Newbie needing some very basic help!

[GC9876 0]

Good day everyone from a brand new member! I hold a professional pilot’s licence but know almost nothing about simulation on a PC and need to learn quickly as I have volunteered to help build one, for my local RAF Air Cadet youth organisation! We have sourced an old light aircraft cockpit and (having cut it off) are using this as a basis to build a sim.

Obviously our budget is limited which has determined , to an extent, what we can afford, but the plan so far is to use Logitech instruments, a Thrustmaster Wartgog joystick, with extension tube, Logitech Saikonrudder pedals, and a Honeycomb Bravo throttle quadrant. There’s plenty of space for expansion in the future is we can raise additional funding, such as adding radios and nav instruments. However I am open to argument as to how this might be wrong, bearing in mind we aren’t going to be spending thousands on a joystick!

The plan is to have 3 screens externally to the cockpit, and drive it all from a PC. Obviously I am more than happy with the flying aspects but the computing side is a mystery.

So the big question is which software to use? To my mind there are three criteria to consider:-

Realism of aircraft flight charecteristics

realism of scenery

ease of use

 

The last of these is important. I have ex perimented with an existing copy of MSFS X (Steam edition) and we can set up multiple screens to achieve a reasonable panoramic view. But it is fiddly to do and has to be set up again every time we turn on the PC.  Is there a solution that is “turn key”? There will be lots of users of this sim, not all of them very computer literate, so it’s really important that whoever is using it can press the “on” button and it all fires up across all there screens.

We have decided that we don’t want to “stretch” a single image across three screens by the way. This is not satisfactory in terms of field of view.

Finally, there is the issue of suitable PC and graphic card selection to give adequate performance.

I’ve been hunting around the internet trying to find some answers, and as always if you ask five people you get seven opinions, but I know others will have cracked this problem before and  I shouldn’t need to reinvent the wheel!

Bybthe way, we are only looking to (accurately)simulate low performance light aircraft. The need for such features as high speed multiple player air to air combat etc is minimal. This sim is primarily designed to be used for proper training (as much as possible within its limitations) not gaming.

Any and all pointers, advice, opinions and links are welcomed

Many thanks

[Ray Proudfoot 9,013]

Welcome to AvSim. I hope you will get the best advice for the solution you seek.

It would help if we knew what your budget was for the PC. FSX was written back in 2006 and has been replaced by Lockheed-Martin's Prepar3D. The current version is 5.3. You can see the recommended specs here. It retains a reasonable anount of compatibility with FSX for scenery.

The sim used by many for low-level flying is Microsoft Flight Simulator. Satellite imagery makes it extremely realistic but you do require a decent internet connection since all the scenery is streamed. System requirements here.

One option used by many enthusiasts is to use a TV for the primary display. With sizes up to 65" and beyond it can help solve the problem of multiple displays which do affect performance.

That's a starter. I'm sure more will be along very soon.

[Kalnon 160]

Welcome!  I'm fairly new myself to Avsim, it's a fantastic place to get answers, there are some very smart and helpful people here.  As @Ray Proudfoot said, FSX is pretty outdated, I also recommend trying P3Dv5.  P3Dv5 is also geared towards military flight training which it sounds like you're interested in.  Also for aircraft training, X-Plane 12 is pretty awesome, it might be worth checking out.  It's modern and it uses a fantastic flight model and it's easier to learn than other simulators.  However, if you insist on using FSX, the FSX forum here is pretty dead lately, most are nowdays, but if you PM me, I will give you some great advice on making it run well, I've been using it for years.  Unfortunately, whatever flight simulator you decide to use, it will take a significant amount of time to learn and use the simulator properly.  Flight simulators are quite complex and there is tons to learn how to setup and use them properly to do what you want.

About your GPU, for flight simulation, as it is for gaming also, the more powerful the GPU you have is, the higher performance you will achieve.  If scenery doesn't matter as much to you, than you can get away with a less powerful one but you still need something decent.  Flight Simulators are CPU heavy applications, it is also important to have a good CPU, but modern simulators use the GPU a lot more than older sims did so choosing both are important.  The hardware you decide on depends on the simulator you choose but as I said, more powerful CPU's and GPU's is always better.

For a good quality yoke, I recommend the Honeycomb Alpha, it's fairly expensive but 100% worth the added realism, that is, if you use aircraft with yokes a lot, otherwise the Logitech yoke is probably ok.

I don't know about using multiple screen setups.  I just use a single 32 inch 1440p monitor.

[Kalnon 160]

I also want to add, for multiplayer combat flight simulation, I really recommend both IL-2 Sturmovik: Great Battles series (WWI &WWII aircraft) and DCS World (modern jets, helicopters and WWII planes).  Both have very good multiplayer communities.

[GC9876 0]

Thanks for responses to date. To clarify, we are NOT concerned about the ability to process and render multiplayer combat style games. I want software that (within reason) accurately simulates what a real aircraft does.

it has been suggested by one of the potential end users that the latest FS from MS is pretty good. Streaming scenery is not an option for us. It must be self contained.

I’ve run the FSX existing software we have and have a reasonable grasp of the basics. The visuals are good enough that I can recognise an airfield with which I am familiar. But, as I said in the original question, it takes a while and some knowledge and skill to get it set up across three screens.

From what I can tell there seems to some commonality with commands, between different software (Carl E to start engines, for example). 
 

whilst I appreciate that respondents have a preference for one or the other it would be useful to know why! Also about experiences setting up over three screens.

 

Many thanks

 

[GC9876 0]

7 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

 

It would help if we knew what your budget was for the PC. FSX was written back in 2006 and has been replaced by Lockheed-Martin's Prepar3D. The current version is 5.3. You can see the recommended specs here. It retains a reasonable anount of compatibility with FSX for scenery.

The sim used by many for low-level flying is Microsoft Flight Simulator. Satellite imagery makes it extremely realistic but you do require a decent internet connection since all the scenery is streamed. System requirements here.

One option used by many enthusiasts is to use a TV for the primary display. With sizes up to 65" and beyond it can help solve the problem of multiple displays which do affect performance.

That's a starter. I'm sure more will be along very soon.

Budget is tricky as we already have some reasonably high end PCs so will need to check spec and see whether we can use those or need to start again 

Is Prepar3d a development from MSFS? In other words did they buy the rights as it were? Or is it a completely new product. A brief look does seem to indicate it is designed with aerodynamic realism in mind, which is definitely the way we want to go.

when you say “low level” do you mean literally (eg learning to fly the circuit, or “low end” meaning cheap and easy?

I've been warned of TVs because of the refresh rate (all Greek to me!) but wonder if we really need the 166Hz some monitors offer?

[Ray Proudfoot 9,013]

If streaming is not an option then MSFS can be eliminated. That leaves X-Plane by Laminar Research and LM P3D as your options.

XP12 is currently in beta so 11 might be the better option. Both it and P3D can accept addon scenery and if you’re flying solely in the UK Great Britain South, Central and North would be ideal to make the ground as realistic as possible. You can also add numerous GB airports / airfields from ORBX.

I’ve only ever used P3D (FSX before it) so that’s my preference. XP is meant to have better flight models for light aircraft so that may suit you.

I have no experience of multiple monitors but resolution is critical to good performance. A moderate graphics card will be fine for 1920*1080 but anything higher will need one with more grunt especially with multiple displays. Hence my suggestion to think about a single large display if feasible.

[Ray Proudfoot 9,013]

17 minutes ago, GC9876 said:

Is Prepar3d a development from MSFS? In other words did they buy the rights as it were? Or is it a completely new product. A brief look does seem to indicate it is designed with aerodynamic realism in mind, which is definitely the way we want to go.

The code for FSX was purchased from Microsoft when their ACES Team was disbanded 15 years ago. LM have improved it significantly since 2011 when v1 came out.

19 minutes ago, GC9876 said:

when you say “low level” do you mean literally (eg learning to fly the circuit, or “low end” meaning cheap and easy?

Below 1500 feet although it can be used by all aircraft at all altitudes. But as you’ve ruled out streaming MSFS is not an option.

20 minutes ago, GC9876 said:

I've been warned of TVs because of the refresh rate (all Greek to me!) but wonder if we really need the 166Hz some monitors offer?

166Hz is pointless for flight sims as you’ll never get that number of frames per second. 30Hz giving 30fps is ideal for many but not all. What you need to avoid is running both the CPU or GPU at 100% since stuttering will occur destroying realism. Hence why a TV or monitor capable of 30Hz upwards is attractive. I get smoother performance at 30fps than pushing the GPU 100% to get higher fps but causing stutters.

If you can post the specs if your PCs that would help.

[n4gix 4,949]

5 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Below 1500 feet although it can be used by all aircraft at all altitudes. But as you’ve ruled out streaming MSFS is not an option.

It is (was?) possible use MSFS off-line, just not making use of the full capability of the sim. However, given that MSFS still does not suppot multi-monitors at all make MSFS a non-starter.

The real advantage of P3D is that given the intended purpose is educational, they most definitely qualify to use the Student Edition!

[Bert Pieke 7,585]

I would agree that P3D and XPlane are the two most likely options.

There are lots of folks in the P3D forum who can give you advice, as well as some equally passionate users in the XPlane forum.  Both sims are solid training platforms for what you have in mind.

FSX has been replaced by P3D, and MSFS relies on an active internet connection, so based on your stated needs, they are both out of consideration.

If you ever reconsider the internet question.. MSFS might make it back on your list..

Suggest you ask the questions in the P3D / XPlane forums for more details.  This has all been done before and I am sure you will find good advice.  🙂