Search
Notices
Flight Schools and Training Ratings, building hours, airmanship, CFI topics

MS Flight Sim 2004

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 12-24-2007, 09:10 PM
  #11  
Line Holder
 
Sioux39's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: C172 Right
Posts: 98
Default

I started using it after I developed my scan, but I still found it helpful for practicing approaches. Usually I would do the approaches for a lesson the night before and I found it a good way to stay prepared. When I felt like practicing without an upcoming flight lesson I would print out the plates for another part of the country and fly approaches into unfamilar airports.
Sioux39 is offline  
Old 12-25-2007, 06:40 PM
  #12  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Posts: 31
Default

Flight Simulator 2004 really helps the instrument scan if you practice it correctly ; I would use the Flight One Cessna 172 Skyhawk VATSIM is a great way to keep your radio work sharp too .
SkyDreamer is offline  
Old 12-26-2007, 05:23 AM
  #13  
Moderator
 
Cubdriver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
Default

X-Plane by Austin Myers is an excellent pc/mac desktop sim also. It is more accurate in terms of flight dynamics than FS, although I think FS does better on visuals and has more airplanes. He got it FAA approved for certain PCATD applications last year and I don't think FS has ever been able to do that. I have always practiced approaches on pc based sims. It helps visualize the approach even if it is kind of cheesy compared to the real thing. As for flying around in flight sims for fun, it's not very interesting if you fly the real airplane.
Cubdriver is offline  
Old 12-26-2007, 09:38 AM
  #14  
Kept down by the man
 
Stryker's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 767 CA
Posts: 657
Cool

Originally Posted by Cubdriver View Post
X-Plane by Austin Myers is an excellent pc/mac desktop sim also. It is more accurate in terms of flight dynamics than FS, although I think FS does better on visuals and has more airplanes. He got it FAA approved for certain PCATD applications last year and I don't think FS has ever been able to do that. I have always practiced approaches on pc based sims. It helps visualize the approach even if it is kind of cheesy compared to the real thing. As for flying around in flight sims for fun, it's not very interesting if you fly the real airplane.
I tried X-Plane and the only problem I have noticed is that with a wider screen the panel doesnt cover the entire screen... there are strips on the sides where you can see the scenery but not the panel.

Also I dont like the interface. but you are right, the "feel" of the planes is alot more realistic than FSX.
Stryker is offline  
Old 12-26-2007, 11:18 AM
  #15  
Moderator
 
Cubdriver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
Default

I think X-Plane is max 1280x720 pixels, so if it fills more screen than that you have to crop it somehow. It fits the normal 4:3 monitor shape. As for as interface, not sure what you mean by that but I have a CHProducts 6-throttle quadrant, joystick, and rudder pedals hooked up to it and would not want to use it without those controls due to rapid response the program has to to inputs from the pilot. It really is a more dynamic sim than FS2004.

One thing you can do with it, and I tried this, is set up a network with a second pc running a second monitor. You can divide up the visual content to allow a split of the visuals and give half of it to the slave computer. It's a mess getting it all set up, but when you do you have an expanded graphic output. I had mine split up so the aircraft panel was mostly on the bottom and the forward view out the window was on the top monitor. I eventually gave up on it because the computers weren't evenly matched and the slower one couldn't keep up. The faster one had a frame rate of 60 frames per sec. and the old one would barely manage half of that which was distracting. It was neat to see all that graphic content though. If I had the money to buy 3 matched computers I might give it another try. For practice you only need one pc and I use it for approaches and not much else. It is not accurate enough to model computational fluid response without which you're basically guessing in any flight sim.

Last edited by Cubdriver; 12-26-2007 at 11:29 AM.
Cubdriver is offline  
Old 12-26-2007, 11:32 AM
  #16  
Line Holder
 
Fileater55's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 41
Default

I am a very active member with Flight Simulator.. Also on the Vatsim network.. Not to mention all of these other things stated.. With Vatsim it will even help you with your radio talk. It has definitly helped me. I recommend you to buy it.
Fileater55 is offline  
Old 12-26-2007, 01:06 PM
  #17  
Kept down by the man
 
Stryker's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 767 CA
Posts: 657
Default

As far as the interface I just mean the general program isnt nearly as organized or user friendly as FSX... I like the program itself and the visuals are decent... it definitely needs a newer version though. the updates just dont cut it compared to the visuals of FSX.

Also I have a widescreen monitor so thats a lot of why it cuts off the sides... Cant win em all right? haha
Stryker is offline  
Old 12-26-2007, 01:20 PM
  #18  
Moderator
 
Cubdriver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
Default

Agreed. X-Plane is a fussy program aimed at perfectionists. It doesn't do a lot of the things FS does so well, but has the best flight model currently available. The average user does not care how accurate the flight model is since they have never flown a real airplane.
Cubdriver is offline  
Old 12-26-2007, 01:22 PM
  #19  
Kept down by the man
 
Stryker's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 767 CA
Posts: 657
Default

but those of us who do on a regular basis get frustrated... but then again the best sim short of a level D sim is frustrating.. haha
Stryker is offline  
Old 01-04-2008, 07:39 AM
  #20  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 38
Default

I think it's an awesome way to stay proficient especially if you're not getting much hood time in. It's great for practicing hold entries, flying full approaches, flying NDB approaches, all of that stuff that doesn't get done too often.
C172MQI is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
joel payne
Hangar Talk
9
03-18-2008 07:21 PM
N618FT
Regional
33
11-19-2007 07:28 AM
ToiletDuck
Hangar Talk
0
10-23-2007 08:22 PM
Cessnadriver
Regional
16
09-09-2007 05:27 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices