COF mentioned kindly in "Flying" Mag.

[Gary R.]

In the current (March) issue of "Flying" magazine in the regular feature "Training" on page 62 is a very nice article about the training benifits of FS9.

[Jared]

hehehe, yeppers, bout as real as she gets in the computer world..:-)

[Saratoga]

Well, the only problem is, no matter how far you crank up the settings, immerse yourself in hardware, add wrap-around monitors, get the best planes, and set the volume just right, it's still a game, and when it comes down to it, it's still a computer screen you are lookin' at. It does a good job of simulating performance and what not, but for a "real" training aide I would say the sim isn't even worth it compared to a real FAA simulator. Microsoft did a beautiful job creating a world and the planes to fill it, but as I said before, no matter what you do, when it's all over with you're still lookin' at a computer screen.
I will say, on the other hand, that Flying Magazine is one of the best magazines I recieve, love reading their articles.

[Gary R.]

Well, its true that the pros mostly agree that MSFS has value as a familiarization tool and for developing good instrument scan.

[Saratoga]

Oh no, don't take me wrong, I love FS9, and provided I have planes with realistic flight profiles, it's invaluable as a training tool. I know quite a few fellow airline pilots who have FS9 installed on their computers and use it to practice things that we don't have time for in the full-motion sims or are too dangerous to do in the airliner. You get a plane with a perfect panel and decent sounds, and you can practice all day flying ILSs into the most complicated airport in the world, and never have to pay for gas or avoid flying through restricted airspace. It gives you a feel for what you will be doing in the cockpit, the speeds you will be at (to a certain extent), necessary flap and gear movements, etc.

Sure, you can do things like tell ATC to shove it and land your R-22 next to the White House in FS2004, but when it comes down to it, it's never as good as flying the real thing, from the strange movements planes randomly do, to the weird buzzing noise altimeters sometimes make, to the adrenaline rush of flying an approach in horrible weather conditions and hearing that squeak as the tires hit the runway and feeling the plane jostle from side to side. Those are just some of the minor things, not to mention graphics, that no simulator can reproduce, whether a desktop sim or a full blown FAA full motion simulator.

The beauty of flight is in flight, not in watching a computer screen.

Edit: Also, I forgot to reply about it, but the last post it was said that pilots get their ratings faster using a sim. Perfectly true, and I would let my copilots try and do things in FS9 that I would beat them for if they did in my cockpit. One thing FS doesn't simulate correctly is Manuvering Speed. Everyone remember the crash of AA587 in November of '01? The pilots were at manuvering speed and still, the wrong control input caused the entire vertical stabilizer to snap off the plane. So I parked all the FS planes at or above their manuvering speeds and slammed the rudder to one side, then the other, then pulled back all the way on the stick, then rolled one way or the other fully. Nothing, FS happily complied. Ok well we would have a nice little air force sitting at the bottom of the Atlantic where I was flying in reality, but no, not realistic enough to simulate something that governs the habits of everyday pilots. As a sim it is a great, but the point is, it's a SIMULATOR. It's never going to be as realistic as flying. But for a simulator, it's a damn good representation of the world. It's not perfect, but what are we to expect? We will be paying a lot more for the perfect sim. So let's just go with it and enjoy what we got.

[Gary R.]

Yes indeed you are very correct.  I know there is no substitute for real flying.  That Xplane driven motion simulator I flew is at the Harrisburg Jet Center at KCXY.  Thats where I got my PPL and IFR rating at.  So, I painfully aware many times of the difference between real and sim as you are. I read about that incident you mentioned, also in "Flying".  Richard Collins had a bit to say about manuevering speed.  Actually, some add-on planes do a better job at dynamics than others but re-creating that incident, i don't know.  I think I will try it with the "Real Air" 172 and see if it does it.  Real Air publishes some of the most accurate dynamics.  I am sure as years go by though and PC's geet ever more powerfull that so will the sims that operate on them.  It would be interesting to see TFR's modeled in the next FS.  And the procedures in effect for Reagan National for instance.  Imagine if they do that and you violate that an AI F-16 shows up and if you continue to ignore, that AI F-16 feeds you a sidewinder.  "plane broke up, flight ended".  LOL.

[Saratoga]

Hah, I can imagine the ways of having fun already. Yes I am slightly depressed at not seeing some of the more well-known restrictions modeled. For example, you can takeoff at KDCA (Reagan National) and fly right over the prohibited area above the white house in a Cessna on a VFR flight plan without any problems whatsoever, totally unrealistc, but great for sightseeing. If they were to impose the F-16 rules, they would need a way to disable it. Flying over national landmarks, in the Grand Canyon, etc., has always been a staple of the FS series and something we enjoy and it would be horrible if they just took it away.

Yup the Flying article is what gave me the idea since I had tried it in the simulator. Could you reference me a link to this "Real Air" 172? I would love to see it you make it sound wonderful.

Where's my "Real Air" 757 lol?

[Gary R.]

You might try Wilco Pub for the real air 757 which actually will be the new 767 PIC soon to be released.  I personally think they should model both airframes and have two panel configs which clearly highlight the subtle differences between the 67 and 57.  There are minor ones although I only know this because Les Abend mentioned it, not because I've ever been in either of those 2 flight decks.  I'm not sure what link to post here for that link.  Some of the online sim stores may have their products.  I know the 172 was a free-be.  They also did a very excellent Marchetti I think 260??  Not good at number remembering.  If you have Xplane 8 you might try that incident with that sim.  The flight physics are a lot more realistic in Xplane than MSFS.  

[Saratoga]

Yes I can see my career ending if I tried it in Xplane. Thanks for the info on it though, I definetly will look into it. If it's anything along the lines of the C-172 you have, wow, that will be fun.