An interesting and detailed read over on FSNews about how MSFS helped the author pass his PPL checkride: https://fsnews.eu/using-msfs-for-flight-training-helped-pass-private-pilot/

Some quotes I found noteable (he was using the various Cessnas in MSFS and other sims):

• "But even with its imperfections, using MSFS for flight training played a crucial role in this monumental achievement.'
• 'When I first tried the X-Plane 12 Skyhawk XP, I was actually struck by how familiar it felt, and how similar to the MSFS 172 G1000 it was. Both aircraft exhibited the same stall/spin behavior that did not exactly match the actual aircraft: aggressively dropping a wing (tended to be the left) in a stall, and tending to spin, even when coordinated. Both aircraft required similar-magnitude control inputs to pitch, turn, and stay coordinated (tested in calm conditions)."
• MSFS needs to improve trim behaviour: "The X-Plane 12 Cessna 172SP did have some very positive qualities, however. Chief among those was the way it handled trim, being far less sensitive to small changes in trim than its MSFS counterpart. I found that I was able to trim out the X-Plane Cessna 172 very easily, and far more realistically to my real-world aircraft. In MSFS, a small “turn” of my Bravo throttle’s trim wheel would send me into uncontrollable climbs or descents, but in X-Plane 12 the trim behavior was smooth and realistic."
• "Of all three variants, the “default” G1000 C172SP had the flight characteristics that most closely matched the aircraft I flew in real life (Both S- and N-model 172s). It was the only one out of all four I tested that matched the docile stall behavior of the real 172, for example. Working Title’s excellent improvements to the G1000 avionics suite, meanwhile, were instrumental in preparing me for a few flights in the school’s only G1000-equipped aircraft so that I could keep flying while half the fleet was down for maintenance."
• "I think the best Cessna 172 in home simulation is still found in Microsoft Flight Simulator – the flight model is excellent, and this aircraft is perfectly suited for MSFS’ VFR-friendly environment."
• "Microsoft Flight Simulator’s recreation of Earth has benefits beyond eye candy. As a private pilot, great emphasis is placed on visual navigation. My flight school is in a very busy section of airspace with practice areas defined by visual references as well. Using the simulator helped me recognize these visual references, as well as other important ones denoting important airspace boundaries and visual reporting points to use when calling the tower"
• "The four key areas in which MSFS concretely helped me were: the ability to “chair fly” and practice procedures, using MSFS’ incredible representation of the world to practice the visual aspects of flying, mastering the fundamental principles of flight with the consequence-free ability to experiment, and finally becoming proficient with avionics and my EFB application without wasting valuable cockpit time."
• "Though not perfect, MSFS’ physics and flight modeling align close enough with reality to the point that I could always turn to it to answer the question, “What would happen if…?” I could try things that would have been unsafe, or disallowed by school policy. As excellent as my instructor was, there are maneuvers and concepts that are best demonstrated practically – and experimentation in MSFS helped to reinforce and practically explain things that I otherwise struggled to understand."
• "What I found was that once a certain “baseline” is achieved, then it is a fool’s errand to pursue perfect realism, if intending to use the sim for training value. Past that point, the money and time spent perfecting the simulator is far better spent on flight hours."
• Conclusion: "It is clear to me that Microsoft Flight Simulator has been extremely helpful in getting my private pilot’s license ... Using MSFS for flight training was just one part of that educational structure, enabling me to take advantage of what it did well and better prepare myself for the in-cockpit sessions."
  
   

3 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

An interesting and detailed read over on FSNews about how MSFS helped the author pass his PPL checkride: https://fsnews.eu/using-msfs-for-flight-training-helped-pass-private-pilot/

Some quotes I found noteable (he was using the various Cessnas in MSFS and other sims):

• "But even with its imperfections, using MSFS for flight training played a crucial role in this monumental achievement.'
• 'When I first tried the X-Plane 12 Skyhawk XP, I was actually struck by how familiar it felt, and how similar to the MSFS 172 G1000 it was. Both aircraft exhibited the same stall/spin behavior that did not exactly match the actual aircraft: aggressively dropping a wing (tended to be the left) in a stall,

I don't want to read after that. 172 doesn't aggressively drop wing in stall unless person missuses controls and stays uncoordinated . Which raising question  how he pass checkride on the first place LOL

26 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

I don't want to read after that. 172 doesn't aggressively drop wing in stall unless person missuses controls and stays uncoordinated . Which raising question  how he pass checkride on the first place LOL

Hehe fair, will need to re-read but he might've meant the inverse? i.e. that the sim aircraft aggressively drop wing in stall

EDIT: on re-reading I think that's what he likely meant.. i.e. certain in-sim Cessnas doing this, even when coordinated: "... aggressively dropping a wing (tended to be the left) in a stall, and tending to spin, even when coordinated"

Edited October 17, 20232 yr by lwt1971

17 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

I don't want to read after that. 172 doesn't aggressively drop wing in stall unless person missuses controls and stays uncoordinated . Which raising question  how he pass checkride on the first place LOL

"the [MSFS] Default G1000 C172SP...was the only one...that matched the docile stall behavior of the real 172, for example."

Snipped for clarity - which is to say, you're BOTH right 🙂

 

Edited October 17, 20232 yr by UrgentSiesta

2 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

 

• Conclusion: "It is clear to me that Microsoft Flight Simulator has been extremely helpful in getting my private pilot’s license ... Using MSFS for flight training was just one part of that educational structure, enabling me to take advantage of what it did well and better prepare myself for the in-cockpit sessions."
  
   

I don’t think anyone would argue this point given the detail of MSFS2020. Familiarity with the six pack, performing circuits and gauging the correct height for landing are the aspects that stand out for me in relation to Flight Simulator contributing to a PPL.

How is this possible? Austin said MSFS is nothing but a glorified scenery viewer!

Oh man here it goes.

It's the difference between an informed user, who knows what he is talking about, and a troll. Simple as that. 

Back when I was getting my certificates, I would have loved to have something like MSFS or X-Plane in their current forms.

Especially the instrument rating. I think I used something like MFS 3 to approximate instrument flights and it was pretty useless beyond rough theory.

Also, too, I've heard a few airline pilots describe how they use Fenix, Tolis and others to practice for their check rides and recurrency checks. Good times for aviation.

10 hours ago, Krakin said:

How is this possible? Austin said MSFS is nothing but a glorified scenery viewer!

Please don't start this off again!!

IMO, you can use either sim as seriously as you want, that's on the user and how they use it. I used Flight Simulator 2000 back in the day with low quality aerial imagery (by today's standards), but it helped me when I was doing lessons to practice approaches, planning flights etc. So it's a great tool to help in certain areas and definitely cheaper as well

The MSFS 172 is one of the best documented aircraft in comparisons with the real 172. There are many videos that come to a similar conclusion like this one:

 

18 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

I don't want to read after that. 172 doesn't aggressively drop wing in stall unless person missuses controls and stays uncoordinated . Which raising question  how he pass checkride on the first place LOL

I think you're misinterpreting what he said. When he says the X-Plane 172 felt familiar, I think he means coming from the MSFS 172, not the real 172. Note how he explicitly says that both the X-Plane 172 and the MSFS 172 do not match the stall/spin characteristics of the actual aircraft:

Quote

When I first tried the X-Plane 12 Skyhawk XP, I was actually struck by how familiar it felt, and how similar to the MSFS 172 G1000 it was. Both aircraft exhibited the same stall/spin behavior that did not exactly match the actual aircraft

(Emphasis mine)

And then he specifically points out the wing drop as one aspect of the two simulated aircraft that does not match the real aircraft.

So I'd encourage you to continue reading -- I think it's a well-written piece.

18 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

I don't want to read after that. 172 doesn't aggressively drop wing in stall unless person missuses controls and stays uncoordinated . Which raising question  how he pass checkride on the first place LOL

Your reading comprehension is trash. Re read what you quoted. He’s agreeing with you….

8 hours ago, fsiscool said:

The MSFS 172 is one of the best documented aircraft in comparisons with the real 172. There are many videos that come to a similar conclusion like this one:

Yup the default C172 is such a well modelled default plane aerodynamics wise, using all their latest tech like CFD. Hopefully it improves even further with the coming aerodynamics/physics improvements in MSFS 2024, which Seb touched upon starting at this point in their FSExpo presentation, and he also showed a prototype of the improvements quickly gained just with more detailed geometry definition of the Cessna: https://youtu.be/VPhScg_FINE?t=650
 

 

Edited October 18, 20232 yr by lwt1971

3 hours ago, ahsmatt7 said:

Your reading comprehension is trash. Re read what you quoted. He’s agreeing with you….

You are correct. However, if my reading is trash how  did you assum I would comprehend your reply LOL