OT. Real life easier than FSX

[Victory103]

been working on that .. problem is, you really dont have the "butt" feeling to go by. also, no matter how well you do the math, getting the base fluight model to match the actual aircraft is difficult at best. I dont think many fde engineers really put that much into it simply because it can take over a year to develope a good flight model, and even then, if the fde engineer hasnt flown the plane, we really dont know if its accurate or not.. We do our best, but, that will always leave something to be desired no matter how good we are..
Pam

Great point and especially true with the mythical world of FS helicopter dynamics. I tried a few years ago to help a developer with the H-60, it's difficult to bring all the numbers in a "plug n play" format for FS to understand and then replicate. Not to mention the complex systems that FS was not designed for, at least in the helicopter FS world(would love to see PMDG like system integration). Luckily for the rotorheads, one developer has FS helos heading in the right direction along with a few freeware guys finally cracking the code on FDE's.

Personally I use FS for fun, but as also as an IFR training tool to stay somewhat current. With the charts out, hand-flying even the simple C172 to minimums on an ILS can be fun. I just ordered Radar Contact, which I hope will fix the stock robotic ATC and allow me to fly SID/STARs. As mentioned on the Garmins and simulating menu pages/functions, I recently hoped a developer's FS version of the Collins Pro Line 21 glass panel would help prepare me for the real thing, again the limits of FSX are messing that up. I still recommend the "game" for anyone starting a PPL, learning basic radio navigation ahead should put a smile on your CFI's face. Also recommend "flying" your first solo x-country first in the sim.

 

[TeaSea]

I keep hearing this and I don't get it. FS completely screwed up my ability to fly real planes, it seems. My brain cannot come to terms with “if you're low, increase power, if your fast, pull back on the stick” etc. In FS my brain thinks in opposite terms, but I end up doing the same thing. In FS, if I'm low, I pull up (duh) but I also know, without even thinking about it, that I will require an associated adjustment in power... They work together.

Yikes! I had this hammered into me by my instructor during my initial PPL training. "To descend, reduce power, to speed up or slow down, change your angle of attack". any related adjustment to power or angle is to maintain whatever you just set up. He beat me up on this constantly despite my attempts to do the exact opposite. My epiphony came after linining up on final the day he said, "allright, have it our way, go ahead and try to land using the yoke".

Of course, that doesn't work.....You can run the airframe as close to the ground as you like, but it will not land if you're carrying excess power. Try as you might, you cannot defeat Mr. Newton or Mr. Bernoulli. So, after finally settling on the mains 3/4 of the way down the runway it all became clear.

After that it was easy....throttle controls altitude, angle controls speed. My experience is that you may be able swag this for your PPL, but when it comes to IFR approaches, understanding this is absolutley essential. By the time I hit the MM in stable air, I'm using only the throttle for altitude....not even touching the yoke.

Now, flight dynamics in FS are different, and since you don't get all the environmental cues, it becomes a little more difficult at times. On the other hand, after flying 6 hours for real, I'm absolutely exhausted....and cannot concieve on how folks who do this for a living don't just drop.

 

[kilo delta]

Nope. But I have considered getting it.

You should....it's EPIC...a BEAST!

 

[Bone]

....it's EPIC...a BEAST!

Lol. Killing me with "epic".

 

[Bjoern]

Well, I usually try to keep it at just four days a week, but they're long and tiring days. Anyone who thinks FS is harder than real life needs to do one of my days at work, they'll get their @ss kicked.

I think the "FSX is hard" part applies to the flying procedure itself and not on the physical exhaustion that comes with flying a real plane for a few hours.

Lol. Killing me with "epic".

Haha!

 

[Bone]

I think the "FSX is hard" part applies to the flying procedure itself and not on the physical exhaustion that comes with flying a real plane for a few hours.

Haha!

Well, it's all related. Fatigue is a big issue, but I'll try to explain in another way. With FSX, you can roll out of bed, saunter over to the computer, click click click and PRESTO you're flying in your skivvies. You can fly without moving your head, and only moving your hands a mere few inches. But, if you look behind you at the TV set because something interesting just came on, you might be a little out of control when you finally look back at the computer monitor, because models aren't as stable as the real thing.

Maybe "they" think FSX is harder because models are generally twitchy and easy to over control. Of course real airplanes are more stable, but a metric of "FSX is less stable" isn't enough to pass a verdict that it's harder than real. Yes models are more twitchy than real, but after you get used to it, it's no big deal. I don't have any issues with it, it's actually quite easy. I've never thought FSX was hard when it came to flying, only when it came to figuring out why it stopped working properly. There have been a HUGE number of times when I thought real flying was hard. FSX is just a molecule in the tip of the aviation ice burg.

I don't think I need to say anything more about this, whatever.

 

[pilottj]

lol when I was at ERAU, during my first year working on my PPL, my instructor jokingly told my roomate to delete my copy of flight sim...this was during the FS98 days with most of the flying done with 2D panels. He said it was causing me to stare at the gauges too much instead of looking at the big picture outside. Of course back then FS98 didn't have the beautiful virtual cockpits we have now which provide a better 3d view. Still tho you are looking at a large 3D world through a relatively small 2D screen.

I would suggest to those working on their PPL to limit their time in FS as to not form bad habits that might hurt one's peripheral instincts. I would also suggest using FS time limited to working on proceedure flows/navigation principles and such. Once you start working on IFR stuff tho, FS is great and you should spend a lot of time in it working on your instrument scans.

 

[res non verba]

Is undeniable the help that flight simulator can give you in preparing yourself for a flight license, makes the whole learning curve a faster and easier process. Everything can be experienced in comfort and without the fear of wreck the aircraft or yourself. Is too a double-edged sword, excellent to train and interiorize procedures for those who do them and create bad habits in those that shortcuts them.

I personally think the real thing harder, not in relation to the general handling, where the real thing is easier and smoother "in calm air" lol, but to fly it right and perfect. I can easy manage a perfect landing every time in fs, the models and the environment are much more predictable. But this can be explained by 20 years of sim and only 2 years of a ppl.

We need more model producers flying the real thing!

:ernae:

 

[napamule]

The End

Quote: 'We need more model producers flying the real thing!'

Nah. We needed more modelers to learn how to 'do' flight dynamics! Every model is different, too. I said 'needed' because it's (practically!) TOO LATE now (after 7 years) as 'Flight' is coming and with that you will only need MORE QUARTERS to drop in the slot. Flight Simulator will not progress any more that it has already, so if you haven't learned the 'reason it stoped working' (or why you can't land a tail dragger) by now, you MIGHT never get 'it'.
Chuck B
Napamule

 

[N2056]

Based on your statement I could counter by saying flight dynamics modelers could learn 3d modeling.

 

[dandog]

I can fly all right in FSX/FS9. I just meant to say that flying a real world airplane (at least a C172N) was easier. Its not as twitchy, and the flight dynamics are more spot on. Its amazing how 2 notches of flaps REALLY slows down AC in real life. And no, I was not busting my hump all day long flying. It was similiar to a good long FSX session. Lastly, do not discount FSX. The BETA version of MS Flight has been released, and there are still many questions to be answered. I know this first hand (which I believe is not contrary to MS Flight Beta terms).

Daniel

 

[Bjoern]

Maybe "they" think FSX is harder because models are generally twitchy and easy to over control. Of course real airplanes are more stable, but a metric of "FSX is less stable" isn't enough to pass a verdict that it's harder than real. Yes models are more twitchy than real, but after you get used to it, it's no big deal. I don't have any issues with it, it's actually quite easy.

As was already said in this thread, the lack of perception and lack of interaction ability makes FSX quite "hard" compared to the real thing.

E.g. if a FSX controller gives me a heads-up on traffic, I merrily ignore it, since 1680*1050 px and FSX's LOD system just doesn't cut it to see anything beyond a maybe 5 mile radius (unless it has a contrail).
In the real thing, it's (most likely) easier to watch for traffic.

Same for flying and at the same time flicking switches or tuning dials. I refuse to go way beyond default systems modeling for this reason (e.g. NGX), as you just can't multitask in front of a computer screen.

Nah. We needed more modelers to learn how to 'do' flight dynamics!

A waterboarding session is like Disneyland compared to making FDEs for MSFS.
The sim engine works in such a weird way that you just can't dial in real numbers and have a plane behaving within real specs, nooo, you need to tailor the real values to a number that makes the thing fly on the numbers in MSFS.

This is espcially bad with jet engine modelling. Getting the right fluel flow is possible, but you'll be damned if you ever need accurate EPR and N1 outputs...

 

[Bone]

As was already said in this thread, the lack of perception and lack of interaction ability makes FSX quite "hard" compared to the real thing.

E.g. if a FSX controller gives me a heads-up on traffic, I merrily ignore it, since 1680*1050 px and FSX's LOD system just doesn't cut it to see anything beyond a maybe 5 mile radius (unless it has a contrail).
In the real thing, it's (most likely) easier to watch for traffic.

Same for flying and at the same time flicking switches or tuning dials. I refuse to go way beyond default systems modeling for this reason (e.g. NGX), as you just can't multitask in front of a computer screen.





...

OK, I thought I was done here, but Ahhh, well, I guess it's another instance of how a person's frame of reference influences their perception. I have a 30 inch monitor running at a 2500x1600 resolution (1600P) with Track IR. I look and click on switches without any problem at all. But, you're right about traffic, which is why I have the traffic label function checked. Although I do have some strong opinions about certain things, I really am open minded and willing to entertain a new view point. So, I shrunk the FSX window down to simulate having a smaller monitor, and lowered the resolution. Then did it again, and then again.

You guys are absolutely right. FSX is harder than real life when you start shrinking things down, and with each step down it got harder. But the difficulty was in something wholly unrelated to flying. To tell you the truth, it wasn't anything like flying at all. It was an excercise in miniscule management, like trying to thread a needle with a frayed strand and blurry vision. My point of reference comes from somewhere completely different than the majority of flightsimmers, and doesn't really mesh very well alot of times around here. I have realized that for some time.

At any rate, regardless of a persons monitor size or resolution, flightsim is a great platform for learning, just like the "real" simulators.

 

[Bjoern]

I see you got my point.

Anyway, I hope my MSFS skills and knowledge come in handy, should I ever choose to pursue a CPL. Especially in the ATC department.

 

[Felixthreeone]

Real life flying is MUCH tougher in one aspect....Paying the bill after a 2 or three hour rental flight (which for me in an SR20 or 22) can easily top $600. I need not worry about setting fot in the virtual FBO to pay after an FSX session lol

 

[warchild]

Cost is just one of the reasons many of us fly in fsx or fs9 rather than the real world. We simply will never be able to afford the real thing. Health is another issue. Of all the various challenges to flying in the real world, maintaining your health certificate appears to be one of the most stress inducing parts of it.. many of us would simply never be able to pass a health exam. Even such things as PTSD will disqualify you for flying. Guess they think we'll have a flashback and go nutso in the cockpit.
In a real world plane, something goes wrong and your head and hand snaps to the correct button or switch to counter the even. In FSX your head bobbles at a wonderful 15 degrees per second as you look for the correct switch to hit, and you only have one hand. in the meantime, you plane is falling in real time..
Yes, in the real world, planes dont normally have a tendency to pitch up 20 degrees in half a second. they have this little thing called inertia to overcome. Many fsx planes dont have that, though most of us newer engineers work hard on eliminating that inaccuracy.
Annnd, lets face it, Real flying isnt a matter of holding a stick or yoke in your hands and moving it all over the place. Its also a matter of micromanaging everything your aircraft is doing. Too not micromanage is an invitation to disaster. You CAN do this in fsx, but the amount of time you spend scrolling around the cockpit checking gauges, checking wind speed and direction etc etc, is abominable. In a real plane, its a quick glance..
Oh yeah, in real life flying, having seen a UFO is a one way ticket to nowhere.. In FSX, you can see all the little green men you want ...
Pam

 

[Felixthreeone]

LOL!! Totally agree, Pam...not to mention the BFR's, TFR's, insurance, etc....I probably spend an average of $5000usd a year on my real-world flying...and I don't even have my instrument rating yet. But, a commercial and CFI aren't that far off, so soon I wil be getting paid (a small amount) for my habit. There is imho nothing that can replace real-world flying in any way. But, FSX and flight sims do have practical applications, and in many cases CAN be more challenging than real world flying...but just barely so....

 

[fliger747]

Simulators, whether the $ 50 million vareity or the FSX type, do have relations. They can help make complex tasks more familiar and reduce the stress of real life "situations". Real life will always have a pucker factor that is not quite present in FS. Doing a CAT III B approach down to minimums (300' RVR, no cieling) in a half million pounds of airplane moving at 160 knots has a certain anticipation factor that a similar approach in FS does not. However FS can be real enough to get the heart rate up, such as a tight approach in something like the RTW race when everyone is counting on you.

FS is probably best as an instrument simulator, perhaps better in some ways as one can pause, and certainly be free of the many distractions of the ATC environment.

Real flying is generally more difficult as one cannot escape, pause or merely blow off the many duties and requirements of the real world. Flying the plane is usually the easy part. FS is great for doing the fun stuff!


T

 

[Bone]

Real flying is generally more difficult as one cannot escape, pause or merely blow off the many duties and requirements of the real world. Flying the plane is usually the easy part. FS is great for doing the fun stuff!


T

Well, I knew you would understand. And, yes, flightsim is a heck of alot of fun.

 

[warchild]

Wellll, seeing as there are few options for the future of simulated flight, I'm really hoping that one of the top end companies produce a flight simulator that can use some form of 3D/IMax to bring that next level of immersion to the sim..