Which SIM for an IFR simulator?

[Zatoichi 45]

I'd tape a piece of paper over the top half of the screen (so nothing but instruments show) , like a visor and have a go?

[auburntsts 1]

6 hours ago, Zatoichi said:

I'd tape a piece of paper over the top half of the screen (so nothing but instruments show) , like a visor and have a go?

No need. The weather in the sim can be set to whatever minimums I want.  It doesn't have to look pretty with raindrops on the windshield and stuff like that.  When you are in solid IMC in the real world it's like you are flying inside a ping pong ball.  It's just solid off white unless you passing in and out of layers/individual clouds or flying through precip.  None of that is necessary to accomplish what I want which typically is to break out at minimums (at or near DA on a precision approach, and at the MDA prior to the MAP on a non-precision approach), see the runway environment, transition to visual, and land OR go missed if no runway environment is in sight at the DA or the MAP.  Now what I would like is dynamic weather in the form of changing ceilings, wind, and vis just like the real world as these can be very different on the approach than what ATIS or AWOS is reporting on the field.

[michal 44]

I am still waiting for my "dream" IFR simulator. And my requirements are truly minimal. I don't need terrain, I don't need autogen, I don't need weather, I don't need clouds, I don't need rain drops. My Garmin G1000 PC Trainer is fine - the problem is it lacks aerodynamics of real aircraft. So add some half-decent "airfile" (SR20/SR22T, etc) to my trainer and I would be in heaven but I suspect none is coming soon.

[auburntsts 1]

12 hours ago, michal said:

I am still waiting for my "dream" IFR simulator. And my requirements are truly minimal. I don't need terrain, I don't need autogen, I don't need weather, I don't need clouds, I don't need rain drops. My Garmin G1000 PC Trainer is fine - the problem is it lacks aerodynamics of real aircraft. So add some half-decent "airfile" (SR20/SR22T, etc) to my trainer and I would be in heaven but I suspect none is coming soon.

Yeah, I have the G1000 trainer too, but haven't used it since I got my ticket 4 years ago.  Although the G1000 system logic is very similar to my current EFIS and radio setup (It's all Garmin after all), the buttonology is different enough that I'm willing to invest in a new PC, hardware, and software to get better emulation.

[Gypsy Pilot 29]

Have you considered going with a VR setup?  It would cost less than a good 27" Touchscreen monitor and it would give you the sense of the depth of field.that a monitor does not have.

The system you want does not exist at your price point.   You are looking at around a 3,000  dollar system and if you want to make long flights you will need P3D v4 to avoid VAS crashes.

Dale

[auburntsts 1]

4 hours ago, Gypsy Pilot said:

Have you considered going with a VR setup?  It would cost less than a good 27" Touchscreen monitor and it would give you the sense of the depth of field.that a monitor does not have.

The system you want does not exist at your price point.   You are looking at around a 3,000  dollar system and if you want to make long flights you will need P3D v4 to avoid VAS crashes.

Dale

 

Nope -- VR would be way over kill for what I'm trying to accomplish.  Although I'm still learning, it would seem I can setup what I want for closer to $1500--new i5 7600K based PC, a 16"-24" inch touch screen monitor, and  F1 G500/600 with GTN  add-ons.  I care nothing for scenery, traffic, pretty clouds, or entire simulated enroute IFR flights from airport to airport (I get enough of that flying my real world airplane).  My intent is purely to set the ceilings and visibilities at or near minimums and practice approaches, system failures, and system integration.  I guess I don't understand why I need a $3K investment to do that.

[Oracle427 45]

I'm running an AMD machine with a 970GTX that is over 6 years old. I upgraded the video card a coupe of years ago. I use FSX Acceleration for a very similar purpose and have absolutely no scenery add-ons. I have Active Sky Next, 2 A2A aircraft and that's it. Perfect to practice my real world procedures and the stock simulator does the job perfectly.

I have never ever had a VAS error despite leaving the sim on for 4 hours at a time with the AP on when flying from city to city just as an experiment. The stock scenery just doesn't push the engine that hard.

The only thing that will always cause an FSX crash for me is of I keep resetting the session or loading aircraft. It is best to fully exit the sim and relaunch rather than load a new situation. There is some sort of known memory leak there.

If you ever do decide to get scenery add-ons then I guess you will eventually run into issues, but it appears you have the same profile as I do!

I would be surprised if you couldn't fit your needs within that budget.

Good luck!

[Gypsy Pilot 29]

It all depends on what you want to accomplish with your sim.  If you fly FSX without scenery ( no scenery, or complex aircraft, no VAS problems ) what you propose will work.  Just be careful that you don't end up like me with 3 computers on the shelf that no longer are strong enough to fit my needs.  

I started flying sims with FS2000 and my satisfaction grew with each sim release. Everything was fine until I installed FSX and Orbx PNW.  That is when I discovered that my real joy came from flying Low and Slow over great scenery in difficult terrain.  

The system you propose will become a dedicated machine limited to your original purpose and will have to be replaced if the simming bug bites you.  

I can envision an IFR Trainer with only the instrument panel on the screen and you flying with only the instruments you will use in real life,.building up your proficiency in flying without scenery. 

The big question is where do you go from there?

Will you want accurate airports to land at?

Will you want to be able to see the ground and have all of the landmarks where they are supposed to be?

It's all up to you.  You can fly using only the default scenery or fly using enhanced scenery.

What I am saying is just think it through before you make the investment.

Dale

 

 

 

 

 

 

[auburntsts 1]

53 minutes ago, Gypsy Pilot said:

It all depends on what you want to accomplish with your sim.  If you fly FSX without scenery ( no scenery, or complex aircraft, no VAS problems ) what you propose will work.  Just be careful that you don't end up like me with 3 computers on the shelf that no longer are strong enough to fit my needs.  

I started flying sims with FS2000 and my satisfaction grew with each sim release. Everything was fine until I installed FSX and Orbx PNW.  That is when I discovered that my real joy came from flying Low and Slow over great scenery in difficult terrain.  

The system you propose will become a dedicated machine limited to your original purpose and will have to be replaced if the simming bug bites you.  

I can envision an IFR Trainer with only the instrument panel on the screen and you flying with only the instruments you will use in real life,.building up your proficiency in flying without scenery. 

The big question is where do you go from there?

Will you want accurate airports to land at?

Will you want to be able to see the ground and have all of the landmarks where they are supposed to be?

It's all up to you.  You can fly using only the default scenery or fly using enhanced scenery.

What I am saying is just think it through before you make the investment.

Dale

 

 

 

 

 

 

I get what you are saying, but I'm not concerned as most of what you bring up simply is not anything I care about with one exception:  Airport accuracy.  And even then it is only an issue as far as the runway environment (specially runway and approach lighting) as being able to visually acquire it is the key as to whether a given approach can be continued all the way to a landing or having to go missed. This is why I want a 2-screen system: one for the panel and one for a forward out the window view. Anything beyond the runway environment (buildings, ramps, trees, grass, houses, etc)  is of absolutely no interest.   Also I've already got some dedicated IFR software, the problem is none of it can emulate my avionics.   Plus the Nav databases are waaayy out of date and aren't updatable.  I should note I've played around with different versions of MS Flight Sim over the decades (yes decades) and never found Flight Sims specifically, or computer gaming in general, very enjoyable (my 17 yr old son on the other hand...).   To me a flight sim is a simply a tool and not an entertainment medium.

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

I would one more time suggest you get FSX or P3D installed, and the Alabeo Seminole with the Flight1 G600 / GTN 750 avionics addons.

This will give you 90% of what you are looking for.

From there, you can focus on the remaining 10%... visuals, one screen / two screens etc.

I have worked with other airplane owners in the past and found that having accurate avionics and cockpit feel is the number one requirement.

The Seminole may not be your ideal airplane, and over time, you can improve upon that also, but as a starting point, I believe you will be quite happy with it..

[THibben 16]

3 hours ago, Bert Pieke said:

I would one more time suggest you get FSX or P3D installed, and the Alabeo Seminole with the Flight1 G600 / GTN 750 avionics addons.

This will give you 90% of what you are looking for.

From there, you can focus on the remaining 10%... visuals, one screen / two screens etc.

I have worked with other airplane owners in the past and found that having accurate avionics and cockpit feel is the number one requirement.

The Seminole may not be your ideal airplane, and over time, you can improve upon that also, but as a starting point, I believe you will be quite happy with it..

Hi Bert,

I am just curious what it is about the Seminole, as to many other aircraft that offer the same avionics.  I am not complaining, just curious.

 

Tom

[scottb613 1,186]

12 minutes ago, THibben said:

Hi Bert,

I am just curious what it is about the Seminole, as to many other aircraft that offer the same avionics.  I am not complaining, just curious.

 

Tom

Hi Tom,

The Seminole is one of the only two planes that have the new Flight1 G500/600 built into the VC... As the Flight1 software is new - there are only two choices available... That and the Seminole was extremely well received by the community...

That’s my guess...

Regards,

Scott

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

1 hour ago, scottb613 said:

Hi Tom,

The Seminole is one of the only two planes that have the new Flight1 G500/600 built into the VC... As the Flight1 software is new - there are only two choices available... That and the Seminole was extremely well received by the community...

That’s my guess...

Regards,

Scott

Correct

[cakequest 4]

If you are looking for a freeware weather engine to simulate real-world weather, I would highly recommend fsxwx: http://www.plane-pics.de/fsxwx/home.htm

It seems fairly accurate to me and I cannot fly without it. However the weather is only real world and cannot be set to a custom minimums so it may not be entirely suitable for setting conditions to IMC whenever you want (unless you go to a place in the world where the conditions you desire really exist).

 

Josh