1 hour ago, UrgentSiesta said:

For Pilotage / VFR...?

I've been in quite a few debates with MSFS guys about vanilla X-Plane 11 being entirely adequate for Pilotage / VFR.

After all, XP 11 & 12 are far more detailed than typical aeronautical charts.

And obviously, MSFS is far more detailed than XP.

My personal definition of Pilotage limits landmarks to prominent geographic and anthropogenic features rather than some MSFS guys who love "that little red barn at the corner of the cornfield" - because what happens when that's all buried under snow...?

But yeah, and for any first world area especially, the modern sims are more than good enough.

What would your definition of "adequate" be, in this scenario?

Would you discard all real world charts, and rely solely on X-Plane...or MSFS?

1 hour ago, c912039 said:

Actually, I would disagree with that statement.

My 'nemesis' was a DR VFR Navex set by my Instructor at the flight training center I was attending.
This was in the days before GPS and any internet based satellite imagery.
The NavEx was to fly to 'Gluepot' using DR. Gluepot was a couple of tin shacks in the middle of a very large featureless bushland, covered with trees no higher that the shacks, and almost non existent tracks meandering through the thick bushland.

I first tried this in XP11, with poor results due to the lack of geo-spacial resources available at the time.
MSFS2020 (after WU's) made this possible for the first time, and the experience has been improved in MSFS2024.
For the first time, using MSFS, I was able to fly this challenging NavEx with the landscape and features exactly as was experienced in real life, adding to the complexity of the exercise. It was the blending of all what little landmarks there were in real life and in the sim that made it so realistic.

To this day, recreating this NavEx (with my instructors very strict requirements on accuracy of time keeping, navigation and fuel tracking) brings back memories of anxiety to nail it to hist satisfaction.

There are many landmarks in a flight sim that could be construed as somewhat reliable.  However, it wouldn't be something I would use as a primary source of information.  

Edited June 13, 2025Jun 13 by GoranM

2 hours ago, GoranM said:

3 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

 

What would your definition of "adequate" be, in this scenario?

Would you discard all real world charts, and rely solely on X-Plane...or MSFS?

I already defined "adequate" in my post:

"My personal definition of Pilotage limits landmarks to prominent geographic and anthropogenic features..."

I flew my solo x-country's using Pilotage, Dead Reckoning, and paper VFR aeronautical charts that look exactly like skyvector.com.

Compare the World VFR skyvector charts to X-Plane / MSFS scenery and tell me which one is more detailed and helpful for Pilotage. It's the sims, by a country mile.

And I can't even understand why you'd ask if I'd fly IRL without charts...? What word not allowed would...?

You can't, anyway, because you must abide airspace rules, etc.

I mean heck, there's a reason Navigraph is so popular, right 😁 

And yeah, I would've LOVED to have pre-flown those flights in-sim. Would've made things a lot easier on the IRL trips.

Edited June 13, 2025Jun 13 by UrgentSiesta

33 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

And yeah, I would've LOVED to have pre-flown those flights in-sim. Would've made things a lot easier on the IRL trips.

This. MSFS is really useful for familiarizing oneself with a new route or the surroundings of a new airfield.

When it comes to actually flying the route, what counts is, of course, what I see on the chart and out the windscreen. (And, let's be honest, on the GPS.) But it helps a lot if I've been there before in MSFS.

Edit: Just to add, I take what I see in MSFS with a healthy dose of scepticism, and it almost never looks exactly like the real world. But it can definitely be a useful tool.

Edited June 13, 2025Jun 13 by martinboehme

7 hours ago, c912039 said:

Actually, I would disagree with that statement.

My 'nemesis' was a DR VFR Navex set by my Instructor at the flight training center I was attending.
This was in the days before GPS and any internet based satellite imagery.
The NavEx was to fly to 'Gluepot' using DR. Gluepot was a couple of tin shacks in the middle of a very large featureless bushland, covered with trees no higher that the shacks, and almost non existent tracks meandering through the thick bushland.

I first tried this in XP11, with poor results due to the lack of geo-spacial resources available at the time.
MSFS2020 (after WU's) made this possible for the first time, and the experience has been improved in MSFS2024.
For the first time, using MSFS, I was able to fly this challenging NavEx with the landscape and features exactly as was experienced in real life, adding to the complexity of the exercise. It was the blending of all what little landmarks there were in real life and in the sim that made it so realistic.

To this day, recreating this NavEx (with my instructors very strict requirements on accuracy of time keeping, navigation and fuel tracking) brings back memories of anxiety to nail it to hist satisfaction.

Thank you for sharing this! Good to know MSFS 2024 can improve your experience in this further!

6 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

I flew my solo x-country's using Pilotage, Dead Reckoning, and paper VFR aeronautical charts that look exactly like skyvector.com.

I still prefer paper charts over skyvector.  Call me a purist.  I'm not dismissing skyvector, by any means.  But there's always that "what if" factor.  Like, what if my network goes down, and I can't access skyvector.  

6 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Compare the World VFR skyvector charts to X-Plane / MSFS scenery and tell me which one is more detailed and helpful for Pilotage. It's the sims, by a country mile.

As an observable object?  Sure, almost any sim is better.  Can the sims be wrong as far as elevation is concerned?  Oh yes.  And in Australia, there's a clearance distance an aircraft has to fly above any landmark, such as radio towers.  And these distances change with different AIRAC's.  For that reason, I'd rather choose charts or skyvector.  Again, my purist side is coming out.

6 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

And yeah, I would've LOVED to have pre-flown those flights in-sim. Would've made things a lot easier on the IRL trips.

As long as you follow ALL procedures that you would normally follow.  Such as rerouting around dropzones, obeying the different classed airspaces and their altitude restrictions, etc...And that only comes with approved training.  Unless they're proficient with approved training, a flight simmer wouldn't have a clue about these procedures.

When i first went for my flight training, I had no clue about Class A, C, D, E, and G airspace and their restrictions.  Even though I started flight simming in FS5.

5 hours ago, GoranM said:

I still prefer paper charts over skyvector.  Call me a purist.  I'm not dismissing skyvector, by any means.  But there's always that "what if" factor.  Like, what if my network goes down, and I can't access skyvector.  

As an observable object?  Sure, almost any sim is better.  Can the sims be wrong as far as elevation is concerned?  Oh yes.  And in Australia, there's a clearance distance an aircraft has to fly above any landmark, such as radio towers.  And these distances change with different AIRAC's.  For that reason, I'd rather choose charts or skyvector.  Again, my purist side is coming out.

As long as you follow ALL procedures that you would normally follow.  Such as rerouting around dropzones, obeying the different classed airspaces and their altitude restrictions, etc...And that only comes with approved training.  Unless they're proficient with approved training, a flight simmer wouldn't have a clue about these procedures.

When i first went for my flight training, I had no clue about Class A, C, D, E, and G airspace and their restrictions.  Even though I started flight simming in FS5.

It seems we've veered off course here...

I'm not saying that a flight simulator is a replacement for IRL certified navigation systems/charts/paper/digital - whatevs.

But rather that modern sims are a useful COMPLEMENT to reality-based training, especially route visualization.

I can factually state, without room for debate, that Ive been successfully using Pilotage with light Dead Reckoning in flight sim since I started using XP v11.

And XP v11's scenery matches up to Pilotage reality VERY well, at least anywhere I've flown IRL (US & UK).

MSFS takes that standard to an entirely higher level with it's photorealistic scenery.

So, yeah - the sims are unequivocally good enough for area familiarization. And no, no sane person would bet their lives on flight sim virtual scenery in lieu of IRL approved flight planning & management systems.

But when used together - sensibly - there is undeniable synergy.

Red Bird sells FAA approved BATD's,  but afaik they use Prepar3D v5.

https://www.redbirdflight.com/

18 hours ago, GoranM said:

Are you saying MSFS is a reliable source of real world landmarks that can be used for real world navigation, that can be applied to a pilots knowledge base? 

I wouldn’t say that about ANY flight sim.  Not a single one. 

Sportys sure does think so, and MSFS has certainly added to my knowledge base with regard to real world navigation / spotting. Buildings, Malls / shopping centers, hospitals and schools, stadiums, water towers, nuclear power plants, dams etc can be easily seen in MSFS as they are in real life.

15 hours ago, GoranM said:

There are many landmarks in a flight sim that could be construed as somewhat reliable.  However, it wouldn't be something I would use as a primary source of information.  

There are many landmarks in MSFS that are "spot on" reliable, and can be used to train someone with location / navigation as it translates to what they see in real life.

Just to summary of all of above

Desktop flight sims is subject to individual preferers of particular flight school or CFI . There is no common consensus on desktop sim usage, although general trend states: anything that can improve/enhance training is generally considered good. Remember that teaching methods  often  vary from CFI to CFI. Variety of factor such as  Influences, background, experience and even CFI age can play a big role on how particular training approach. What matter is end result.

Technically speaking, any sim can be transformed to AATT or BATD given tailored add on aircraft, hardware, and instructor station.  In this respect X-plane, P3D, MSFS are in par. 

The bottom line desktop sims are good! They inspire future pilots, help existing pilots, aid student pilot or just fun and entertaining for casual simmers. Healthy competition is also good, because it give boots enhances experience and utilize modern technologies. 

 

I too did my initial flight training in the 90s and was told by my instructors to stay off flight sims. I didn't listen, of course, and thankfully it didn't impede my progress. Starting a family not long after getting that private pilot certificate unfortunately meant that I had to give up real world flying for nearly 17 years as there was just not enough time nor money to justify my hobby.

This is where flight simming played an incredibly important role keeping me connected to aviation. When I discovered Pilot Edge very early on in that company's life, it shifted my flight simming focus from fun to real training. I learned so much about instrument flying through self study using X-Plane and P3D that when I did resume flight training in 2018, the instrument rating was relatively simple. My instrument instructor was stunned.

When I went on to become a flight instructor myself, I had 2 very different experiences with students that used flight sims. One came from a flight sim background. They tried to practice maneuvers and takeoff/landings in the sim. It was terrible for their progress. I finally had to tell the student that he was not allowed to touch his flight sim until he learned to land the actual plane. It took a lot of extra hours to break his bad habits, but eventually he got there.

The second student was also struggling with landings, particularly with energy management on final. One day he showed up and started nailing his approach and landings seemingly out of the blue. It turns out that he used X-Plane mobile of all things to finally grasp the concept of pitch and power to achieve a stabilized approach. 

So yes, home flight sims can be incredibly beneficial (or detrimental) as a supplement to real world flight training. I encouraged my students to practice VFR dead-reckoning, using old-school paper charts, VFR flight logs, on-line aviation weather briefs, manual E6Bs, and real weather in the sim. With the photo scenery in today's sims you absolutely can practice VFR cross country procedures with a very high degree of fidelity. I just encouraged students NOT to practice maneuvers or landings.

I wouldn't worry a bit about certifying a home flight sim to log hours. That's not where the benefit lies. It's just not worth the cost nor effort. But don't throw the baby out with the bath water. There is so much valuable learning that can take place with a home sim, especially under the guidance of a savvy instructor. 

I can honestly say with 100% certainty that I would not be an airline captain today without my flight sims keeping the flame alive over the years.

9 hours ago, OverTheEDJ said:

Sportys sure does think so, and MSFS has certainly added to my knowledge base with regard to real world navigation / spotting. Buildings, Malls / shopping centers, hospitals and schools, stadiums, water towers, nuclear power plants, dams etc can be easily seen in MSFS as they are in real life.

And I'm not disagreeing with you.  But it needs to be treated as a SUPPLEMENT.  If you, or anyone else considers it a primary source of information, then that's on you.  If you want to debate the point with me, then clarify whether or not you agree with me on that point, then we can discuss further.

And by the way, the tomato sheds (greenhouses for tomatoes), that are used as a key landmark at my local airport when entering a circuit, where I started flying, STILL aren't in any flight sim, after 27 years of looking for them.  Not in X-Plane.  Not in MSFS 2020.  Not in any iteration of either flight sim since the early 1990's.  

Common sense would tell anyone that those tomato sheds are in no way, an isolated case.

 

Edited June 14, 2025Jun 14 by GoranM

5 hours ago, snglecoil said:

I too did my initial flight training in the 90s and was told by my instructors to stay off flight sims. I didn't listen, of course, and thankfully it didn't impede my progress. Starting a family not long after getting that private pilot certificate unfortunately meant that I had to give up real world flying for nearly 17 years as there was just not enough time nor money to justify my hobby.

This is where flight simming played an incredibly important role keeping me connected to aviation. When I discovered Pilot Edge very early on in that company's life, it shifted my flight simming focus from fun to real training. I learned so much about instrument flying through self study using X-Plane and P3D that when I did resume flight training in 2018, the instrument rating was relatively simple. My instrument instructor was stunned.

When I went on to become a flight instructor myself, I had 2 very different experiences with students that used flight sims. One came from a flight sim background. They tried to practice maneuvers and takeoff/landings in the sim. It was terrible for their progress. I finally had to tell the student that he was not allowed to touch his flight sim until he learned to land the actual plane. It took a lot of extra hours to break his bad habits, but eventually he got there.

The second student was also struggling with landings, particularly with energy management on final. One day he showed up and started nailing his approach and landings seemingly out of the blue. It turns out that he used X-Plane mobile of all things to finally grasp the concept of pitch and power to achieve a stabilized approach. 

So yes, home flight sims can be incredibly beneficial (or detrimental) as a supplement to real world flight training. I encouraged my students to practice VFR dead-reckoning, using old-school paper charts, VFR flight logs, on-line aviation weather briefs, manual E6Bs, and real weather in the sim. With the photo scenery in today's sims you absolutely can practice VFR cross country procedures with a very high degree of fidelity. I just encouraged students NOT to practice maneuvers or landings.

I wouldn't worry a bit about certifying a home flight sim to log hours. That's not where the benefit lies. It's just not worth the cost nor effort. But don't throw the baby out with the bath water. There is so much valuable learning that can take place with a home sim, especially under the guidance of a savvy instructor. 

I can honestly say with 100% certainty that I would not be an airline captain today without my flight sims keeping the flame alive over the years.

I pretty much agree with this.  Here's an example where flight simming didn't help before I started flying.  I had no idea what a trim wheel was or how it worked.  When I finally messed around with it, I was flying the aircraft, in FS98, using the trim wheel to climb and descend.  Imagine my shock at my first flight when the instructor told me to find my straight and level, and trim the aircraft accordingly to maintain that straight and level flight.  What was ironic was when he said, "Flight simmer, huh?".  My flight instructor was not the CFI.  He was one of the 4 instructors at the school.  The CFI knew I was into flight sims.

I had FS98 for a full year before starting my flight training, so that was something I needed to get over.  The other one was where I was CONSTANTLY looking at the instruments.  The instructor got so annoyed with me constantly looking at the instruments, that he covered them and told me to focus on looking out the window using a reference point.  When I did my first landing, I was fixated on the VS and airspeed gauges, while maintaining a death grip on the yoke, while constantly moving the throttle forward and backward to maintain airspeed in the white band on the ASI.  The instructor showed me how to leave the throttle where it was, while maintaining a nice descent on Final with little to no input.   These were all bad habits I developed in flight simming, that I desperately needed to break.  

As I said in other posts, flight simming is a cheap way to go over some basic flight operations.  Not, as some in here would prefer, to be a key component in flight training, procedures and operations.  

Edited June 14, 2025Jun 14 by GoranM

On 6/10/2025 at 9:11 PM, GoranM said:

He gave me a polite chuckle, insinuating that flight simulators can never replace actual flight.  

During the briefing, he told me, word for word, "Forget what you know about that flight sim."

Every instructor I had, basically repeated the CFI's words.  

The primary reasons CFI's would use any flight sim, at most, is teaching people about circuits, VOR's and NDB's, and how to read instruments.  Even Flight Gear can be used to teach student pilots about these things.

That's funny, my instructor said the same thing many, many years ago on my first ride in a 172, but was surprised by my light touch on the yoke and rudder pedals... and that came from flight simulation. So he changed his tune a bit on what the sim was good for, which was surprising because he was an old timer who didn't have much use for computers.

On 6/10/2025 at 9:11 PM, GoranM said:

Let me enlighten you on what CFI's and flying instructors have to say about flight simulators in general.  I used to hold a PPL, and I had 3 flight instructors in my road to a PPL.  My first meeting with a CFI, when I took my first introductory flight, during the briefing, the CFI asked me what do I know about aircraft in general.  I told him I was very familiar with aircraft through the Microsoft Flight Simulator platform.  This was in 1997, after using FS5 and FS98.  

He gave me a polite chuckle, insinuating that flight simulators can never replace actual flight.  

During the briefing, he told me, word for word, "Forget what you know about that flight sim."

Every instructor I had, basically repeated the CFI's words.  

The primary reasons CFI's would use any flight sim, at most, is teaching people about circuits, VOR's and NDB's, and how to read instruments.  Even Flight Gear can be used to teach student pilots about these things.

FAA certification is another level, and only one flight sim, with the correct hardware, is qualified for that.  

Flight sims are an entertainment platform used for a hobby.  There are some cases where an add on can be used for flight training to help a pilot stay fresh, but if I, or any person with common sense, came across a pilot on a commercial aircraft, who said he got his training from MSFS, I'd be looking for another airline or another pilot.

I have no argument with this post, but I must ask:  has anyone, ever, in any flight sim forum, claimed that "flight simulators can replace actual flight"?  Can anyone imagine any commercial pilot saying that he got his training from MSFS?  Let's refrain from needlessly over-dramatizing the issue. 

Edited June 14, 2025Jun 14 by cobalt