Best Flight Dynamics I've seen

[Guest av84fun]

<>Yes Rico. Why do you ask?Jim

[Guest av84fun]

Excellent analysis, Marco. Thanks!Jim

[Guest av84fun]

<>I don't have the specs on your rig, but on mine virtually all "unusual attitudes" are properly depicted and my instrument responses (assuming advanced add-ons) are extremely realistic.<<2) Fluidity of instruments, especially the HSI/DI is an issue.>>That varies with the add-on but on my advanced models, fluidity is exceptionally good. <<3) Consistency of cloud bases. It must be possible for the instructor to set a cloud base that he knows prevents visual contact before DA/MDA on an instrument approach. With FS as it is, for all he knows the student found one of the many holes in the 'overcast'.>>Nahh. First, there is nothing consistent about cloud bases ITRW and secondly, while there is the age-old issue of the overcast in FS not extending all the way to the horizon, that is not an issue on an instrument approach. I don't ever recall making visual contact with the runway at an altitude appreciably higher than the base I have set but even then, all you need to do is set viz to 300 and a half with NO clouds and you won't see beans until the DH.<<5) ATIS voice over VORs. As far as I know this isn't possible.>>Nor is it required in a PCATD.8) Flying by numbers. It is no good having an FM that is nearly right. It must be spot on or else how can a student be expect to fly with precision in the real aircraft. >>I have FLOWN an X-plane MOTUS simulator and I cannot detect any appreciable difference in FM realism.If your point was that simulated flight on any PC platform cannot be made to exactly duplicate real world flight then we can agree. But to quote the manager of Business Development at MSFS... "Today, Flight Simulator is being used to help train pilots. The U.S. Navy issues Flight Simulator to its student pilots. As part of the Career Pilot Program at the FlightSafety International Academy in Vero Beach, FL, students must complete 27 hours of instruction in a Microsoft

[Guest billionaire_bob]

>Bob, that surprises me since, in an earlier post in this>marathon thread you indicated that as a RW twin pilot, you>found that the DF Baron single engine modeling was "amazingly>realistic"...or words to that effect.Jim,I used the term

[Guest billionaire_bob]

Very well done and exactly what I was trying to say!.. That

[crvm 0]

I know the Navy has used MS Flight Simulator, but only as a conceptual trainer, not actual simulation of hands on flight training. X-Plane by contrast has managed FAA certification for a limited number of training hours. The alogorithms X-Plane uses for flight dynamics is light years ahead of Microsoft and always has been. There's a good reason why one program has FAA certification and the other does not Look here: http://www.x-plane.com/FTD.html I have FAA desktop trainers (3 in fact) and this means NOTHING when compared to FLIGHT MODELLING. In fact some add-ons for MSFS are much better than the trainers I have. MSFS is only a base, if you took some great add-ons with proper FAA tools (radios..controls) there is no difference than any of these trainers can do for you training wise, I would venture to guess the they can be better...[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|

[Guest JIMJAM]

Time for a part 2.

[Guest av84fun]

<>Bob, I will give that a try but the exact routine you describe above would not be appropriate in "flight testing" the Baron under realistic conditions and may never have been attempted ITRW due to the danger involved.As you know, engine out procedure calls for a bank into the good engine which, in your example, would be the still-running upwind engine.Since your scenario imposes a crosswind, it would be doubly important to maintain a bank into the wind (and the good engine) if maintaining runway heading was a priority.Regards,Jim

[Guest av84fun]

Entirely correct Randy! As noted elsewhere, I have a number of hours in an X-Plane MOTUS motion base sim and for several years was an Elite owner/user.You wisely point out that MSFS is only the base. Users shouldn't blame the software because they hate the way the default Skyhawk flies.Conversely, given some of the superb add-ons from DF, RealAir, FSD and others, in my personal experience the flight dynamics of the PCATD sims I have flown are no better...and as you pointed out, may not be as good as some FS models.Regards,Jim

[Guest av84fun]

<>Oh not yet! Not until we have reached a record! And besides, look what Rico has learned. He has learned that airspeed is not supposed to increase appreciably in a slip. He has learned the difference between a forward slip and a side slip...what the Navy and a large group of respected flight schools use MSFS for and that MSFS's flight dynamics capabilities have nothing whatsoever to do with MS's disinterest in obtaining FAA certification.We can't quit now!!!(-:

[Murmur 3,960]

>That was probably an unfair description, because it

[Guest Adverse Yawn]

I'm not that interested in PCATDs because they aren't recognised by JAA/EASA. The entry level kit for loggable time towards an IR is the FNPT II standard. For the reasons I have described above it would indeed be a complex and expensive project to pull it together for as a suitable trainer.However, on the subject of PCATDs I looked up the standards. The only sticking point is are the requirements for the instructor management requirements. I really think somebody would have a hard time getting around some FS issues there.I still think it would be too expensive to to pull hardware and software together from what would need to be a huge number of vendors, on top of that recode some of the instruments, develop the instructor management facilities as well as develop suitable FMs. In addition, what if MS suddenly decided to cancel FS. What protection could and organisation have. They would need to get ownership/access to the source code in such a case.Can you supply links/references for the press's suggestion that FS is suitable for logging time?

[Guest Adverse Yawn]

The one thing that can be said of you is you sure know alot about thread entertainment techniques :DThe answer to your question is - hang in there buddy. The record this thread sets will never be broken.

[Guest Adverse Yawn]

Maintaining the runway heading is about as much use as a chocolate teapot! You mean maintain the runway track.

[Guest Adverse Yawn]

However, I just noticed this: http://www.projectmagenta.com/products.htmlI would have liked to have seen a little more on the failures, the meteo was just viz adjustment and the positioning seemed to be conveniently cut so I suspect my concerns have an ounce of validity at least. But I'll not be so arrogant, their stuff looks amazing but curiously jet oriented. But the caveat "within the bounds of Flight Simulator" does crop up here and there with no substance on what is meant by that.The professional references with the exception of EPST, don't seem to be bona-fide training organisation. EPST cannot use a PM based sim for logging hours but, I bet pound to a penny they use the sim for MCC training, which frankly can be completed with a cardboard cockpit and two chairs so says nothing about the flight training capabilitis of their setup.I'm seriously impressed, but not yet convinced.