, which I think are one of the more fun things you can do in a sim. No consequences for bending metal if you blow it. But you have to know how much air is underneath your plane to know what you can get away with. 

 

Just my opinion, and regardless, I hope this product is successful at getting more people into flight sims.

[rtodepart 761]

Sure, first of all: A new graphics engine! - outerra like 'look' and 'feel'. A least the latest graphics engines should be used! Slim chance we see that with Dovetail's 'stuck in the last decade FSX engine'.

 

Second of all: Better weather implementation. As a professional pilot you know how much that is lacking in any sim... even with ASN doing its very best it can.

 

Third of all: Better flight models.

 

Fourth of all: ATC that looks and feels real as much as possible. But maybe that is better implemented from a third party developer...

 

That's basically it. I am not asking for much.... :wink:

We have a very high implementation of aircraft systems already, which I love.

 

In general, just more realism, in some aspects we have been stuck in the past for a long time.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

more realisim has a price ... sometime after flight was canned i started to knock some doors with a somewhat good chunk of cash at hand to start a sim 250K$ to be exact . later on a good friend of mine  also a pilot came onboard with the same amount of cash and after talking to some big names in the gaming/aviation  industry it only took a 2 months for us to stop thinking about the idea . why ? line of code are expensive ... very expensive and the end product with lots of realism comes at a price that must simmers cant even affort ...

 

 

 

 

[DTG Martin 213]

 

 

Just my opinion, and regardless, I hope this product is successful at getting more people into flight sims.

 

We welcome everyone's opinions. The points you raised are of course very valid, and the gameplay structure is still being refined over the coming weeks as we try the sim out on more playtesters. Balancing gameplay is always one of the most challenging areas of game design. 

 

Regardless, I have passed on your comments to the development team for consideration. Thank you for sharing them with us. 

 

- Martin 

[bonchie 2,305]

"The purpose of Flight School is to teach people to fly."

 

Base on some quotes I've seen, its primary purpose is entertainment, which bring me to point #2:

 

"The video doesn't look that bad, but according to the Canadian Aviation Regulations (may be different for others), you should not be descending until established on base, while normal circuit height is 1000' Above Ground Level."

 

Here in the US, descent (for GA, anyway) typically begins abeam the numbers, from (approximately) 850-1000 AGL, 700 at downwind to base, 500 base to final.

 

The video, as I've mentioned in my other thread, shows the aircraft at about 250 AGL base to final, apparently with no concern on behalf of the instructor. 

 

I may be missing something (and this certainly may be corrected) but that's arguably one of the most critical positions and critical maneuvers to be off altitude.

 

Even in the US it's contradictory. You can find places in the FAA handbook that say start descent on base. Another place says start abeam.

 

Some flight schools will forbid descents on downwind. Others will teach the gradual descent starting abeam.

 

Me personally, unless it's a really slick airplane, I prefer to just descend on base. Never had a problem getting down by doing so. I typically like to stay high anyway in real life. I can lose altitude a lot easier on final then I can get it back. But if I were in a Mooney, I may have more trouble doing that.

[Silicus 881]

 

 

more realisim has a price ... sometime after flight was canned i started to knock some doors with a somewhat good chunk of cash at hand to start a sim 250K$ to be exact . later on a good friend of mine  also a pilot came onboard with the same amount of cash and after talking to some big names in the gaming/aviation  industry it only took a 2 months for us to stop thinking about the idea . why ? line of code are expensive ... very expensive and the end product with lots of realism comes at a price that must simmers cant even affort ...

 

Thanks for sharing this. I guess that is a difference between a 'game' and a 'simulation'. The price.

 

Would be interesting to find out what the average hard core simmer would be willing to spend and how many are there around - but I don't want to high jack this thread...  

[oldbear 33]

I doubt that the local landclass is even Orbx, Orbx would have got the VFR landmarks right, and this is one field where you really do need to know where you are in relation to London CTR. 

 

You're right there. This is where I did my real flying lessons!

 

I could never fly over my house because it was the wrong side of the line.

 

Anyway, I think it's a brilliant video and can't wait to try the game.

 

And good on those who are taking a positive attitude over this. Makes a change from the endless moaning and griping from some quarters. As if it mattered....

[garylaw 0]

Dear Martin,

 

I appreciate the fact that DTG is going to make a platform for new comers who may become the next generation of flight simmers. The "Flight School" should be entertaining and fruitful when they learn the basics of flying.

 

However, I also agree with all the honourable gentlemen up there about?"Flight School" that learning experience would be an important element in this platform should provide them with proper "instinct" of flying so that they may get the idea correctly from day one, as when a person has learnt a wrong method it takes more time to un-learn it in the future. Hence teaching them flying the plane safely would be vital when they are having fun in flying, also saving them a bit of trouble when they join the flight sim community afterwords.

 

But this doesn't have to be a scary or strict way, as most of the instructors in real life would just give you a friendly remainder like "It's a bit too low for the base leg, just add a bit of power to reduce the descend rate" without instructor taking control and "fail" you for the lesson - I would suggest not to fail anyone in lesson unless they crashed, instead just kindly ask if they want to have another attempt again.

 

What I would suggest is just to add a bit more of friendly voice guidance to help the new pilots and also give them an after lesson briefing with praising for their effort - this has proved to be quite useful for new flyers. "Professional but friendly" should be throughout the whole learning experience - sim or real life.

 

Also whilst it is correct that the pilot would control the airspeed through elevator input, the power would also be used to control the descend rate - so there is not "set the power and hold it right there" - usually 25-50 RPM adjustment should be needed to maintain the glidepath. I believe this would be very important when wind comes into the equation in the lessons afterwards.

Also from documents of the airfield that the circuit height is 800ft on QFE,
so I am pretty puzzled that in the video it was at 1000ft with the rose stating for 1210ft?
(while the field elevation seems to be 157ft AMSL). But it seems that in the video the route of the circuit was done properly as to comply with all the noise abatement procedures as in the map:

 

Moreover, being a LAPL(A) holder in the UK myself, I would like to stress that LAPL is not quite the easier version for PPL. They share most of the lessons with only reduction of distance Qualifying Cross Country and also cutting the "land-away" practice short. Most part of the checkride for the licence is the same - Getting a LAPL enables you to flying all over EU airspace with 3 passengers, so it is not just for the basics really.

 

Thanks a lot for being here listening to us and I am looking forward to invite more people joining our community through your DTG Flight School as an initial step.

 

- Gary

[dtrjones 356]

That is true, but why then show case a very dump down lesson, if you want to attract new users?

 

The gamers of the day, or anyone who is slightly into simulation will see nothing new here, especially when they look at the decade old graphics.

There is a lot of 'hoping' and 'could bees' in your post, which is fine, I am hoping too, but in that short video there is nothing really fundamentally new, that caught my eye. That's all I am saying.

 

I like to support quality developers, that really put sweat and tears into their work, where you can see and feel that they went beyond what we expect. Like PMDG or Quality Wings, or ASN - you know who I mean, granted those are add-ons, but the point is that they move innovation forward in the limited confines of the simulation. You can feel and see the 'drive' and passion they put into their work.

 

Dovetail has the chance to show that as well with the new simulator, but looking at the video, I have my doubts that they will take full advantage of that chance and really go above and beyond.

 

There is a lot of Dovetail fan boys around here and I am trying to find out why that is, we really haven't seen anything fundamentally new. Just because Dovetail hangs around these forums and pretend to listen doesn't cut it for me - yet.

Again, they might surprise me with the new simulator, but I have my doubts... If it quacks like a duck......

 

Thanks Silicus for your frank response :smile: .

 

I understand you want more, we all do. But a company like Dovetail has to weigh this desire for a high fidelity visual simulation with a proper business plan which is economically viable and sustainable for the next 10 or 20 years - you can't do both not for the first release anyway. For this to be successful I think some compromises have to be made, first and foremost is the evolution of the FSX engine. Writing a new one from scratch for any company especially a relatively small company like Dovetail would be suicide so Dovetail have taken steps to ensure a level of expectation is set and delivered upon. That started with aquiring the rights with the FSX code to develop a new simulation.

 

If I fall in your bracket for a Dovetail fan boys then that's certainly not my intention. Dovetail have a huge responsibiity taking on the Microsoft Flight Simulation mantal. But we as consumers have a responsibility too and that is to support and critique what Dovetail are doing to make there products better. I'm fine with you saying for example this or that needs improving - this helps Dovetail. But to say there is nothing new here doesn't add as much value but this sort of opinion is ok with me and if enough people say this I'm sure Dovetail will react.

 

I guess what I'm really saying here is, ultimately I like to think I'm contributing to feedback to the community and Dovetail to make a better simulator and sometimes when I read messages I'm think that doesn't help anybody so why are those people on here, maybe they need to find another simulator.

[Silicus 881]

 

 

instead of bashing what Dovetail are doing all the time

 

Thanks for you reply.

That is often the problem here, that criticism is conceived as bashing.

 

I have long supported flight sim developers with $ since FS98, even if I do not post very much.

There are many excellent developers around, both freeware and payware.

 

As others have also pointed out: The subject video, strictly from a instructional point of view, is not very close to a real world flying lesson. There are key elements missing (traffic awareness, unicom/ATC communication, basically a series of heading instructions etc).

Since then Martin mentioned that there seem to be different 'levels' of instructions, great, we will see.

But why show the 'low level' instruction to a flight sim community, that they know will be highly critical of every single thing they will show case?

 

I really want Dovetail to succeed in the small world of flightsim.

But money talks, if they don't sell enough of their games/simulators eventually that department will be shut down. That is the reality and we all here know it.

I personally think, and this my opinion and not mend as bashing, that Dovetail have to step up their game, if they want to succeed, strictly on the bases of that video and what I have seen so far.

[garylaw 0]

As others have also pointed out: The subject video, strictly from a instructional point of view, is not very close to a real world flying lesson. There are key elements missing (traffic awareness, unicom/ATC communication, basically a series of heading instructions etc).

Since then Martin mentioned that there seem to be different 'levels' of instructions, great, we will see.

But why show the 'low level' instruction to a flight sim community, that they know will be highly critical of every single thing they will show case?

I would say most of us here are very constructive and we hope Dovetail to succeed. 

I don't see putting those key elements and also keep up with real world lesson would scare the new comers off.

The first place they will try "Flight School" would be the fact that they can learn to become a pilot with realism,

(or they will definitely have gone to those exciting yet unreal simulators on their smartphones.)

and they will be immersed into this environment of flying. Everyone will still remember the first time they fly flight simulator, and this memory will keep them for life.

 

IMHO, what scares them off is the difficulty - if you fail them by slightest error and ask them to do it again and again

- this will be as frustrating as the previous FSX tutorial lessons.

They will only feel being intimidated without receiving proper advice from the virtual instructor.

 

Just teach them the proper way to fly (with vital elements like awareness and checks in subsequent lessons),

yet the system should be friendly and give them professional advice on how they can do better next time.

 

The pilot will remember it, just like in the trailer the pilot remembers what his instructor had told him.

and "Flight School" will be the door for them to explore the whole new world of flight simulation and aviation.

 

I hope this won't be consider as bashing, would it? 

 

- Gary