53 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

You do need to post ACSs. Most of them I know by heart; otherwise, I wouldn't be able to teach. I would suggest to look here

https://www.cfinotebook.net/notebook/aircraft-operations/visual-scanning-and-collision-avoidance

and also review 91.113 (b)

 The rule of thumb to able to fly airplane visually understand relation of pilot's point view: cowling vs horizon while recognize aircraft attitude. In addition, (by employing) physical, audio and visual sensory able to understand airplane behavior  such as descend, climb, stall , acceleration and etc.

One good excise it to land airplane with ASI inop. Rod Machado used to have  whole training series on how to land airplane without working airspeed indicator or elevator by using just power and trim. 

Over the years I've seen numerous CFI's and students who landed safely aircraft without working airspeed indicator . That skill comes directly from knowing how to fly aircraft by visual reference. As mentioned  above proficient pilot must utilize all available assets to fly safety. So visuals are important as well as realistic landscape. There are still airplanes like classic Cub that don't even have electrical system there are no VOR, NDB, or magenta lines there are only stick, rudder, and good pair of eyes! LOL

I did my fair share using FAA approved sims for my commercial. Other than real cockpit mock up and instructor station there were subpar to MSFS. So yeah I logged some time in them but other than procedures it wasn't much useful. So any CFI who ever had a student lost during solo cross country would greatly appreciate MSFS visuals right now  LOL

 

This discussion was triggered by "eyes outside cockpit".

It's clear that each industry has its own way of doing things, and that's definitely true for the airline industry. We at the airlines got our own unique approach to flight training, and many times disagree with certain CFI's approaches, that's for sure! I wished it was all standardized and no personal technics, for everybody's benefit. I now comprehend the root cause of problems that arise with low-experience pilots and realize why additional time may be required to rectify certain issues. This is more so particularly noticeable now, as the shortage of pilots and experience is a significant challenge.

4 minutes ago, LRBS said:

This discussion was triggered by "eyes outside cockpit".

It's clear that each industry has its own way of doing things, and that's definitely true for the airline industry. We at the airlines got our own unique approach to flight training, and many times disagree with certain CFI's approaches, that's for sure! I wished it was all standardized and no personal technics, for everybody's benefit. I now comprehend the root cause of problems that arise with low-experience pilots and realize why additional time may be required to rectify certain issues. This is more so particularly noticeable now, as the shortage of pilots and experience is a significant challenge.

Hang on here. There are no difference "things" in  industry. There are different certificates and rating the pilot must go through before taking shot at ATP. What I'm telling you is common knowledge of FAA standards not "certain CFI approach". You google random things here without clear understanding or knowldge. A pilot shortage you mentioned is not because of some kind of standards issue but because people invested tons of money in training and hour building just to get stuck in debt and low paid  regionals commuters before hopefully they get enough  seniority and can bid to the "big league".  We can finish here. 

Not up to date, sorry, was fine at this days but now an other Standard takes over, thank god..

cheers 😉

15 hours ago, jcomm said:

Frankfurt (FRA) ✈️ Boston (BOS) Arrival | DLH420 | Aerowinx PSX+MSFS - YouTube

I have fast browsed the YT.  Never adverse to a thought provoking post but I am at loss to understand  what this simulation would bring me.

The VC is not only some candy to please the eyes, it puts in you in the almost real physical environment of an aircraft. Flight simulation is a holistic experience. Parallel to the faithfulness of the flying model and flow of procedure, it gives you the feeling of being at the command center of a complex machine soliciting your attention in all directions. 

 I am even sure that it is/was used to train real pilots ? What you showed might be best in some aspects of a simulation. Overall best ? I don’t know. 

3 hours ago, Dominique_K said:

I have fast browsed the YT.  Never adverse to a thought provoking post but I am at loss to understand  what this simulation would bring me.

The VC is not only some candy to please the eyes, it puts in you in the almost real physical environment of an aircraft. Flight simulation is a holistic experience. Parallel to the faithfulness of the flying model and flow of procedure, it gives you the feeling of being at the command center of a complex machine soliciting your attention in all directions. 

 I am even sure that it is/was used to train real pilots ? What you showed might be best in some aspects of a simulation. Overall best ? I don’t know. 

It was / is indeed used for training by pilots, companies operating the 744 (specially the Cargo variants), and simmers like me who are specially attracted by the experience of an as accurate / precise / detailed as possible representation of an aircraft.

Some good examples of PSX in use here: Aerowinx - Users

When I first bought Aerowinx ( PS1 in 1997 ), fs9 was the reference. Then came fsx, and PMDG released their 744s, but the level of detail was far from that which Hardy Heinlin put's into this simulation, FAA certified for 744 training.

At the Aerowinx forums there are several RW 744 drivers. One of them "jon b" is also present here at AVSIM, at the MFS, XP and probably P3D forums too 🙂

The biggest problem for me is that Aerowinx doen't yet have it's own Navigraph "bridge" / simLink, although since about an year it became possible to update it's NAV and airport databases using Navigraph. Before that we had to rely on yearly updates that were more expensive than a 1 month license of Navigraph. We still look forward to get the "Moviing Map" functionality working one of these days, but the # of simmers willing to use PSX with Navigraph is not significative for their investment in such a variant if SimLink, I guess...

My biggest quirk with PSX is that I use it with a stick ( T.16000 ) instead of a good yoke setup, and I have a single PC and monitor, so while I am sure my rig can easily run PSX and MFS in parallel the experience will not be as good as the one that users with multiple monitors / touchscreens and / or multiple CPU / networked solutions can have.

Then, I have to confess I never really liked the merge between the ultra smooth and precise, I'd say absolutely UNIQUE accuracy and feel of flight of PSX's flight dynamics modelling and weather effects when using an external visuals generator 😕

Some users even have full flight decks and report that they're exactly like those multi-million $ CAE simulators, but my experience using either XP11 or P3D was always lacking, and when it comes to maneuvering in bad weather, gusting winds and turbulence, PSX (standalone) is miles ahead of any other fight simulator I have used, but only when I use it standalone. Using an external visuals generator stills some of the feel from my experience, but that's probably my problem only (?). But then those 80s Era out-of windshield scenery and runway graphics are sooooo limited 😞 specially after a session in one of the modern sims ...

 

Edited August 10, 20232 yr by jcomm

Thanks for the development. It is fascinating to see how we could look for different things in our common hobby. From the proverbial ‘anything goes’ simmers  flying inverted under bridges at one extremity to this very austere kind at the other extremity 😉. I feel very middle ground ! 

It is also the only 747-400 for MFS.  

Having read some of the comments that came along after me, I'll officially withdraw my "laughable" comment. I can see how this might work for a serious instrument / procedural kind of simmer. My original comments are still true for my own personal use of the sim, but, hey . . .

I own both products. These aren't comparable in any way, they're completely different products. I owned the old PS1, all these eye candy focussed people would have had an existential crisis flying the ps1 on MSDOS. The 1st PS came with a high quality ringbound flight manual akin to the UTP guides. I think PMDG were involved in making these? Please correct me if I'm wrong. PMDG744 is good, I only have the 744 on p3d so I can fly the 748 which isn't modelled in PSX. 

43 minutes ago, nimsu1987 said:

The 1st PS came with a high quality ringbound flight manual akin to the UTP guides. I think PMDG were involved in making these? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

To make a long story short, nope...

I do not own the p3d 744/8i but I just started to use the WT mod for the MFS 748i an I am enjoying it.

Spotlight Series: SimfestUK and WorldFlight - YouTube