Airline Pilot Central Forums - Flight Simulator

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Hangar Talk (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/hangar-talk/)

- - Flight Simulator (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/hangar-talk/31208-flight-simulator.html)

I've played every version of MSFS sice '95 came out. I'm now on FSX, but I dont use it too much. Between work, school, and real-life flying the need for a daily FS fix got beat out of me.

Tried just about every one too since the Combat FS came out. Don't think I'll ever get sick of them, but I'm biased cuz Chuck Yeager's one of my heroes B-) <3

Bumping to ask if X-Plane really takes 60 gigabytes of hard drive space. I saw it at the store and I was going to buy it, but 60 gigabytes of storage was listed under system requirements. Does it really need that much room or is that just for terrain files?

Nah, thats just the min. recommended PC configuration. It does not mean its going to suck 60gigs out of you HD. Nevertheless i would rather recommend MSFS as there are plenty of add-ons.

ti

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cubdriver (Post 492105)

X-Plane is too fussy for casual use. MSFS is watered down to make it more approachable. We have an X-Plane sim set up where I teach and I see the same thing going on- people do not have the knowledge to adjust it for best results nor the ability to handle rapid response control inputs. It's like a Frasca on steriods, too fidgety.

Also, an inherent problem with X-Plane is it encourages hobbyists to make airplanes which get posted to the net. Most of them are horrible and you have to be careful which one you download. Only use those made by the author or one of the better model making companies. The Cirrus should be pretty good if it is made by Austin Myers.

The one on the sim you dislike, is it an SR-22?

How is X-plane on instruments? That is the main reason I use MSFS. I usually just set it on 300' ceilings and practice nothing but IMC flying with failed systems, I like to practice holds, and x-wind landings (even though it doesn't feel real, it helps with technique). Since I am flying in clouds most of the time my graphics don't matter as much.

I've used FSX for IMC as well; usually fog and it's the BE-58. Although somewhat realistic, I, too, am using it only for technique.

atp

I'm still working on that Redbull air race without the arrows... that's a little beyond my skill level right now... and that darn helicopter roof-top thing!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeoSV (Post 612166)

I quit buying Flight Sim at version FS2004 but even that version should be fine for instrument work. The problem is how it models flight: it generates flight dynamics based on tabular lookups rather than real-time calculations. I don't know if FSX still has the same weakness but for instrument flying it should be fine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cubdriver (Post 613471)

I don't know if FSX still has the same weakness but for instrument flying it should be fine.

Yeah it does . . . I've flown a CE550 at 70 knots from the outer marker to the threshold without stalling :eek: Some (read: most) of the airplane models are completely unrealistic, but I still bum around in a Lear every now and then for fun . . . the C172 and Baron are great for instrument practice, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planespotta (Post 614230)

. . . the C172 and Baron are great for instrument practice, though.

Yepper!!! I just did a four day'er in the Baron; IFR and always at 12K ft.

Ft. Myers to Valdosta, GA
Valdosta to Shreveport
Shreveport to Kansas City (downtown)
KC (downtown) to Dupage
Dupage to Dayton, OH
Dayton, OH to Bowie, MD
Bowie to Elizabeth City
Elizabeth City to Augusta
Augusta to Crystal River
Crystal River to Ft Myers

FWIW, my skills have improved.

atp