• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Best way to set up FSX for training

gecko

gecko

Charter Member
Hi all,

I've been a long time CFS3 modder, never got into the civilian side of things much and don't know much about modding the FS series (quite different from CFS3). But now I'm about to start flight training and am planning on getting a copy of FSX so I can practice some things at home. So, a few questions for the real world pilots here:

What version of FSX should I get? (gold, sp2 acceleration, or are these expansion packs separate from the basic game?)

I'll be flying mainly in the US Northwest (Spokane area) what's the best scenery to get? Already found this and was quite impressed: http://www.shop.aerosoft.com/eshop....category=Flight Simulation&s_language=english Are there any that cover the broader region as well and are they compatible?

What are the most realistic versions of the C172, 182, 185, and 206?

How helpful do you find FSX in honing your real world skill and what's the best way to use it for this purpose?

Thanks for any help!

Daniel
 
FSX Gold is the best deal going. It includes the base FSX Deluxe along with Acceleration, which includes SP2. That last time I checked, it was pretty cheap on Amazon, too.
 
FSX can be great for flight training, but there are some aspects I would be wary of. One of these things is the tendency to keep your head down in the cockpit too much. When flying VFR for real, you have to really keep your head on a swivel, and while knowing how to fly by instruments is certainly great, I was told that I had my head down in the cockpit too much. Overall though, I find it extremely beneficial for procedural instrument training and it served me well when I was getting my instrument rating following the Private license.

As far as addon resources go...

Aircraft:
Air2Air (A2A) Simulations will be releasing a Cessna 172 in the near future, and I it'll probably be the most realistic rendition out there. For the other aircraft you mentioned, Carenado is the only game in town right now.

Scenery:
FTX/Orbx has a wide variety of scenery for the Pacific Northwest, which is likely your best bet at this point.
 
Orbx Northern Rocky Mountains contains the Spokane region. Other regions can be added depending on where you expect to fly. The KSFF airport is well done. I flew into that airport last year, and I recognize the buildings in the Orbx scenery.

Besides the Carenado planes mentined Flight1 sells a Turbo 182T with G1000 that is quite good. I flew one of these for my IFR flight training.

Note these sceneries and some of these planes require a powerful computer.
 
gecko said:
What are the most realistic versions of the C172, 182, 185, and 206?
How helpful do you find FSX in honing your real world skill and what's the best way to use it for this purpose?
Click to expand...

If your main focus is the flight model, e.g. realistic departure/spin model and not avionics, the best are the Carenado 182T (personally I don't like glass cockpits), Carenado 185 + the optional 'ultimate' update and the new Carenado 206H.
The 185 and the new 206 are rather easy on the frames and as Bill mentioned, Acceleration is a must IMO.
 
+3 or 4 on the Acceleration package. Just buy the Gold version. You will not be disappointed.

As far as planes go the Default 172 flys very nice. Maybe it is lacking in the realism department as compared to the real plane but as a training aid it good enough to get you started.

And don't forget the built in lessons in the Learning Center. Rod Machado did a good job on creating the basic and advanced classes.

One thing you will not get from Flight Simulator is the real feel of flight. Sitting in my office chair there is no way to feel the aircraft movement and automatically respond to it. Everything is done visually.

Things you will not need to use FSX as a training aid...

Addon Aircraft
Addon Mesh
Addon Landclass
Addon Scenery
Addon Gauges

Things you will be installing right soon after buying FSX

Addon Aircraft
Addon Mesh
Addon Landclass
Addon Scenery
Addon Gauges

Its an addiction to be sure.

:icon_lol:
 
One more suggestion I have is to lay down the couple hundred bucks for a TrackIR unit. If the head-down nature of FSX is a liability to your real-world training, being able to look around naturally in the Sim is the cure. It's a huge help for sim VFR flying.
 
spotlope said:
One more suggestion I have is to lay down the couple hundred bucks for a TrackIR unit. If the head-down nature of FSX is a liability to your real-world training, being able to look around naturally in the Sim is the cure. It's a huge help for sim VFR flying.
Click to expand...

I would consider Track IR to be mandatory hardware for everyone. I cannot fly without it. It is every bit as essential as a joystick and rudder pedals.
 
Tried Track IR and sold it again after a few week. Never got used to turn my head while keeping my eyes focused straight ahead. Since then I'm using the hat switch + a 'reset-to-fwd-view' button.
 
TrackIR is definately a either you Love it or Hate it thing.

I never purchased it but I had Free Track installed at one time. I liked it but found the hat switch to be better because of the same reasons bstolle listed.

It also stole too many frame rates from FSX (not FS9) on this laptop. To use it I had to dumb down the FSX experience and I did not care to do that.

I would list it as not a requirement...

But something you might buy.
 
Thanks for all the responses and advice! Already a happy trackIR user, couldn't ever go back now that I've got it. Also already hopelessly addicted to adding to/modding CFS3, but hoping to keep my FSX purchases to a minimum so I can pay for avgas. CFS3 is nice because everything is freeware, but not as good for training for certain. For the time being I want to stick to round dial cockpits, but will eventually need to become familiar with the G1000.
 
I would like to note that if you have an old, 4 year old computer, dual core, not a quad core, 4 gigs of RAM, then you might think of getting Prepar3D instead of FSX. FSX needs tons of resources from the computer, while P3D is a bit more stable, especially with older, slower computers.

P3D have a special, 1 month only, 30 days, single payment, and you can try it on your computer and see how you like it.

P3D is also rated for use as a flight instruction/learning simulator.


This is if FSX doesn't run well on your rig. It still requires a ton of resources, even with P3D, but at least P3D will give you a little bit more smoothness.




Bill
 
Lionheart said:
I would like to note that if you have an old, 4 year old computer, dual core, not a quad core, 4 gigs of RAM, then you might think of getting Prepar3D instead of FSX. FSX needs tons of resources from the computer, while P3D is a bit more stable, especially with older, slower computers.

P3D have a special, 1 month only, 30 days, single payment, and you can try it on your computer and see how you like it.

P3D is also rated for use as a flight instruction/learning simulator.


This is if FSX doesn't run well on your rig. It still requires a ton of resources, even with P3D, but at least P3D will give you a little bit more smoothness.


Bill
Click to expand...

Astonishing, name one other almost 7 year old program which has PC resource issues, can't be done. :)
 
Lionheart said:
I would like to note that if you have an old, 4 year old computer, dual core, not a quad core, 4 gigs of RAM, then you might think of getting Prepar3D instead of FSX. FSX needs tons of resources from the computer, while P3D is a bit more stable, especially with older, slower computers.
Bill
Click to expand...

Very interesting.

While I am adequately fluent in using computers and installing hardware, I don't really understand what's going on "under the hood". I have put off trying P3D waiting for a 64 bit iteration and I was under the impression that my old rig was too outdated to use it.

WinXP Pro SP3 Intel Core Duo CPU E7500
2.93ghz 4GB Ram ATI Radeon HD4350

Regards,
Obie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top