Only problem is the Rogue Permadeath feature that cant be turned off if you crash. No second chances makes it almost too difficult. Developer should look into multiple lives per soul which should make progression easier.
Interesting video - I used to play quite a lot of FS2004, FSX and X-Plane, but I don't find them particularly compelling after spending many hours flying irl (started flying in 2013, got my PPL in 2016). The major differences I find (and the things that put me off sims now) are: 1. Flying VFR involves constantly looking around outside the cockpit: navigating by visual references, looking for traffic, judging the sight-picture for maneuvers, etc, not to mention looking at scenery. Instruments are really just for reference. In sims, the clunkiness of "moving your head", the limited field of view and the relatively limited resolution of monitors/projectors means you're essentially stuck with flying by instruments only. Not that that's bad, it's just not as rich as looking out at the world from above. 2. I find time flies in a real aircraft, even in uneventful parts of flight. As the pilot you're constantly doing small things, planning ahead, have radio calls to make and have passengers to chat with in between. In a sim, a 15 minute cruise in a 172 feels painfully slow and boring for me (at least now). Looking at videos of my irl flights, I'm always surprised by how long and boring some of the segments are to watch on a screen, so it's not that the sims are doing something wrong here. 3. As you mention, all the sensations of being in a little box hurtling through dynamic air, the resistance in the yoke, etc help to judge control inputs. You're effectively part of the machine, and all of that feeling is part of the feedback loop. In sims, I find it very easy to over control as the controls are sensitive and there's no sensation saying, "hey buddy, maybe a 2g turn isn't appropriate right now..."
I am a career pilot (20 years so far) who started as an 11 year-old on Microsoft FS3. I must say that I learned some very good habits from the flight sim as well as some very bad ones. In sum, the simulator was invaluable after I began my instrument rating, but I had to unlearn so much for the initial VFR training. I used FS 1995 and 1998 during the IFR work. I was present when the Maule Dealer did the FS2004 (if I remember correctly) work at our airfield for the Maule. I was quite disappointed with some rather basic inaccuracies in the last version or two... I forget if it was fs9 or FSX, but the modelling of the throttles and RPM levers in the baron, for example, were completely wrong. It should be that throttles change manifold pressure (but not RPM, either on the gauge or in the audio). Furthermore, when the prop controls are moved within the governing range, it is expected that the aforementioned do occur. I was not flying turbine aircraft at the time, but I seem to recall there were some basic inaccuracies there also. The "as real as it gets" motto seemed to be true up until about 2002, but I feel that the programme moved to eye-candy status at the expense of aerodynamic flight modelling and systems. I then switched to x-plane. It has some limitations and may not impress the recreational pilot as much. Also, some of the avionics modelling between 2005-209 (when I used it most) was a little basic, but I can attest that the aerodynamic, weather and systems (at least the basic ones) were very well done. I used X-plane for aerodynamics classes and aircraft design tutorials and would highly recommend the versions of x-plane 5.0-8.xx I used then. I am out of touch now so cannot comment on the latest... got to busy with real aeroplanes for the time being.
That was a truly interesting video. And much different from anything else I’ve seen from the retro UA-cam community for a long time. Brilliant and Well done.
As a user of fsx, p3d and now X-Plane 11 (all GA only). I can confirm that the flight characteristics in X-Plane 11 is a lot more fluid feeling if that makes sense. Whilst obviously cannot feel the physical effects of the wind as you do in real life, you can feel the varying levels of yaw on the plane. There is not as much buffeting as there is in real life, but I am excited to see what active Sky can bring to X-Plane 11. I am still early into my PPL but have done enough hours to compare both of Cessna 150 that I fly against the nhadrian Cessna 152 in X-Plane 11. It does model the nuances of both nose up and knows down when flaps are extended and retracted respectively. I had the same sort of thing with the A2A Piper Cherokee, my first ever real world lesson was a Piper Cherokee and when you extend flats in those the nose drops. All in all Modern flight simulators are far better and prepare you quite well. But that does depend on you not learning bad habits as some SIM pilots do. I watched a lot of videos such as mzeroa etc to ensure that I got my bad habits down to a minimum.
I got my PPL in 42 hours , the examiner told me at the time he hadn't seen that low of hours in a long time. I credit my instructor, who was a WWII pilot, and FSX. I was able to concentrate my learning efforts on things that FSX doesn't simulate well...several you mentioned, ie buffetting, turbuence, seat of the pants low to the ground landing and takeoff stuff. Radios, communications, navigation, checklists, panel flows, etc FSX does really well. I real fly a couple of hours a month, due to budget, and sim fly hundreds a hours a month. Love both.
Hey guys - so it seems like this video's been posted on a forum somewhere and a lot of you are coming here to say the exact same things. I appreciate anyone who takes the time to interact with my videos but I don't have time to answer the same questions/comments over and over. Repeat comments also have a tendency to crowd out other, more unique comments, and I want those to be seen and read by others too. So please take a minute to read the video description and/or just scroll through some previous comments and replies to see if what you're asking/suggesting has already been covered. I've started deleting some of the less thoughtful (and in some cases insulting) repeats that don't add anything to the discussion. Thanks!
there is an atc network called vatsim where its real people giving you instructions and commands while your flying your aircraft you use a client like v pilot to connect to but the only downsides though is its audio codec so it can be hard to understand and the amount of people on the network as there isn't always enough controllers online
"More unique comments" But you completely neglected the simulator I and many other pilots use...FSX is outdated and unrealistic. X plane is much more realistic with the use of the Blade Element Theory to simulate proper forces on the aircraft. Everything is taken into account...From the prop down to the static wicks...Everything...My Captain who has 3,000 more hours than I do bought a copy of X plane after my second landing. He would always slam the airplane down, he used to be a missionary pilot. He realized I had been getting familiar with our airframe at home. The next several months until my recent departure were awesome...I flew much more than I did before and he had mastered the aircraft...
Indeed, as Jacques79 mentions, VATSim is the sh*t... you can check the schedule on VATSim, so you know where and when ATC will be controlling, so you can plan to takeoff or land at these specific airport(s), if you want to be interacting with ATC, practicing comms. If you're going to sim, VATSim is the best.
I also took a Discovery Flight this summer after many years of flying as an FSX "PC Pilot". I was curious how flying IRL would compare to FSX. I felt comfortable "behind the wheel" flying a Grumman Cheetah. I'm surprised your instructor allowed you to land on your 1st flight. Well done! My instructor took the controls on short final. He probably didn't want to risk me snapping off the nose gear, striking the prop on the rwy and ruining a perfectly good engine. After the flight I asked him to rate me on a scale of 1 to 10 & he said "I'd give you between an 8 & 9". It made my day. I believe the experience of flying using FSX was very helpful in flying IRL. Thanks for sharing your flight & again, great job!
Once you complete your first solo you will also notice the difference in the weight of the aircraft once the instructor leaves. Really interesting video looking forward to more. :)
Flight Sims were so popular in the 90's! Now we only have FSX (2009), DCS (2008), and XPlane11 (2016). This genre needs much more love. With shaders, ambient occlusion, physics, and VR.
Nice video - I tried a similar thing a few months ago, also with a 172 but using XP11 and FSX. While they both both did an adequate job overall I found that XP11 gave me a much better sense of being in a small vehicle at the mercy of the winds than FSX and a later purchase of the Reality Expansion Pack for the 172 brought it up to a very similar feeling of the moment to moment movement of the plane in the air - the simulation has a touch too much vertical movement and not quite enough movement in the yaw axis, but it "felt" almost the same. I believe the A2A aircraft in FSX/P3D do a similar thing to the REP ones in XP11 so I recon that throwing a bit of money at the problem could give you a huge improvement in FSX or P3D when you take that step. For ATC, if you thought FSX was bad, try XP11, haha - the only way to get things more realistic would be VATSIM, IVAO or PilotEdge. I personally use VATSIM and it's really good, although the controllers often want to over control you on VFR flights, but are normally pretty good about things when you ask for a little more freedom - it's really more geared to commercial jets, so it's understandable.
Having used both FSX and XPlane 11 and recently started flying lessons, the XP11 version is far, far, far more accurate when it comes to the C172. FSX isn’t even close. There are some downsides: if you think the ATC is bad in FSX, it’s even worse in XP11. Although serious simmers use stuff like VATSIM. It is definitely weird transitioning from sim to real life. You pointed out the steering, which is definitely something I initially struggled with. The other one is tending to overcorrect for everything that’s happening in the air. It’s hard to break out of the “it’s just like driving a car” mentality, where you’re constantly adding inputs to correct for road surfaces and whatnot. Regardless, I find XP11 with the REP pack on the 172 to be realistic enough to be helpful for learning to fly the pattern, practicing coordinated turns, and understanding the general effects of wind and performance. Really interesting video. Cool to get someone else’s opinion!
@@fulanitoflyer Way simpler in the real plane when you can feel how far you're moving the trim wheel. In XPlane, I just use an up/down switch on my yoke which I guess emulates the electronic trim adjustment, but its hard to really get a feel for what you're doing when you aren't getting physical feedback from the plane. I don't even touch the electronic trim in the real thing.
@@fulanitoflyer Takeoffs are also easier. Even with the REP pack, the XPlane 172 tends to veer VERY heavily to the left during takeoff. You still need right rudder in the real plane obviously, but it's nowhere near as squirrely.
@@pacadet No kidding. Last week I was (in X-plane 11) taking off in a C172 with a 45 degree angle crosswind of 16 knots, and I literally had to apply FULL rudder to keep it straight on the runway.
A very enjoyable, humble and modest video that covered a lot. Equally interesting for long-time simmers and for complete novices asking if a sim could really compare to real flying. Also, well edited and the addition of real footage from those early computers was a nice touch. Thanks
Nice video, one minor point worth noting is that you were likely in controlled airspace the vast majority of the flight. FRG is Class D which has a control tower. You then were probably within Class E the majority of the rest of the flight and probably under the Class C airspace (shelf) for Long Island. Guessing you were monitoring their frequency while maneuvering. Class E is considered controlled airspace even though VFR participation / communication is optional. Very minor point, but something you may want to be aware of / find interesting. I was a big Flight Sim user until I started flying the real thing. I gave up flight sims after my 2nd or 3rd lesson as the joystick just didn’t cut it for simulation of the control feel / input especially trimming out control pressure. Glad you enjoyed your flight, it gets easier. One hand relaxed on the yoke and the other on the throttle. The 172 flys itself, you’re just there to provide some gentle input for the most part. You wouldn’t believe how uncomfortable two hands looks to those of us who fly... makes me cringe thinking about need to go around but not being able to get the throttle in fast enough.... ugh... bad, bad, thoughts. It’s like watching someone drive through traffic with their feet tied and the car on cruise control. (That’s why so many pointed it out)
I learned to fly in the early 90's, no GPS, no glass cockpit, just plain old steam gauges... The chief instructor at my school was an old military pilot and carried around a 1/4" dowel rod to "help" the pilot, he would use that stick to point out any errors in your technique many times smacking your knuckles if your hand wasn't where it should be... (ie hand not on the throttle in the pattern???SMACK!!! Not trimming properly... SMACK!!! It worked ;-) I bought a hand held gps when they became available in the late 90's. Computer sims had gotten pretty good by the early 2000's so I picked one up, (don't remember which one though) and used it when I went through instrument training. It actually is a HUGE help when training for an IFR ticket teaching you about situational awareness!!! So glad you did this video, and I hope you continue flying!!! It's lots of fun, and you will never forget all the ups and downs of flight training, (and there will be plenty ;-)
I'd love to see an update to this when the new MS Flight Simulator come out next year. It's interesting that there was as much difference between real world and FSX given that until E3 this year there has been no indication that MS planned to ever do another Fight Simulator.
Thanks for the video, it was very, very interesting. For the thousands of vids available on UA-cam, I have seen very little done like this. As a keen simmer myself, I have always wondered how close it can be to the real thing, and your video has given an excellent insight. An airliner video as you mentioned at the end would be fantastic. Well done and thanks again.
Turbulence and "being pushed around" can/are simulated with add-ons like EZDok and Accusim (A2A). FSX out of the box is good start.. as your skills get better, or you want more simulation, there is more then enough support through third party add-ons to get you there. You can even set up FSX with a hydraulic driven full cockpit. Like they say in racing.. How fast do you want to go? Well, that depend on how much money you have. It's why FSX is still around, and a far better bargain then other sims. The support for it is outrageous.
yet nobody has been able to add detachable parts and damage modelling (its more fun if you can rip a wing off by pulling out of a dive too hard rather than having the game freeze and say "airframe overstressed")
I think the general consensus is that home based simulators are great learning tools but you only get out of them what you put in. For private pilots, practicing going over checklists and procedures is time well spent. Planing cross country flights and flying them in the sim is a great way to get proficient at navigation. You won't learn the "feel" of flying an airplane at home but procedures can be learned for cheap at home. Since instrument flying is mostly about adhering to procedures so flight sims are excellent for that.
I've held a PPL since 2014 and am a user of both FSX and XPLANE as well. When I was learning, neither flight simulator really helped me with airplane handling (takeoff, landing, cruise, upper-air work, etc) - nothing like getting up there in the real thing and just practising. HOWEVER, XPLANE proved invaluable in preparation for my solo cross-country flights. Before I flew each CC, I would fly the same route in XPLANE a few times and it was amazing how accurate the VFR visual references were when compared to my real flights - really helped train me to look for that highway, or railway line or lake.
The reason maintaining a good line on the runway is extremely difficult in a PC simulator is because you are viewing your 3 dimensional situation on a 2 dimensional representation. Lining up and maintaining, even with cross winds is far easier with 3D VR. The added depth and head turn response give you a better feeling of "dead ahead" that you just don't get looking at the image in 2D. This still doesn't make up for the lack of physical sensation feed-back, but the VR visual sensations will make you want to ease off of a two minute turn bank angle, just like the real thing. My dream since 1984 when SubLogic FS enticed me to buy a Commodore 64 is for a simulator with the physics of MSFS, the rich content of MSFS, and the realistic scenery and weather and visual effects of War Thunder.
I've flown C-172s and don't find them all that bouncy in light turbulence. A lot of what we saw was the movement of the camera. Really should have put that on a monopod or something. I've also done a lot of simulator flying. My favorite, done in FS2004, was a round-the-world trip in a Lancair IV-P. It's a high-performance, high-altitude flyer that requires a gentle hand on the controls, but a joy to fly. I flew mostly VFR but I'm instrument-rated and set the weather to throw up occasional IFR. I came out of rain and clouds near Istanbul and saw a fantastic scene of city lights and misty air glowing gold in the deep twilight. Gorgeous. Later I downloaded a 172 and flew it from my real home airport. The sound was nearly perfect and so was the performance. After the Lancair it was like wrestling a concrete block but still fun to fly.
I'm flying DA-40's now, and yes, it's bouncy all the time. The camera in the video was bouncing because the plane was bouncing. If you've had flights that were smooth, you were lucky. I have about 80 real life hours at this point and I'd say maybe 5 of those have been smooth.
Consider XPlane I had about 250 MS FS hours, mostly only ver 3.0, when I joined the Air Force in 1989 and began training as a Navigator. All those hours spent flying instrument departures and approaches paid off big-time. Years later, when I went for my private pilots license and instrument rating in 2005, I would fly approaches first in MS FS 2004, but using actual FAA charts and plates. It greatly reduced my in-plane learning curve and saved me LOTS of time and money. Instead of spending time teaching me the basics, my instructors could focus on improving my overall flying. I still had to fly the real-life minimum hours and required procedures, but I found that I spent most of my time perfecting the craft instead of merely learning it. Between that and all the studying, my check-rides were fairly smooth and straightforward.
I can really relate to your experience, as I had maybe 3 years of sim preparation with FSX before my first (and only to date) real flight. And yes, just going up at the end of the runway and trying to turn right, a wind blew and kind of moved the plane all over. The best experience and can't wait to have more attempts up there. Good luck!
Very Interesting. You're a bit harsh on a $50 (then) 13 year old commercial game/sim at times - especially the scenery- but overall I agree with your conclusions. Its easy to forget that FSX was so resource intensive for its time, essentially no computer built could run it full throttle maximum for years at 1080 resolution on 4:3 monitors. It took years before an update that allowed some features of multi-core processors to come out. Imagine how more realistic scenery would have choked this game to death 13 years ago. My custom built gaming PC in 2003 could pull 20-30 FPS on light detail. A 2011 build with a fast Core 3 dual processor and $250 graphic card would get 30+FPS at high detail with some add-ons. I've seen the new software you mentioned, its pretty amazing.
The main thing I noticed in my flying lesson in a Cessna, that it's really like being in a 70s car, it's definitely old .... And literally being in an old car in the air, with all the noises and being bashed about in the wind. It was a shock to me how Raw and how the wind and weather has a massive effect on the plane. One thing simulators cannot emulate is being bashed about by eddies, turbulence and the visceral feel of being literally an old tin can being bashed about with all the vibrations....... I guess modern planes it's different but in a Cessna it was like being in a WW1 plane compared to how I imagined it would be after playing flight sims.
Valami Izé no you don't get it, it was a mindblowing experience !!!! Opened my eyes. After that I was more interested in microlight and flying totally exposed to the elements. Still love gyro copters. My dream is to own a gyro..... Fly with a flying jacket and goggles in a simple flying craft. Way more fun !!!!! You can't simulate that experience in any flight simulator !!!! Get it now ????
I grew up flying a Cessna 182 with my dad and it was better than the 172 and 150. Everytime I got in a 172 or 150 I always said just what you did - it was like being in a flying tin can! And I totally relate to your 70s car comment! So true.
He just said he spent a ton of money on addon's and he doesn't want to lose those. The best recommendation for him would be to move over to prepar3d because most if not all of his addon's will work. Also Prepar3d 4.~ is now 64 bit and companies like A2A have been able to add Accu-sim planes which are extremely accurate flight models which ditch the old "Flying on Rails" feel of FSX, also addon's like Active sky 4 (which you can pay 5 dollars to upgrade from FSX to P3D v4) are upgraded, you can run UTlive which generates live traffic and liveries ECT.
Fsx definitely does a pretty good job. Once you have a decent amount of time in a real cockpit, I actually find my fsx experience more realistic because I can imagine the feeling of what I’m seeing on the screen.
My last serious sim setup was 2004 based. You could network multiple PC's together and slave them. I had myself the full commercial cockpit going on with overhead switch panels and 7 monitors in total. Add making my own scenery additions, I never felt like the newer offering was an upgrade. But anyway, I enjoyed your comparison vid. My own experience is with helicopters and none of my countless hours of sim experience in any program could have prepared me for the relationship between the 3 points of control and how any tiny change in any of them required so much adjustment of the others.
Really enjoyed your video, and yes the 2 handed flying stood out for me too. My instructor "forced" me to use one hand on each throttle and yoke since the very first flight in order to get in the habit sooner and would call me out if i took my hand off the throttle for any period of the flight, even taxing. But i think this goes to show that every instructor has its own ways of teaching. Especially in the early 5 to 10h.
I don't really understand the "forcing" people to do something on the first flight. You don't form a habit by doing something one time. That just sounds like an overbearing instructor to me.
NIcely done! Enjoyed watching it. I am a private pilot that use FSX, X-plane and P3D to practice procedures or get familiar with an airport or area I am planning to fly that I have not been before.
Interesting comparison. I earned my license in 1989 and mostly flew PA 28-140, C-172 & C-177 for the first few years. Obtained Flight Simulator around 1995 or so and did terrible with it, my wife used to laugh her rear end off. Good luck getting your ticket!
Very good video. In high school and college (1993 to 2001) I flew radio controlled planes and spent a LOT of time on serious PC flight sims (MS Flight Sim 95 and Falcon 4). I had probably 300 hours in the MS FS95 Cessna 182RG and probably 1500 hours in the Falcon 4 F-16C. In 2002, I took a discovery flight/first flying lesson just like you did, although it was in a 152, not a 172. I noticed the turbulence right away, like you did. I was somewhat used to that from RC flight, though, at least in terms of the balance between overcorrecting and being blown all over the place. The other thing that I really noticed was how I had no intuition about how to use the sight picture out the windscreen to judge the plane's attitude. I was trying to fly by instruments alone and only looking outside for curiosity's sake. As a result I was bouncing up and down about +/- 200 feet from our desired altitude. My instructor noted that and said that it was due to my sim experience. He said that once I got over that, I would be able to get my license quickly because the sim experience (plus RC experience) really did help with almost everything else. One funny thing that happened is that I did attempt a very tight turn, almost to 60 deg bank, in the real plane and then my instructor told me to keep it below 45 deg because the 152 has way too much drag in a 2G turn and the airspeed bleeds off quickly.
Hello, well, that's something I've been wanting to do for a while, but never took the time, so thanks! I went all the way from "flying" FS4 to XP11, then actually flying C152 to MCR4 and other aircraft. I can relate to many things you say about the different feelings, the somewhat inaccurate graphics and the easiness of finding a runway or following a path in real life. Still, there are two things the sim gets near-perfectly, and those are things that actually matter: timing and instruments. I learnt to fly the C152 on a small airfield north from Paris (France), and we had a very short and precise path around the neighboring villages and between the actual liner areas from the Charles-de-Gaulles airport. After my instructor first had me flying patterns (and Lord that wasn't easy!), I downloaded Carenado's C152 to my XP10 box just to train. I spent the week flying virtual patterns around my airfield, trying to get everything (speeds, trim, flaps, carb heat, …) on time, going around villages and roads (which looked nothing like real world, but were positioned correctly), and so on. The next week, back at the airfield, I was a bit surprised and actually pleased at how easy it had become to fly a real pattern, keeping the good rhythm and the proper path, with little to no intervention from my instructor. The sensations and the graphics were of course much better and more detailed in real life, but the speeds, timings, procedures were really, really close, and really helped me master this tricky little beginner's challenge. Then, when I started navigation flights, I did the same things with instruments, especially VORs. At first, I just couldn't get them properly when flying: I had too many things to look up and do at the same time, especially in the crowded north-Paris area - basically, I could either fly or navigate, but not both. Virtual flying, with no need to look out for other aircraft, no distraction from ATC calls, no stress of getting lost, allowed me to gain proficiency with navigation instruments, maps, etc., in a matter of days, while I guess it would have taken me weeks in real life. So while, like you, I had first spotted the differences between sim and real flying, after a while I really noticed how similar they really are, beyond mere appearances. Sim won't teach you how to really fly, but it can be a huge help getting timings and procedures all right, and therefore lets you use actual flight time to do the actual flying lessons. And several "sim-to-real" pilots I know actually got their PPL below the 50 hours mark, while most "not-sim" pilots didn't get to the exam before 55-60 hours.
as I have the aeronautics initiation certificate and I am user of X-Plane 11 I used to fly the Cessna 172 and I've tried different weather conditions in the simulator but when I got a chance to fly a real one I noticed a lot of things as I felt the weight of the plane in my hands and this is a MAJOR factor here and the turbulence blowing the plane up and down left and right and the feeling of some physiological phenomenon as I turn or climb or descent, these are some factors that we don't experience on simulators for sure, PS: Flying simulators was VERY VERY helpful with the procedures and everything except that I held the Yoke with my two hands the first time too because of the feeling of the weight and everything while I never do that on my simulator, and my instructor kept telling me to manipulate the plane with the left hand and the throttle with the other one. Simulators are just way too helpful for real life experiences
Pretty fun to see my old home airport in this video! I first "learned to fly" through FSX and then Prepar3D, and did my full private pilot's license at FRG in a 172SP with G1000, exactly like the one you flew.
Both hands on the yoke during your landing was driving me a bit nuts, lol. But I can see you've just got your hands on the yoke to feel the landing out while your CFI actually handled the yoke and throttle on the way in. With respect to IFR flying, that's where the home sims really have value. The VFR part of flying requires so much feel, while IFR flying requires that you abandon that feel and stick with instruments, planning, etc. I came to sims from the opposite direction; I received XPlane 10 after I started flight lessons. But I didn't really get into the sims until I started my instrument rating. I upgraded to XPlane 11 and the sim was super helpful.
Awesome video that acknowledges quiet a few questions I have had about the connections between simulations and the real deal! I enjoyed it very much thank you! - An amateur simer and full time helicopter pilot
I learned to fly at Islip Macarthur in a Cessna 172. No Garmin setup, just the dials and gauges. I have the pedals, the yoke and MS-FSX Gold Edition. Besides having a lot of fun, I would do my training flights in between weekly lessons. I would set conditions, tiime and weather to that of the lesson. I decided to be very rigid about the simulator, treating it like a plane, including reading off from the blue pre-flight procedures. I never crashed intentionally in that plane and still when in the simulator treated it like the real thing. Your intention here was to analyze it - which you did very well but I found that if I approached it as real as possible it felt more real. I found the response of the simulated plane very similar to the real one and your comment about feeling every wind hit the small plane is correct. I took my first lesson because when I flew commercially I was one of those secretly scared passengers, trying to pretend to read at take off. Studying the facial expressions of the cabin staff if we hit turbulence etc. My first lesson was the morning after Sully landed in the Hudson. My wife tried to convince me to not go to the lesson. I used Sully's emergency landing "See? Nobody got killed!" My flight instructor was about the same age as my son I noted. I as surprised when he said "You want to take off ?" He must have been mistaken, "I've never done this before! " " The second I pulled back and rotated on his command, I knew I was going to be hooked on this new thing. I loved it.Learning to fly was one of the best things I have ever done. My hobby had been North East Shipwreck Diving. Soon I was taking a lesson every week early in the morning. I would go to work after feeling like I had this secret life before work. They have a couple of designated flight training areas over Central Long Island. One over the Fire Island area and the other on the North side of Long Island, over the Town of Port Jefferson and the Long Island Sound. I had lot's of adventures in the real plane and I would relive them on the simulator. Some couldn't be fully simulated. Stall Training for example, Even though in the real plane you barely felt the drop of 300-500 feet, you knew that you screwed up and would have been dead had the instructor not intervened hitting the rudder for you as you start heading for a spin. Also wearing 'Foggles' ; special glasses that prevent you from seeing outside the plane. The instructor told me he had control and to let go of the yoke and look at the floor..." Oh, and put these on. The last thing I heard was him putting the engine in Neutral after a few lurching turns. "Your Control, put us on a heading of 310 at 2600 feet." When redoing the lessons , it wasn't hard to relive these moments because I found the simulator so close to the real thing. I ended up not going all the way to the license, but I did solo a dozen times before I decided this was supposed to be a single lesson many months ago! I had to refocus on my job; Computer Consulting. I ended up writing a book about learning to fly that includes things like fighting for control of the aircraft with my instructor thinking his inputs were crosswinds! I enjoyed your video. I have a couple of well received books on Amazon: Flying the Skies of Long Island, NY and 9/11 My Story (Kindle Ed) by David Rosenthal SCUBA Diving the Wrecks and Shores of Long Island, NY (Paperback Ed, Kindle Ed) by David Rosenthal Travelin2wit on UA-cam
I use SFX just before I go up after not flying for a long time... it's good refresher. I noticed the times I didn't freshen up on SFX I flew worst either with an instructor or when solo or even with PPL. So SFX is helpful. I never could find any rudder peddles for my PC. I had a joystick and throttle box that had rudder control on it. In real life, it always seems easier to find the runways, and line up... I always assumed it was because you had the full actual controls; not make shift ones, and you could easily move your head around to get full flight picture. To stop from floating, you do need to watch your airspeed even in small C172's and don't flair too quick, wait for that sinking sensation. Never come in too hot or you may float or bounce. Bouncing worse than floating. The trick I learned is to come in as slow as possible, little to no wind then use 65 to 61 kts on final (treat all landings like a short field landing on the final) then round out and keep that round out just as there's no more flying speed, a sinking sensation should be felt, then slowly let that go into a flair, at which you should be 50-45 kts or even slower indicated. Works with all types of landings with full flaps configuration C172 specifically... (normal, soft, and short field landings). With wind or a cross wind above 8 mph, add incrementally 5 or so kts of airspeed for every 5 mph wind increase. So if wind is 15 mph, round out at 68ish to 70ish. 20mph 70 to 75 mph... same with x wind landing with wind. And on the round out, don't let the the aircraft touch down until no more flying speed... windy days, your airspeed will decrease just as quick as if it was a calm day when flying final at slower speeds; the wind really slows you down. I've literally landed 20ish kts winds and my instructor was watching out side the window and chuckled I literally touched the ground and scooted about 13 feet before coming to a near stop (wasn't a short field landing) just a really windy day. Above all: don't start the flare too early, wait for that sinking sensation at level flight to let you know you're coming to the point of hardly no to no absolutely no flying speed; that's the part that takes time getting use to... seemed to me though, I caught onto it fairly quick... and the sensation does have a sight picture you can get use to... you literally start sinking in level attitude as your speed is no longer giving you lift... so I can see it on FSX without the "sinking feeling". My personally opinion, its better to thump a bit on landing than to bounce.
I've been a flight simmer since my aunt (an IBM rep) made my mom buy a PC AT in 1985 and 10-year-old-me got the flight sim 1.0 and later 3.0 for it. Oh boy, was such an amazing journey. There is however very little to "do" in the civil aviation setting and the planes tend to be a bit slow and boring. Eventually military sims became quite realistic, and the planes and the aerobatic and competitive dogfighting became the main focus. If you are like me, and want more excitement and sense of accomplishment, I think you might really enjoy the IL-2 BoX series of sims for the WW2 birds or the DCS F/A-18C sim which is an incredibly detailed study level simulation of the Hornet. They are nothing short of dreams come true for an old sim hand like me.
I too have my boxed floppy by Bruce Artwick and a a few other classics. But after moving to an Airpark and having my own PA38 and hangar I no longer have time (or money) to spend on simulation flying. But I have to say this: your video is one of the best I have seen on simulation vs reality. The remark on taxi speed is right on. But the three things I noticed most that were missing from simulation was: 1.) headset and radio backround sounds, 2.) vibration and up and down (floating) sensation and 3.) the smell of an aircraft. Of course, you can replicate a turbine smell with an oil lamp but aviation fuel burning and hot oil aluminum and leather all have a mystical odor of their own. I suspect if you took your chair and balanced it on a bunch of balloons it would feel much more realistic than one that seems nailed to the floor. Thanks
I've been flying VR in X Plane 11.30, it's an amazing experience with the default Cessna. You do really feel like you're in a small box, it makes virtual flying much more immersive but also easier since you can turn your head all around. Why I fly now in X-Plane 11 over FS10/P3D (even after buying tons of Orbx/PMDG/REX products): - Native VR support (and it's awesome!!) - Much more realistic in terms of flight model. Feels like the atmosphere around you is one with the aircraft. Doesn't feel the same with FS10/P3D (feels more like flying by numbers). - Tons of FREE addons that should be payware (check out MisterX sceneries, you won't believe they are free) - Updated more than FS10/P3D (core code to make it run better and new features) - More and more 3rd party addons - Graphical UI overhaul (so much easier now than with X-Plane 10)
In the video, it was mentioned that a more advanced Fight Sim and VR would be a nice match. This is already available. FSX also has MegaScenery with a few highly detailed cities like NYC and Seattle City as add-ons. I have these up and running with an Oculus Rift VR and have a lot of fun in VR. It is a far more advanced setup than in the Video. I also have Aerofly FS2 and this raises the realism level even more. You really fell like NYC and the surrounding areas are almost real in VR. Harry
Thanks for doing this. I'm considering going back to get my pilots certificate after a 35 year hiatus and was curious as to how similar a sim was to real life. I had about 12 hours of flight time and one of the immediate things I noticed as different was steering - I had still remembered how to steer with pedals so it seemed odd using the yaw on the joystick. The rest is sort of foggy at best. Of course as soon as I picked up Flight Simulator X (Steam), I learned about Flight Sim 2020 releasing in a couple weeks. Sounds like your dreams may be coming true!
I learned to fly 12 years ago. Don't really care much for the simulator, though it is cheaper! Nice comparison. Wish you all the best on your training!
I used an Atari 130XE and a 10 inch black and white screen to run this simulator. I also used a printer for college papers and some U.S. Army documents. I kept that machine for years and later had a 486 custom built computer to replace the Atari. Of course times change and my current machine is custom built with i7 7700K, MSI GTX 980 Ti Lightning [both overclocked]. In deed, how times have changed. I still fly Microsoft FSX occasionally, however, it has both ground scenery and aircraft add-ons.
Nice video on this subject, on a slightly different note: I use MS Flight SIM (2002 or 2004)with 767 Pilot In Command in my class. I teach aircraft system maintenance on the 767 and when we get to chapter 22 (Auto Flight) I sometimes light up this program to show how the 767 performs with the auto throttle engaged and then engaging the auto pilot. I also show CAT II/III AutoLand approaches with 2 or 3 A/P engaged....with this software. When I go to a real 757 or 767 simulators I pretty much follow the same numbers (parameters/settings) that I use on my pc. I have also flown jump seat in the cockpit in many flights in both the 757 and 767 and I am impressed on how close the flight deck affects are. Great training tool if not used as a game.
Very nicely done comparison. I fly fsx and real planes as well. When I flew for the first time my instructor could tell that I had simulator experience.
I am a solo student and have about 50 hours so far. I have also been using fsx since I was 11 and probably have at least 3000 hours or so flying wise. You were right on the differential braking and torque, although I’m so used to the exaggerations of fsx I never really notice them in either the sim or in real life, probably because I am so used to them. I also had the death grip on the yoke when I started, but for a different reason. Real flight controls are stiff, super stiff. I had a Saitek Pro-Flight yoke and I did a little rubber band mod on it, which I kind of regret because it made all of the movements really underplayed. I could literally sit there and set my yoke to a position to have my aircraft descend or ascend. If you have rudder pedals, the real ones are a lot different. You can never really tell how far you move a rudder left or right in a real airplane, you have to feel it out. Most importantly it is the most stiff control on the airplane, and it will give your legs a workout, even in a little 152 like I am flying. The biggest issue I had to learn is flaring(or as Jason Schappert calls it...transitioning). The way I figured it out was thinking of it as a power off stall into the ground. It’s the exact same process and now I can grease a landing with relative ease. If you are a flight sim regular, your instructor probably will think your approaches will be stellar, but this is a false hope. If you aren’t following the power for altitude, pitch for airspeed, you probably have made a bad habit and are going to get slow at some point. In general, fsx flying and real flying are two different beasts entirely, and don’t exactly cross over well.
Agree with the desire to over-correct for even low wind blowing a very light aircraft. I too had a death-grip on the flight stick the first (and only) time I flew a very light aircraft. There is no simulator that does this blowing around right as far as I know but I do recommend getting a VR headset (vive pro or samsung Odyssey would be great because of the high resolution) and playing supported sims in VR. It really is the next level of sims.
Than you! Great comparison. You have confirmed several items I have suspected. Being in a physical plane vs a one monitor Sim; the real thing offers both challenges and benefits. Having thousands of FS9/FSX hours and many hundreds of NASCAR sim hours under my belt; the "Seat of the Pants" feeling missing in these sims are a real detriment. I have heard of anecdote (and one specific individual) relating that those with serious sim time take to IFR easily because we revert to the gauge information heavily to maintain attitude, track, bearing, etc because of the lack of the seat of the pants feeling. Once, I covered my monitor after take off ala IFR training to block all visual clues except the gauges and flew IFR several hundred miles only to flip the cardboard covering off about 5 miles out of my destination. Quite the strange and extremely pleasant satisfaction that I was right where I should be.........
A really fun video. I must admit that although I used to enjoy flight sim games, for me they don't translate very well to real life VFR flying with small airplanes. Flying a single engine GA aircraft is a surprisingly raw and physical experience with constant buffeting, vibrating and shaking, coupled with plenty of roaring wind and engine noise even through noise cancelling headsets. Most of the time you know exactly how you are flying by looking out and using your "internal body sensors" - without looking at the instruments and gauges. Of course for IFR flights with large planes on high altitudes it might be a different story, but I have no experience of that.
15:29 I know that this doesn't fit all your requests, but there is a game for SteamVR and PSVR called Ultrawings. You start off with an ultralight and progress through by completing your license, getting medals for missions, and buying new runways that get you new planes. Pretty fun, feels like real flying, even with the PS2 graphics.
Don't worry about having a deathgrip on the yolk lol. I'm currently going through flight training (private pilot just over 100 hours flight time, currently working on instrument) and have talked with many different instructors. It's a normal thing for new students to do that, myself included.
Yep my thoughts exactly on comparing FSX vs the Real Thing. I did pretty much the same thing, to answer a personal question of mine (to pursuit a possible career in aviation or not). So I went to a flight school, and tried it out for a fee with a flight instructor. I too had a death grip and flight instructor noticed that I kept staring at the instrumentation and that I should be staring out LOL. And Thermals, man... they're like catapults! Good video!
2 addons for fsx that i really liked and which really helped: FSForce and Accu-feel.(that last one adds more noises to the airframe/windnoise) I did exactly what you did, i got to fly an hour in a real cessna, odd thing is, taking control was really natural, slowing down however, made me miserable with the aircraft bobbing as it was slowly coming down, best described as a leaf falling. The approach, however, was really awsome. To get into the circuit, the instructor stepped in by putting it on one wing (in my reality), but turning into final and working the flaps, throttle and trim was really awsome. So all in all, a very welcome experience, be it that i'm still scared of flying, and a bit of a daredevill in FSX. Ever turned off the engines of a 747 at 15.000feet overhead an airport? ;) Have a great day, thanks for the video and explanation, really nice experience for you and well vocalised. The one C172 i flew, had a different yoke though, the grip felt tiny, but sturdy.. or it had been chewed off over the years by other students ;) photos.app.goo.gl/cRUPiUf16uFbNjPm8
Probably the main difference is that your instructor was controlling the power of the plane during landing, which is the biggest part of the work for a pilot. I can see that you were holding the yoke with two hands for most of the flight, which is natural for beginners, but that seasoned pilots will spot right away. Thanks for the video
I just changed from FSX to P3Dv4. I thought over a year about if I should do it. I had a ton of addons for FSX. After the change and investing some money I am glad I have done it. If you have a decent pc for the 64bit version it will change the whole simming experience. It was a hard decision for me but I am totally happy now with P3D, it is so much more than just a newer version.
This is SO great on so many levels...I started with the SubLogic Flight Simulator in the early 80's. I was hooked. I started flying lessons as a teen and had my Solo sign off before I have my driver's permit! Got my license in 1992 and was fairly active until 9/11. Everything aviation-wise is expensive and once I bought a house and life got busy...aviation sat on the back burner. But all these flight sims kept the pilot light (see what I did there?) burning. Now I am part of a local flying club, working with an instructor to shake the rust off...and getting back into it!
Sorry if this has been mentioned but I use FSX-SE with FlyInside's VR addon software (not to be confused with FlyInside's stand alone VR sim) and an Oculus Rift, and it's amazing. The closest thing to real you can get with out an expensive motion sim. Also, good job on the video.
You really ought to get you private pilot license! A brother, an uncle, and several family friends have theirs. I think recreational aviation is more common in rural Wyoming, where I live, but flying on actual small planes is so cool!
I've done both. The flight simulator is more difficult. Controls are more sensitive, visibility is more restricted on the simulator. The FS2004 was a great training aid for my flying lessons.
Great video! Fight sims have come a very long way. Once you start flight training, the limitations of desktop flight sims start to become clear. Those limitations, however, don’t take away from the fact that any of the big 3 desktop sims can be a wonderful platform for practicing/reinforcing procedural elements of flight. But like you observed, stick and rudder skills are honed in a real plane.
I learned to fly using MS flight Sim. When I went though flight school etc, I was more comfortable in the cockpit than most of my other fellow students.
I flew the real Cessna 150 in the 1960s and 1970s doing several cross-country flights solo. Unfortunately, I could not keep my lessons going so I could get my private pilot's license. In any event, I never found the 150 to be really bothered by light turbulence. And I was flying out of Zahns airport just south of Republic. The cross-winds there were very bad as a result of having only a north-south runway. However, the 150 always handled them fine. In any event, I am interested in relearning my old flying skills and am thinking of getting X-Plane. Based on the reviews I have read in PC-Pilot Magazine, it may become the sim of choice for most serious commercial aviation sim-pilots and already has a professional version for actual pilots. Right now I am learning to handle the JU-87 Stuka Dive Bomber from in the top combat simulation series, IL-2 Great Battles out of Russia. These modules have been tested for accuracy by former WWII pilots. And if you think handling a 172 is an experience, trying getting a JU-87 into the air and landing it; especially when you have only a short, dirt airstrip to do so. I really enjoyed the video though, as it demonstrates that novices and current pilots alike can get a lot of training and expertise from the highly sophisticated flight simulations that are now available... :-)
Great video, thanks for taking the time to share it. I hope you get VR one day because there is nothing like it for simming. I've done it all in simming and soon to build a fairly cheap full motion + VR setup. I've had a full $4,000 C172 glareshield with all working gauges and I've had a near complete 744 cockpit that I had $11k into many years ago. I had 7' of triple screens in front of my face while using track ir. All had their pluses and minuses but my aging Oculus headset blows them all away. The first time I sat on the edge of my bed and took off I swore I was moving to the point I tipped over. The scale and depth of everything will just blow your mind. Taxi behind an airliner in a c172 and it will make you feel so tiny. I hope you at least get p3d or xplane. Both are far better than what I'm seeing here. The graphics are so terrible and can't remember seeing them that bland in many years. I favor p3d and share your need for good atc. Recently I got VOXATC which has been a great addition to added realism. It's the most real I've ever experienced and you use your voice with atc being far smarter and use much more realistic procedures than all of the rest (and yes, I do indeed have them all). I have every weather addon and texture packs, all atc, 90% of all of Orbx and over 200 payware airports. I use Foreflight, which is a pilot all in one program and have more addons than anyone I know (meaning ever met on a forum of any kind). My point being, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Check out some of my videos to see Foreflight being used with p3d/fsx, or my most recent video where I show off VOXATC and another new addition to my 500gb p3d install, Black Marble night lighting. The only thing I prefer in xplane is it's lighting and this addon, though expensive is fantastic. We are living in very exciting times my friend. Simming has never had a better looking now or future. The competition factor of two great sims (p3d and xp) will only bring us there that much faster! :) For the record, I use both p3d & xp but prefer p3d. So many people think they can only have one. It's ok to like both. Xp made a huge jump with v11 and p3d is just getting started. FSX was stalled for too long and in the last few short years Lockheed have resurrected it but to stay with fsx and such low graphics, yet still be able to talk highly of the comparison of actual flight is a testament and make me hope you get to have VR and either platform sooner than later!
I'm a PC simmer myself, but to me, the scenery is rather a big factor, I like to take note of landmarks that I'm familiar with in real life, and unfortunately, FS-X (Which I've purchased twice now. The original (and a multitude of addons), as well as the steam version) just didn't cut it anymore, so I purchased X-plane 11 which at least incorporates actual roadway data, and a finer terrain detail model (I'm not sure who the provider is for that data, but at least it's better than Stock FS-X landscape), and I'm far happier (without even going in to how much better looking stock XP-11 is) . I fly with VR, and with FS-X I had to purchase a 3rd party program called FlyInside, which did the trick, but X-Plane 11 has native VR, so it just works better than a plug-in. There are obviously pro's and cons to VR at present, but the level of immersion is unmatched. Before VR was available I used TrackerIR, which was.. meh... but at least you could slightly simulate head movement, because it's great to be in a flight sim and "look around" but with VR, it's just in a complete league of its own, so much so that I had my dad in VR with X-Plane in a Cessna Skyhawk (G1000), and he was trying to grab things in the real world that were only in the simulated world. I couldn't and wouldn't use any simulator without VR nowadays, it just doesn't feel right to me... The freedom to be able to look around, lean over and have a peek at things, and experience depth at what I'm looking at is just such a stark contrast to looking at a flat screen in front of me and simulating the looking around by clicking buttons, or even having the triple screen setup. I would highly recommend both Xplane 11 and VR for Flight simming.
As an update to the above, I have now made the leap into Ortho4XP (This is an internet data hog, so beware those who are on capped data), and with a bit of hocus pocus (I lie, it was just a lot of trawling through the internet ) I have managed to get photo-realistic ground scenery, initially without ground traffic, but with a bit more reading and playing around, I've managed to set it up that when layered correctly in X-plane 11, the road traffic overlays over the photographic landscape which is yet another step up in realism. All I can say to this is that it is absolutely stunning to fly over real-world scenery, there is nothing that can compare to it in any other sim. It (obviously) looks like the real thing, and I find it close to impossible to tell the difference once you've gained a bit of altitude when looking down, to tell the difference, it all just looks real... Trees, buildings, main centers, just everything is spot-on (*insert big googly eyes and drooly face here*). I think the next thing would be to get accurate 3D landscape data (Buildings etc... Like google earth has in many places) and I would be all sorted, and in my opinion, one could not actually ask any more from any simulator than that, but FOR NOW, this is probably the closest to real-world flight someone can get at home. If you're seriously into flight sims and have X-Plane 11, I highly recommend taking the leap into Ortho4XP, it seems like a steep learning curve, but it actually isn't hard at all, I watched someone on youtube strut their stuff, and now it's second nature to add new photo-realistic scenery to wherever I choose to "make it look real" It'll be one of the best (FREE) add-ons you could add to your experience without a doubt.
Interesting video, I think the weirdest thing of flying a simulator after having flown a real aircraft is the feel of the controls. The yokes on even FAA certified instrument trainers don't feel even remotely close to a real yoke feeling the airflow over the controls etc. Even the million dollar Level D full motion simulators feel a bit different in overall feel than the real aircraft, and funny enough most those simulators have worse graphics than FSX!
Like many of the commentators, I too flew FS1 thru X before I started RW flying. I think it helped dramatically! Especially on instruments and navigation. I was lucky enough to know some USAF IPs and got some invaluable time in the T38 simulator. Any time spent honing your skills is good time!... whether it’s simmimg or flying!
Thank you for sharing your experience and contributing to the flight sim community with you thoughts and reflections, incredible piece of work ! However I am curious having read in the description that your not keen on VATSIM, and this puzzles me when you have an opportunity to practice comms and increase another realism factor towards R/L flying. But then again a family member who was rated on 737's flew PMDG and didn't care for comms so much and just went with default because they were working it all in their head. I remember him telling me how he practiced a few scenarios at home before actually taking R/L check ride in the Big SIM at work! So just how realistic is PMDG?? But that's all systems talk anyway. Thanks again for sharing !
I think the issue is that a lot of people who use VATSIM seem to think that *talking* is what makes ATC realistic. But it's not. What makes ATC realistic is using proper procedures according to FAA regulations. I've seen a lot of videos of people on VATSIM just screwing around, or using totally unrealistic (or just non-regulation) radio calls, or leaving FAA-mandated crews at various towers unstaffed. That's not realistic or helpful for someone trying to learn how to really fly. PilotEdge apparently does a much better job, because it mandates FAA-standard radio comms, but it only covers a small part of the world, and not the one I'm most interested in. So I'd rather just have a good AI-based system - it doesn't seem like it should be all that hard to implement that, since procedures are all published and most radio terminology is pretty standardized.
The one thing I hear all the time, about fsx is the direct x 10 issue, or the lack of a fully working direct x 10 which would help a lot in reducing oom moments. Such as why dopnt dovetail take out the preview version of direct x 10 and put the full working version in it's place which would solve a lot of problems. Microsoft had told dovetail on it aquiring its license it was not allowed to massively re-engineer the flight sim or replace the dx10 preview. It was simply not in the terms of the licence. Enter Lockheed who bought the license to build a 64 bit version of fsx complete with dx10 and dx11 in the 64 bit version. P3dv4.4 looks exactly like the stock version of fsx right down to its terrible graphics and its stock scenery and the airports not in exactly the correct gps position they should be in real life. Lockheed had the ability to release it's own scenery and make significant improvements on fsx, instead all it is , is a 64 bit clone of fsx, with a truly hideous gui when it could and should be far superior but it it really isn't except you cant go oom anymore. The cost of replacing airports is usually more expensive than the airports bought for fsx, there are far far fewer payware aircraft than fsx. Orbx sort of improves things a bit, but the truth is we are waiting for something more realistic. Rivers look awful, really badly simulated, looking nothing like rivers. The sea is always calm and again looks nothing like water. At least it has as16 and asp16, along with far more airports than the lack lustre and very lacking xp11 that takes 10 times longer to mod than either of these flights sims, due not to having more mods or such but because of the complexity of modding xp11.
i have one of these planes. it was hangared for 20 years (since my granpa died) but we fixed and modernized it now. it's sparkling new. i'm not even going to fly in it once, straight to selling it.
There’s a -not so- old saying among flight instructors that a person who has never even seen an airplane before is ahead of a flight simmer when it comes to really flying an aircraft. I can say that for sure since I started on Flight Simulator... subLogic FS II on the Amiga 500 and then FS 95 on a Pentium I. I managed to get through a PPL, float rating, multi rating, IFR, CPL, and was halfway through my instructor rating before I realized I’d been “chasing the needles” this whole time instead of flying by attitude like you do in a real plane. Yes, flight simulators are very good at simulating instruments, avionics, systems, etc... I learned how to use a Garmin 430/530 system on X-Plane 10 good enough to pass my IFR renewal. I learned how to use a real FMS on X-Plane 11 good enough to understand the basics of the Collins 3000 FMS in a Proline 21 cockpit I have 1300 hours on. But... there are always little things. You can’t put a waypoint into the from (blue) field in an FMS. This is essential for intercepting an airway or localizer with the FMS when you don’t want to track to the waypoint, or if you want to clear a discontinuity in the flight plan or on the legs page. This speaks to the disconnect between simming and real flying. Simming where you are flying on a flight plan (vs just buzzing around) is often a dot to dot exercise. A flight plan is programmed with a runway, a SID, Airways and intersections and navaids, a STAR, and an approach, and flown in sequence. In reality, flying an airplane is far too dynamic. We usually do a vector SID, then file the segment of the airway they tell us to in case of comm failure, but really we’re just vectored on course-often direct the destination airport or initial fix on a STAR. We’ll then get vectors or deviate for weather, maybe ask for a different fix based on weather or traffic, get cleared to a different fix to speed things up or slow things down for traffic, get on the STAR... have the STAR canceled for vectors, get cleared to the initial fix on final approach, get the visual, do the side step to a better runway, etc etc. There’s no way you can simulate this and it’s likeky a simmer would be quickly over his head in busy terminal airspace keeping it together. I still have to fly sims for training (based on X plane, but full motion simulator) and I fly them different than real planes. I jab the controls and wait for the reaction... rather than moving them finely like in a real plane. but not good at flight dynamics
IF you want absolute every button to work in a 747 Cockpit, or any other plane on the otherhand, i recommend you give FlightGear a good go, as it is very challenging to get a plane even to Taxi without reading the ACTUAL Manual.
747 in the FlightGear is not good example. Try IDG's A32x or 33x family, another perfect plane is B707, or for veterans DC-3 or L1049H Super Constellation.
I also still use FSX.. Steam edition thouigh... with few local sceneries and a2a planes i am still pretty happy with it. I have flown three times a real GA plane and it was super interesting for a seasoned desktop pilot. Once you understand the differences between real world flying and sims, i think desktop sims are really useful tools, not just as games.
Real shame that force feedback yokes never caught on. FFB steering wheels got incredibly good, so much so that racing sims now have artificial damping because feedback in modern wheels is TOO responsive. ...but for flight sims, where control feel is just as important, force feedback hardware simply doesn't exist beyond few super expensive limited production items.
There one thing you can do to make it more realistic and without actually changing sim. Now i use both fsx and prepar3d. In both i mostly fly the pmdg 737 and the A2A cesna 172 and i can tell you the difference between them is minimal as far as experience goes. Luckely most of my addons work on both except the pmdg(which actually does work but i bought both to support them since i love their aircrafts). The best addon i ever bought for both games has nothing to do with the games itself. VR. Going VR was the best thing i ever did. It enables me to look around like in real life. It really gives me the feeling of actually being in the aircraft. It makes you feel things you normally wouldn't feel without VR like ascending and descending, drift etc. I know i sounds weird but it does. It really tricks your brain. Combined with the voice recognition atc and copilot mod for the pmdg 737 the experience is amazing. On my channel there's a video in 3D, if you watch in on a phone with one of those cardboard holders or something simular you are able to watch it in 3D. Unfortunately there's no way i can describe or show you what it's like in VR. No words or youtube video(and i got one recorded which can be viewed in 3D on my channel) can describe what it's really like in VR. If you ever get the chance to try it out do so, it will change your sim experience entirely.
To the X-plane 11 players here that want better ATC: try the "124thATC" plugin (or fly on VATSIM, we got a better voice codec coming early 2019!). Upvote so more people become aware of this wonderful plugin, I'm glad I found out about it!
Use XPlane 11. The stall characteristics are much more realistic than Prepar3d (and it's predecessor Microsoft's FSX,) and yes, I do fly in real life. Prepar3d hasn't move the environmental flight model on since FSX and still feels a little less realistic with regard to light aircraft. Perhaps try XPlan11 and tune the realism as you did in FSX.
I used FSX to help me keep my cost down when i was getting my PPL. It helped me learn to track a vor heading. Getting use to the instruments and using a better GPS then what my instructor had. I also did a lot of IFR flying in it. Just in case i needed it.
I can't tell you how much I was caught off guard by the effects of wind and... physics... in a real 172 when I did my intro flight as well. I had been playing FSX (primarily) for years and thought I had a pretty good grasp on what life is like in a small plane. But NOPE. I was totally wrong. The analogy of a soccer ball being bobbed around on the ocean is 100% accurate. The feel of bumps and bounces is just not something that a sim will prepare you for. I'm positive that my knuckles were ghostly white any time I was flying that day and it's entirely because of the unexpected physical sensation of flying in a small plane. :D
The various FS series give their best as procedural simulators. As you discovered on your skin, but others did before you, the default dynamics of the default planes are really approximated. There was a dynamics upgrade for the C172 under the immortal FS9 (not that they were perfect, but constituted a good step forward), but it refused to work under FSX, so what's there is what you can have. And yet, the simulation of the C172 default under both FS9 and FSX is worlds better than the total mess they did with the C182 under FS9 (it was never brought as default plane under FSX). It behaved like a wild horse on sugar high so much that a real pilot of the plane once put forward the hypothesis its dynamics were calculated by the numbers using the raw reactions of the gauges of a C182 without taking the time to round off the rough edges, making it a pretty much uncontrollable machine under any weather condition. Anyway, if it's close-simulation of how a small GA plane behaves you search, you should really jump system over to X-plane. As a user of both sims (both of them V9), I can assure you the behaviour of the plane is much better under this last sim. Of course graphic realism is what it is. This doesn't even start to describe the difference about how the weather is simulated between FS and X-plane. I still vividly remember when I started X-plane (the V8, back then) and carelessly took off with an Extra 400 from a long forgotten American strip in a day with rough weather and a supercell right above the airport. BAD idea in real world, mildly bothersome in FS, as BAD a decision under X-plane as it would have been in Real Life. Not even a minute after having entered the clouds with the snot-nosed presumption I'd find something FS-comparable I found myself in a spin, with the plane in tatters for murderous turbulences way above its ability to withstand, gigantic hail that reduced the windscreen in smithereens and in a merciless downward spiral bringing me urgently for a rather fast and traumatizing unforgiving meeting with mother Earth.
Real cessna 172 has better graphics and frame rate...
Yeah, but you can't PVP, so what's the point? Also, the story lines suck. LUL
but can it run crysis? sorry...
Real life has rgtx 9030 ti and intel core i91827383 and 197282922.8 GHZ maybe
Only problem is the Rogue Permadeath feature that cant be turned off if you crash. No second chances makes it almost too difficult. Developer should look into multiple lives per soul which should make progression easier.
@@wolfgangjr74 too bad the developer "God" doesnt give a fuk lol
Interesting video - I used to play quite a lot of FS2004, FSX and X-Plane, but I don't find them particularly compelling after spending many hours flying irl (started flying in 2013, got my PPL in 2016).
The major differences I find (and the things that put me off sims now) are:
1. Flying VFR involves constantly looking around outside the cockpit: navigating by visual references, looking for traffic, judging the sight-picture for maneuvers, etc, not to mention looking at scenery. Instruments are really just for reference. In sims, the clunkiness of "moving your head", the limited field of view and the relatively limited resolution of monitors/projectors means you're essentially stuck with flying by instruments only. Not that that's bad, it's just not as rich as looking out at the world from above.
2. I find time flies in a real aircraft, even in uneventful parts of flight. As the pilot you're constantly doing small things, planning ahead, have radio calls to make and have passengers to chat with in between. In a sim, a 15 minute cruise in a 172 feels painfully slow and boring for me (at least now). Looking at videos of my irl flights, I'm always surprised by how long and boring some of the segments are to watch on a screen, so it's not that the sims are doing something wrong here.
3. As you mention, all the sensations of being in a little box hurtling through dynamic air, the resistance in the yoke, etc help to judge control inputs. You're effectively part of the machine, and all of that feeling is part of the feedback loop. In sims, I find it very easy to over control as the controls are sensitive and there's no sensation saying, "hey buddy, maybe a 2g turn isn't appropriate right now..."
I am a career pilot (20 years so far) who started as an 11 year-old on Microsoft FS3. I must say that I learned some very good habits from the flight sim as well as some very bad ones. In sum, the simulator was invaluable after I began my instrument rating, but I had to unlearn so much for the initial VFR training. I used FS 1995 and 1998 during the IFR work. I was present when the Maule Dealer did the FS2004 (if I remember correctly) work at our airfield for the Maule. I was quite disappointed with some rather basic inaccuracies in the last version or two... I forget if it was fs9 or FSX, but the modelling of the throttles and RPM levers in the baron, for example, were completely wrong. It should be that throttles change manifold pressure (but not RPM, either on the gauge or in the audio). Furthermore, when the prop controls are moved within the governing range, it is expected that the aforementioned do occur. I was not flying turbine aircraft at the time, but I seem to recall there were some basic inaccuracies there also. The "as real as it gets" motto seemed to be true up until about 2002, but I feel that the programme moved to eye-candy status at the expense of aerodynamic flight modelling and systems. I then switched to x-plane. It has some limitations and may not impress the recreational pilot as much. Also, some of the avionics modelling between 2005-209 (when I used it most) was a little basic, but I can attest that the aerodynamic, weather and systems (at least the basic ones) were very well done. I used X-plane for aerodynamics classes and aircraft design tutorials and would highly recommend the versions of x-plane 5.0-8.xx I used then. I am out of touch now so cannot comment on the latest... got to busy with real aeroplanes for the time being.
2:02 Is a bit suspicious...
Szymon Gorczynski init 😂 one big conspiracy theory
Flying *between* the Twin Towers used to be a challenge in FS.
@JetMechMA 104 floors
@@Bomkz it's not 104, name your sources
@@milanstevic8424 Wait, i'm dumb, I was actually looking at the new WTC .-.
I am a desktop simmer myself. I was a heavy user of FSX but moved over to X-Plane 11. I miss the missions, but the realism is much better.
Agreed.
realism is better speaking about scenes but movements (control response) are much better in the fsx. real pilots say so.
@@luisboza4361 how? Xplane uses real aerodynamics and fsx uses a script and fsx's flight dynamics are better? I just want to know how
That was a truly interesting video. And much different from anything else I’ve seen from the retro UA-cam community for a long time. Brilliant and Well done.
As a user of fsx, p3d and now X-Plane 11 (all GA only). I can confirm that the flight characteristics in X-Plane 11 is a lot more fluid feeling if that makes sense. Whilst obviously cannot feel the physical effects of the wind as you do in real life, you can feel the varying levels of yaw on the plane.
There is not as much buffeting as there is in real life, but I am excited to see what active Sky can bring to X-Plane 11.
I am still early into my PPL but have done enough hours to compare both of Cessna 150 that I fly against the nhadrian Cessna 152 in X-Plane 11. It does model the nuances of both nose up and knows down when flaps are extended and retracted respectively. I had the same sort of thing with the A2A Piper Cherokee, my first ever real world lesson was a Piper Cherokee and when you extend flats in those the nose drops.
All in all Modern flight simulators are far better and prepare you quite well. But that does depend on you not learning bad habits as some SIM pilots do. I watched a lot of videos such as mzeroa etc to ensure that I got my bad habits down to a minimum.
144 мертв, я ненавижу это видет
Yes
Agreed. X-Plane is the bomb.
Awesome video man! Very humble and you don't pretend like you're a real pilot just because you sim. Two thumbs up!
I got my PPL in 42 hours , the examiner told me at the time he hadn't seen that low of hours in a long time. I credit my instructor, who was a WWII pilot, and FSX. I was able to concentrate my learning efforts on things that FSX doesn't simulate well...several you mentioned, ie buffetting, turbuence, seat of the pants low to the ground landing and takeoff stuff. Radios, communications, navigation, checklists, panel flows, etc FSX does really well. I real fly a couple of hours a month, due to budget, and sim fly hundreds a hours a month. Love both.
Hey guys - so it seems like this video's been posted on a forum somewhere and a lot of you are coming here to say the exact same things. I appreciate anyone who takes the time to interact with my videos but I don't have time to answer the same questions/comments over and over. Repeat comments also have a tendency to crowd out other, more unique comments, and I want those to be seen and read by others too. So please take a minute to read the video description and/or just scroll through some previous comments and replies to see if what you're asking/suggesting has already been covered. I've started deleting some of the less thoughtful (and in some cases insulting) repeats that don't add anything to the discussion. Thanks!
there is an atc network called vatsim where its real people giving you instructions and commands while your flying your aircraft you use a client like v pilot to connect to but the only downsides though is its audio codec so it can be hard to understand and the amount of people on the network as there isn't always enough controllers online
@@jacquesloveridge30 I can promise you... some real radio equipments sound worst than Flight Simulator and/or VATSIM/IVAO radios hahahaha.
"More unique comments" But you completely neglected the simulator I and many other pilots use...FSX is outdated and unrealistic. X plane is much more realistic with the use of the Blade Element Theory to simulate proper forces on the aircraft. Everything is taken into account...From the prop down to the static wicks...Everything...My Captain who has 3,000 more hours than I do bought a copy of X plane after my second landing. He would always slam the airplane down, he used to be a missionary pilot. He realized I had been getting familiar with our airframe at home. The next several months until my recent departure were awesome...I flew much more than I did before and he had mastered the aircraft...
Indeed, as Jacques79 mentions, VATSim is the sh*t... you can check the schedule on VATSim, so you know where and when ATC will be controlling, so you can plan to takeoff or land at these specific airport(s), if you want to be interacting with ATC, practicing comms. If you're going to sim, VATSim is the best.
I also took a Discovery Flight this summer after many years of flying as an FSX "PC Pilot". I was curious how flying IRL would compare to FSX. I felt comfortable "behind the wheel" flying a Grumman Cheetah. I'm surprised your instructor allowed you to land on your 1st flight. Well done! My instructor took the controls on short final. He probably didn't want to risk me snapping off the nose gear, striking the prop on the rwy and ruining a perfectly good engine. After the flight I asked him to rate me on a scale of 1 to 10 & he said "I'd give you between an 8 & 9". It made my day. I believe the experience of flying using FSX was very helpful in flying IRL.
Thanks for sharing your flight & again, great job!
Once you complete your first solo you will also notice the difference in the weight of the aircraft once the instructor leaves. Really interesting video looking forward to more. :)
Flight Sims were so popular in the 90's! Now we only have FSX (2009), DCS (2008), and XPlane11 (2016). This genre needs much more love. With shaders, ambient occlusion, physics, and VR.
Nice video - I tried a similar thing a few months ago, also with a 172 but using XP11 and FSX. While they both both did an adequate job overall I found that XP11 gave me a much better sense of being in a small vehicle at the mercy of the winds than FSX and a later purchase of the Reality Expansion Pack for the 172 brought it up to a very similar feeling of the moment to moment movement of the plane in the air - the simulation has a touch too much vertical movement and not quite enough movement in the yaw axis, but it "felt" almost the same. I believe the A2A aircraft in FSX/P3D do a similar thing to the REP ones in XP11 so I recon that throwing a bit of money at the problem could give you a huge improvement in FSX or P3D when you take that step. For ATC, if you thought FSX was bad, try XP11, haha - the only way to get things more realistic would be VATSIM, IVAO or PilotEdge. I personally use VATSIM and it's really good, although the controllers often want to over control you on VFR flights, but are normally pretty good about things when you ask for a little more freedom - it's really more geared to commercial jets, so it's understandable.
For me xp11 is better for GA while p3d better for airliners
Having used both FSX and XPlane 11 and recently started flying lessons, the XP11 version is far, far, far more accurate when it comes to the C172. FSX isn’t even close. There are some downsides: if you think the ATC is bad in FSX, it’s even worse in XP11. Although serious simmers use stuff like VATSIM.
It is definitely weird transitioning from sim to real life. You pointed out the steering, which is definitely something I initially struggled with. The other one is tending to overcorrect for everything that’s happening in the air. It’s hard to break out of the “it’s just like driving a car” mentality, where you’re constantly adding inputs to correct for road surfaces and whatnot.
Regardless, I find XP11 with the REP pack on the 172 to be realistic enough to be helpful for learning to fly the pattern, practicing coordinated turns, and understanding the general effects of wind and performance. Really interesting video. Cool to get someone else’s opinion!
is trimming easier?
@@fulanitoflyer Way simpler in the real plane when you can feel how far you're moving the trim wheel. In XPlane, I just use an up/down switch on my yoke which I guess emulates the electronic trim adjustment, but its hard to really get a feel for what you're doing when you aren't getting physical feedback from the plane. I don't even touch the electronic trim in the real thing.
@@pacadet Thanks, trimming has always bugged me in FS (I have the button setup also).. Glad to know it's easier in real life.
@@fulanitoflyer Takeoffs are also easier. Even with the REP pack, the XPlane 172 tends to veer VERY heavily to the left during takeoff. You still need right rudder in the real plane obviously, but it's nowhere near as squirrely.
@@pacadet No kidding. Last week I was (in X-plane 11) taking off in a C172 with a 45 degree angle crosswind of 16 knots, and I literally had to apply FULL rudder to keep it straight on the runway.
A very enjoyable, humble and modest video that covered a lot. Equally interesting for long-time simmers and for complete novices asking if a sim could really compare to real flying.
Also, well edited and the addition of real footage from those early computers was a nice touch. Thanks
Nice video, one minor point worth noting is that you were likely in controlled airspace the vast majority of the flight. FRG is Class D which has a control tower. You then were probably within Class E the majority of the rest of the flight and probably under the Class C airspace (shelf) for Long Island. Guessing you were monitoring their frequency while maneuvering. Class E is considered controlled airspace even though VFR participation / communication is optional. Very minor point, but something you may want to be aware of / find interesting. I was a big Flight Sim user until I started flying the real thing. I gave up flight sims after my 2nd or 3rd lesson as the joystick just didn’t cut it for simulation of the control feel / input especially trimming out control pressure.
Glad you enjoyed your flight, it gets easier. One hand relaxed on the yoke and the other on the throttle. The 172 flys itself, you’re just there to provide some gentle input for the most part. You wouldn’t believe how uncomfortable two hands looks to those of us who fly... makes me cringe thinking about need to go around but not being able to get the throttle in fast enough.... ugh... bad, bad, thoughts. It’s like watching someone drive through traffic with their feet tied and the car on cruise control. (That’s why so many pointed it out)
I learned to fly in the early 90's, no GPS, no glass cockpit, just plain old steam gauges... The chief instructor at my school was an old military pilot and carried around a 1/4" dowel rod to "help" the pilot, he would use that stick to point out any errors in your technique many times smacking your knuckles if your hand wasn't where it should be... (ie hand not on the throttle in the pattern???SMACK!!! Not trimming properly... SMACK!!! It worked ;-) I bought a hand held gps when they became available in the late 90's. Computer sims had gotten pretty good by the early 2000's so I picked one up, (don't remember which one though) and used it when I went through instrument training. It actually is a HUGE help when training for an IFR ticket teaching you about situational awareness!!! So glad you did this video, and I hope you continue flying!!! It's lots of fun, and you will never forget all the ups and downs of flight training, (and there will be plenty ;-)
I'd love to see an update to this when the new MS Flight Simulator come out next year.
It's interesting that there was as much difference between real world and FSX given that until E3 this year there has been no indication that MS planned to ever do another Fight Simulator.
Going to become a patron because of this video. Truly unique perspective on MSFS history. Excellent job.
Thanks! And I saw that you followed through on that - thank you for that as well! Hopefully I can keep doing stuff like this.
@@ModernClassic Just don't forget to review Mavis Beacon at some point (ducking)
Thanks for the video, it was very, very interesting. For the thousands of vids available on UA-cam, I have seen very little done like this. As a keen simmer myself, I have always wondered how close it can be to the real thing, and your video has given an excellent insight. An airliner video as you mentioned at the end would be fantastic. Well done and thanks again.
No way! You flew out of my airport! thats so cool! 53AA is a tail number i know very well! Very cool!
Turbulence and "being pushed around" can/are simulated with add-ons like EZDok and Accusim (A2A). FSX out of the box is good start.. as your skills get better, or you want more simulation, there is more then enough support through third party add-ons to get you there. You can even set up FSX with a hydraulic driven full cockpit. Like they say in racing.. How fast do you want to go? Well, that depend on how much money you have. It's why FSX is still around, and a far better bargain then other sims. The support for it is outrageous.
yet nobody has been able to add detachable parts and damage modelling (its more fun if you can rip a wing off by pulling out of a dive too hard rather than having the game freeze and say "airframe overstressed")
I think the general consensus is that home based simulators are great learning tools but you only get out of them what you put in.
For private pilots, practicing going over checklists and procedures is time well spent. Planing cross country flights and flying them in the sim is a great way to get proficient at navigation. You won't learn the "feel" of flying an airplane at home but procedures can be learned for cheap at home.
Since instrument flying is mostly about adhering to procedures so flight sims are excellent for that.
I've held a PPL since 2014 and am a user of both FSX and XPLANE as well. When I was learning, neither flight simulator really helped me with airplane handling (takeoff, landing, cruise, upper-air work, etc) - nothing like getting up there in the real thing and just practising. HOWEVER, XPLANE proved invaluable in preparation for my solo cross-country flights. Before I flew each CC, I would fly the same route in XPLANE a few times and it was amazing how accurate the VFR visual references were when compared to my real flights - really helped train me to look for that highway, or railway line or lake.
The reason maintaining a good line on the runway is extremely difficult in a PC simulator is because you are viewing your 3 dimensional situation on a 2 dimensional representation. Lining up and maintaining, even with cross winds is far easier with 3D VR. The added depth and head turn response give you a better feeling of "dead ahead" that you just don't get looking at the image in 2D. This still doesn't make up for the lack of physical sensation feed-back, but the VR visual sensations will make you want to ease off of a two minute turn bank angle, just like the real thing. My dream since 1984 when SubLogic FS enticed me to buy a Commodore 64 is for a simulator with the physics of MSFS, the rich content of MSFS, and the realistic scenery and weather and visual effects of War Thunder.
Excellent. Putting side by side views is a great boon to understanding.
I've flown C-172s and don't find them all that bouncy in light turbulence. A lot of what we saw was the movement of the camera. Really should have put that on a monopod or something. I've also done a lot of simulator flying. My favorite, done in FS2004, was a round-the-world trip in a Lancair IV-P. It's a high-performance, high-altitude flyer that requires a gentle hand on the controls, but a joy to fly. I flew mostly VFR but I'm instrument-rated and set the weather to throw up occasional IFR. I came out of rain and clouds near Istanbul and saw a fantastic scene of city lights and misty air glowing gold in the deep twilight. Gorgeous.
Later I downloaded a 172 and flew it from my real home airport. The sound was nearly perfect and so was the performance. After the Lancair it was like wrestling a concrete block but still fun to fly.
I'm flying DA-40's now, and yes, it's bouncy all the time. The camera in the video was bouncing because the plane was bouncing. If you've had flights that were smooth, you were lucky. I have about 80 real life hours at this point and I'd say maybe 5 of those have been smooth.
Consider XPlane
I had about 250 MS FS hours, mostly only ver 3.0, when I joined the Air Force in 1989 and began training as a Navigator. All those hours spent flying instrument departures and approaches paid off big-time. Years later, when I went for my private pilots license and instrument rating in 2005, I would fly approaches first in MS FS 2004, but using actual FAA charts and plates. It greatly reduced my in-plane learning curve and saved me LOTS of time and money. Instead of spending time teaching me the basics, my instructors could focus on improving my overall flying.
I still had to fly the real-life minimum hours and required procedures, but I found that I spent most of my time perfecting the craft instead of merely learning it. Between that and all the studying, my check-rides were fairly smooth and straightforward.
I can really relate to your experience, as I had maybe 3 years of sim preparation with FSX before my first (and only to date) real flight. And yes, just going up at the end of the runway and trying to turn right, a wind blew and kind of moved the plane all over. The best experience and can't wait to have more attempts up there. Good luck!
Very Interesting. You're a bit harsh on a $50 (then) 13 year old commercial game/sim at times - especially the scenery- but overall I agree with your conclusions. Its easy to forget that FSX was so resource intensive for its time, essentially no computer built could run it full throttle maximum for years at 1080 resolution on 4:3 monitors. It took years before an update that allowed some features of multi-core processors to come out. Imagine how more realistic scenery would have choked this game to death 13 years ago. My custom built gaming PC in 2003 could pull 20-30 FPS on light detail. A 2011 build with a fast Core 3 dual processor and $250 graphic card would get 30+FPS at high detail with some add-ons. I've seen the new software you mentioned, its pretty amazing.
The main thing I noticed in my flying lesson in a Cessna, that it's really like being in a 70s car, it's definitely old .... And literally being in an old car in the air, with all the noises and being bashed about in the wind. It was a shock to me how Raw and how the wind and weather has a massive effect on the plane.
One thing simulators cannot emulate is being bashed about by eddies, turbulence and the visceral feel of being literally an old tin can being bashed about with all the vibrations.......
I guess modern planes it's different but in a Cessna it was like being in a WW1 plane compared to how I imagined it would be after playing flight sims.
Valami Izé no you don't get it, it was a mindblowing experience !!!! Opened my eyes. After that I was more interested in microlight and flying totally exposed to the elements. Still love gyro copters. My dream is to own a gyro..... Fly with a flying jacket and goggles in a simple flying craft. Way more fun !!!!! You can't simulate that experience in any flight simulator !!!! Get it now ????
I grew up flying a Cessna 182 with my dad and it was better than the 172 and 150. Everytime I got in a 172 or 150 I always said just what you did - it was like being in a flying tin can! And I totally relate to your 70s car comment! So true.
My flight instructor now commercial airline pilot wrote that article first mentioned in the video, she’s an awesome person.
Why didn't you switch to x-plane11? FSX is a old hat.
And X-Plane 11 is a new glass
FSX can run in all the PCs
It's fragile like it wastes someone's money more than FSX
That's what I was thinking this whole time, especially since X-Plane has better aerodynamics.
He just said he spent a ton of money on addon's and he doesn't want to lose those. The best recommendation for him would be to move over to prepar3d because most if not all of his addon's will work. Also Prepar3d 4.~ is now 64 bit and companies like A2A have been able to add Accu-sim planes which are extremely accurate flight models which ditch the old "Flying on Rails" feel of FSX, also addon's like Active sky 4 (which you can pay 5 dollars to upgrade from FSX to P3D v4) are upgraded, you can run UTlive which generates live traffic and liveries ECT.
Fsx definitely does a pretty good job. Once you have a decent amount of time in a real cockpit, I actually find my fsx experience more realistic because I can imagine the feeling of what I’m seeing on the screen.
My last serious sim setup was 2004 based. You could network multiple PC's together and slave them. I had myself the full commercial cockpit going on with overhead switch panels and 7 monitors in total. Add making my own scenery additions, I never felt like the newer offering was an upgrade. But anyway, I enjoyed your comparison vid. My own experience is with helicopters and none of my countless hours of sim experience in any program could have prepared me for the relationship between the 3 points of control and how any tiny change in any of them required so much adjustment of the others.
Really enjoyed your video, and yes the 2 handed flying stood out for me too. My instructor "forced" me to use one hand on each throttle and yoke since the very first flight in order to get in the habit sooner and would call me out if i took my hand off the throttle for any period of the flight, even taxing. But i think this goes to show that every instructor has its own ways of teaching. Especially in the early 5 to 10h.
I don't really understand the "forcing" people to do something on the first flight. You don't form a habit by doing something one time. That just sounds like an overbearing instructor to me.
NIcely done! Enjoyed watching it. I am a private pilot that use FSX, X-plane and P3D to practice procedures or get familiar with an airport or area I am planning to fly that I have not been before.
Interesting comparison. I earned my license in 1989 and mostly flew PA 28-140, C-172 & C-177 for the first few years.
Obtained Flight Simulator around 1995 or so and did terrible with it, my wife used to laugh her rear end off.
Good luck getting your ticket!
Very good video. In high school and college (1993 to 2001) I flew radio controlled planes and spent a LOT of time on serious PC flight sims (MS Flight Sim 95 and Falcon 4). I had probably 300 hours in the MS FS95 Cessna 182RG and probably 1500 hours in the Falcon 4 F-16C. In 2002, I took a discovery flight/first flying lesson just like you did, although it was in a 152, not a 172. I noticed the turbulence right away, like you did. I was somewhat used to that from RC flight, though, at least in terms of the balance between overcorrecting and being blown all over the place. The other thing that I really noticed was how I had no intuition about how to use the sight picture out the windscreen to judge the plane's attitude. I was trying to fly by instruments alone and only looking outside for curiosity's sake. As a result I was bouncing up and down about +/- 200 feet from our desired altitude. My instructor noted that and said that it was due to my sim experience. He said that once I got over that, I would be able to get my license quickly because the sim experience (plus RC experience) really did help with almost everything else. One funny thing that happened is that I did attempt a very tight turn, almost to 60 deg bank, in the real plane and then my instructor told me to keep it below 45 deg because the 152 has way too much drag in a 2G turn and the airspeed bleeds off quickly.
Hello,
well, that's something I've been wanting to do for a while, but never took the time, so thanks!
I went all the way from "flying" FS4 to XP11, then actually flying C152 to MCR4 and other aircraft. I can relate to many things you say about the different feelings, the somewhat inaccurate graphics and the easiness of finding a runway or following a path in real life.
Still, there are two things the sim gets near-perfectly, and those are things that actually matter: timing and instruments.
I learnt to fly the C152 on a small airfield north from Paris (France), and we had a very short and precise path around the neighboring villages and between the actual liner areas from the Charles-de-Gaulles airport. After my instructor first had me flying patterns (and Lord that wasn't easy!), I downloaded Carenado's C152 to my XP10 box just to train. I spent the week flying virtual patterns around my airfield, trying to get everything (speeds, trim, flaps, carb heat, …) on time, going around villages and roads (which looked nothing like real world, but were positioned correctly), and so on.
The next week, back at the airfield, I was a bit surprised and actually pleased at how easy it had become to fly a real pattern, keeping the good rhythm and the proper path, with little to no intervention from my instructor. The sensations and the graphics were of course much better and more detailed in real life, but the speeds, timings, procedures were really, really close, and really helped me master this tricky little beginner's challenge.
Then, when I started navigation flights, I did the same things with instruments, especially VORs. At first, I just couldn't get them properly when flying: I had too many things to look up and do at the same time, especially in the crowded north-Paris area - basically, I could either fly or navigate, but not both. Virtual flying, with no need to look out for other aircraft, no distraction from ATC calls, no stress of getting lost, allowed me to gain proficiency with navigation instruments, maps, etc., in a matter of days, while I guess it would have taken me weeks in real life.
So while, like you, I had first spotted the differences between sim and real flying, after a while I really noticed how similar they really are, beyond mere appearances. Sim won't teach you how to really fly, but it can be a huge help getting timings and procedures all right, and therefore lets you use actual flight time to do the actual flying lessons. And several "sim-to-real" pilots I know actually got their PPL below the 50 hours mark, while most "not-sim" pilots didn't get to the exam before 55-60 hours.
as I have the aeronautics initiation certificate and I am user of X-Plane 11 I used to fly the Cessna 172 and I've tried different weather conditions in the simulator but when I got a chance to fly a real one I noticed a lot of things as I felt the weight of the plane in my hands and this is a MAJOR factor here and the turbulence blowing the plane up and down left and right and the feeling of some physiological phenomenon as I turn or climb or descent, these are some factors that we don't experience on simulators for sure,
PS: Flying simulators was VERY VERY helpful with the procedures and everything except that I held the Yoke with my two hands the first time too because of the feeling of the weight and everything while I never do that on my simulator, and my instructor kept telling me to manipulate the plane with the left hand and the throttle with the other one.
Simulators are just way too helpful for real life experiences
Pretty fun to see my old home airport in this video! I first "learned to fly" through FSX and then Prepar3D, and did my full private pilot's license at FRG in a 172SP with G1000, exactly like the one you flew.
Both hands on the yoke during your landing was driving me a bit nuts, lol. But I can see you've just got your hands on the yoke to feel the landing out while your CFI actually handled the yoke and throttle on the way in. With respect to IFR flying, that's where the home sims really have value. The VFR part of flying requires so much feel, while IFR flying requires that you abandon that feel and stick with instruments, planning, etc. I came to sims from the opposite direction; I received XPlane 10 after I started flight lessons. But I didn't really get into the sims until I started my instrument rating. I upgraded to XPlane 11 and the sim was super helpful.
Christopher Olsen well said! IFR is awesome In home sims
Awesome video that acknowledges quiet a few questions I have had about the connections between simulations and the real deal! I enjoyed it very much thank you! - An amateur simer and full time helicopter pilot
I learned to fly at Islip Macarthur in a Cessna 172. No Garmin setup, just the dials and gauges. I have the pedals, the yoke and MS-FSX Gold Edition. Besides having a lot of fun, I would do my training flights in between weekly lessons. I would set conditions, tiime and weather to that of the lesson. I decided to be very rigid about the simulator, treating it like a plane, including reading off from the blue pre-flight procedures. I never crashed intentionally in that plane and still when in the simulator treated it like the real thing. Your intention here was to analyze it - which you did very well but I found that if I approached it as real as possible it felt more real. I found the response of the simulated plane very similar to the real one and your comment about feeling every wind hit the small plane is correct. I took my first lesson because when I flew commercially I was one of those secretly scared passengers, trying to pretend to read at take off. Studying the facial expressions of the cabin staff if we hit turbulence etc. My first lesson was the morning after Sully landed in the Hudson. My wife tried to convince me to not go to the lesson. I used Sully's emergency landing "See? Nobody got killed!" My flight instructor was about the same age as my son I noted. I as surprised when he said "You want to take off ?" He must have been mistaken, "I've never done this before! " " The second I pulled back and rotated on his command, I knew I was going to be hooked on this new thing. I loved it.Learning to fly was one of the best things I have ever done. My hobby had been North East Shipwreck Diving. Soon I was taking a lesson every week early in the morning. I would go to work after feeling like I had this secret life before work. They have a couple of designated flight training areas over Central Long Island. One over the Fire Island area and the other on the North side of Long Island, over the Town of Port Jefferson and the Long Island Sound. I had lot's of adventures in the real plane and I would relive them on the simulator. Some couldn't be fully simulated. Stall Training for example, Even though in the real plane you barely felt the drop of 300-500 feet, you knew that you screwed up and would have been dead had the instructor not intervened hitting the rudder for you as you start heading for a spin. Also wearing 'Foggles' ; special glasses that prevent you from seeing outside the plane. The instructor told me he had control and to let go of the yoke and look at the floor..." Oh, and put these on. The last thing I heard was him putting the engine in Neutral after a few lurching turns. "Your Control, put us on a heading of 310 at 2600 feet." When redoing the lessons , it wasn't hard to relive these moments because I found the simulator so close to the real thing. I ended up not going all the way to the license, but I did solo a dozen times before I decided this was supposed to be a single lesson many months ago! I had to refocus on my job; Computer Consulting. I ended up writing a book about learning to fly that includes things like fighting for control of the aircraft with my instructor thinking his inputs were crosswinds!
I enjoyed your video.
I have a couple of well received books on Amazon:
Flying the Skies of Long Island, NY and 9/11 My Story (Kindle Ed) by David Rosenthal
SCUBA Diving the Wrecks and Shores of Long Island, NY (Paperback Ed, Kindle Ed) by David Rosenthal
Travelin2wit on UA-cam
I would love to see you do a comparison of real life flying and the next flight sim in 2020. I quite enjoyed this one.
I use SFX just before I go up after not flying for a long time... it's good refresher. I noticed the times I didn't freshen up on SFX I flew worst either with an instructor or when solo or even with PPL. So SFX is helpful. I never could find any rudder peddles for my PC. I had a joystick and throttle box that had rudder control on it.
In real life, it always seems easier to find the runways, and line up... I always assumed it was because you had the full actual controls; not make shift ones, and you could easily move your head around to get full flight picture.
To stop from floating, you do need to watch your airspeed even in small C172's and don't flair too quick, wait for that sinking sensation.
Never come in too hot or you may float or bounce. Bouncing worse than floating.
The trick I learned is to come in as slow as possible, little to no wind then use 65 to 61 kts on final (treat all landings like a short field landing on the final) then round out and keep that round out just as there's no more flying speed, a sinking sensation should be felt, then slowly let that go into a flair, at which you should be 50-45 kts or even slower indicated.
Works with all types of landings with full flaps configuration C172 specifically... (normal, soft, and short field landings).
With wind or a cross wind above 8 mph, add incrementally 5 or so kts of airspeed for every 5 mph wind increase.
So if wind is 15 mph, round out at 68ish to 70ish. 20mph 70 to 75 mph... same with x wind landing with wind.
And on the round out, don't let the the aircraft touch down until no more flying speed... windy days, your airspeed will decrease just as quick as if it was a calm day when flying final at slower speeds; the wind really slows you down. I've literally landed 20ish kts winds and my instructor was watching out side the window and chuckled I literally touched the ground and scooted about 13 feet before coming to a near stop (wasn't a short field landing) just a really windy day.
Above all: don't start the flare too early, wait for that sinking sensation at level flight to let you know you're coming to the point of hardly no to no absolutely no flying speed; that's the part that takes time getting use to... seemed to me though, I caught onto it fairly quick... and the sensation does have a sight picture you can get use to... you literally start sinking in level attitude as your speed is no longer giving you lift... so I can see it on FSX without the "sinking feeling". My personally opinion, its better to thump a bit on landing than to bounce.
I've been a flight simmer since my aunt (an IBM rep) made my mom buy a PC AT in 1985 and 10-year-old-me got the flight sim 1.0 and later 3.0 for it. Oh boy, was such an amazing journey. There is however very little to "do" in the civil aviation setting and the planes tend to be a bit slow and boring. Eventually military sims became quite realistic, and the planes and the aerobatic and competitive dogfighting became the main focus.
If you are like me, and want more excitement and sense of accomplishment, I think you might really enjoy the IL-2 BoX series of sims for the WW2 birds or the DCS F/A-18C sim which is an incredibly detailed study level simulation of the Hornet. They are nothing short of dreams come true for an old sim hand like me.
I too have my boxed floppy by Bruce Artwick and a a few other classics. But after moving to an Airpark and having my own PA38 and hangar I no longer have time (or money) to spend on simulation flying. But I have to say this: your video is one of the best I have seen on simulation vs reality. The remark on taxi speed is right on. But the three things I noticed most that were missing from simulation was: 1.) headset and radio backround sounds, 2.) vibration and up and down (floating) sensation and 3.) the smell of an aircraft. Of course, you can replicate a turbine smell with an oil lamp but aviation fuel burning and hot oil aluminum and leather all have a mystical odor of their own. I suspect if you took your chair and balanced it on a bunch of balloons it would feel much more realistic than one that seems nailed to the floor. Thanks
I've been flying VR in X Plane 11.30, it's an amazing experience with the default Cessna. You do really feel like you're in a small box, it makes virtual flying much more immersive but also easier since you can turn your head all around.
Why I fly now in X-Plane 11 over FS10/P3D (even after buying tons of Orbx/PMDG/REX products):
- Native VR support (and it's awesome!!)
- Much more realistic in terms of flight model. Feels like the atmosphere around you is one with the aircraft. Doesn't feel the same with FS10/P3D (feels more like flying by numbers).
- Tons of FREE addons that should be payware (check out MisterX sceneries, you won't believe they are free)
- Updated more than FS10/P3D (core code to make it run better and new features)
- More and more 3rd party addons
- Graphical UI overhaul (so much easier now than with X-Plane 10)
In the video, it was mentioned that a more advanced Fight Sim and VR would be a nice match. This is already available. FSX also has MegaScenery with a few highly detailed cities like NYC and Seattle City as add-ons. I have these up and running with an Oculus Rift VR and have a lot of fun in VR. It is a far more advanced setup than in the Video. I also have Aerofly FS2 and this raises the realism level even more. You really fell like NYC and the surrounding areas are almost real in VR.
Harry
Thanks for doing this. I'm considering going back to get my pilots certificate after a 35 year hiatus and was curious as to how similar a sim was to real life. I had about 12 hours of flight time and one of the immediate things I noticed as different was steering - I had still remembered how to steer with pedals so it seemed odd using the yaw on the joystick. The rest is sort of foggy at best. Of course as soon as I picked up Flight Simulator X (Steam), I learned about Flight Sim 2020 releasing in a couple weeks. Sounds like your dreams may be coming true!
I learned to fly 12 years ago. Don't really care much for the simulator, though it is cheaper! Nice comparison. Wish you all the best on your training!
The biggest benefit of sims- You don’t have to wear pants and you don’t have to worry about how much coffee you drink.
WOW! This has got to be the best history class ever... WELL DONE.
I used an Atari 130XE and a 10 inch black and white screen to run this simulator. I also used a printer for college papers and some U.S. Army documents. I kept that machine for years and later had a 486 custom built computer to replace the Atari. Of course times change and my current machine is custom built with i7 7700K, MSI GTX 980 Ti Lightning [both overclocked]. In deed, how times have changed. I still fly Microsoft FSX occasionally, however, it has both ground scenery and aircraft add-ons.
Nice video on this subject, on a slightly different note: I use MS Flight SIM (2002 or 2004)with 767 Pilot In Command in my class. I teach aircraft system maintenance on the 767 and when we get to chapter 22 (Auto Flight) I sometimes light up this program to show how the 767 performs with the auto throttle engaged and then engaging the auto pilot. I also show CAT II/III AutoLand approaches with 2 or 3 A/P engaged....with this software. When I go to a real 757 or 767 simulators I pretty much follow the same numbers (parameters/settings) that I use on my pc. I have also flown jump seat in the cockpit in many flights in both the 757 and 767 and I am impressed on how close the flight deck affects are. Great training tool if not used as a game.
Very nicely done comparison. I fly fsx and real planes as well. When I flew for the first time my instructor could tell that I had simulator experience.
I am a solo student and have about 50 hours so far. I have also been using fsx since I was 11 and probably have at least 3000 hours or so flying wise. You were right on the differential braking and torque, although I’m so used to the exaggerations of fsx I never really notice them in either the sim or in real life, probably because I am so used to them. I also had the death grip on the yoke when I started, but for a different reason. Real flight controls are stiff, super stiff. I had a Saitek Pro-Flight yoke and I did a little rubber band mod on it, which I kind of regret because it made all of the movements really underplayed. I could literally sit there and set my yoke to a position to have my aircraft descend or ascend. If you have rudder pedals, the real ones are a lot different. You can never really tell how far you move a rudder left or right in a real airplane, you have to feel it out. Most importantly it is the most stiff control on the airplane, and it will give your legs a workout, even in a little 152 like I am flying. The biggest issue I had to learn is flaring(or as Jason Schappert calls it...transitioning). The way I figured it out was thinking of it as a power off stall into the ground. It’s the exact same process and now I can grease a landing with relative ease. If you are a flight sim regular, your instructor probably will think your approaches will be stellar, but this is a false hope. If you aren’t following the power for altitude, pitch for airspeed, you probably have made a bad habit and are going to get slow at some point. In general, fsx flying and real flying are two different beasts entirely, and don’t exactly cross over well.
I don't know why I'm watching this when I fly real planes every week. Entertaining video none the less.
Agree with the desire to over-correct for even low wind blowing a very light aircraft. I too had a death-grip on the flight stick the first (and only) time I flew a very light aircraft. There is no simulator that does this blowing around right as far as I know but I do recommend getting a VR headset (vive pro or samsung Odyssey would be great because of the high resolution) and playing supported sims in VR. It really is the next level of sims.
Than you!
Great comparison.
You have confirmed several items I have suspected.
Being in a physical plane vs a one monitor Sim; the real thing offers both challenges and benefits.
Having thousands of FS9/FSX hours and many hundreds of NASCAR sim hours under my belt; the
"Seat of the Pants" feeling missing in these sims are a real detriment.
I have heard of anecdote (and one specific individual) relating that those with serious sim time take to IFR
easily because we revert to the gauge information heavily to maintain attitude, track, bearing, etc because of the
lack of the seat of the pants feeling.
Once, I covered my monitor after take off ala IFR training to block all visual clues except the gauges and flew
IFR several hundred miles only to flip the cardboard covering off about 5 miles out of my destination.
Quite the strange and extremely pleasant satisfaction that I was right where I should be.........
A really fun video. I must admit that although I used to enjoy flight sim games, for me they don't translate very well to real life VFR flying with small airplanes. Flying a single engine GA aircraft is a surprisingly raw and physical experience with constant buffeting, vibrating and shaking, coupled with plenty of roaring wind and engine noise even through noise cancelling headsets. Most of the time you know exactly how you are flying by looking out and using your "internal body sensors" - without looking at the instruments and gauges. Of course for IFR flights with large planes on high altitudes it might be a different story, but I have no experience of that.
15:29 I know that this doesn't fit all your requests, but there is a game for SteamVR and PSVR called Ultrawings. You start off with an ultralight and progress through by completing your license, getting medals for missions, and buying new runways that get you new planes. Pretty fun, feels like real flying, even with the PS2 graphics.
Don't worry about having a deathgrip on the yolk lol. I'm currently going through flight training (private pilot just over 100 hours flight time, currently working on instrument) and have talked with many different instructors. It's a normal thing for new students to do that, myself included.
Yep my thoughts exactly on comparing FSX vs the Real Thing. I did pretty much the same thing, to answer a personal question of mine (to pursuit a possible career in aviation or not). So I went to a flight school, and tried it out for a fee with a flight instructor. I too had a death grip and flight instructor noticed that I kept staring at the instrumentation and that I should be staring out LOL. And Thermals, man... they're like catapults! Good video!
Good video. This confirms some suspicions ive long had about fsx performance/realism, Had lots of fun with it tho.
2 addons for fsx that i really liked and which really helped: FSForce and Accu-feel.(that last one adds more noises to the airframe/windnoise) I did exactly what you did, i got to fly an hour in a real cessna, odd thing is, taking control was really natural, slowing down however, made me miserable with the aircraft bobbing as it was slowly coming down, best described as a leaf falling. The approach, however, was really awsome. To get into the circuit, the instructor stepped in by putting it on one wing (in my reality), but turning into final and working the flaps, throttle and trim was really awsome. So all in all, a very welcome experience, be it that i'm still scared of flying, and a bit of a daredevill in FSX. Ever turned off the engines of a 747 at 15.000feet overhead an airport? ;) Have a great day, thanks for the video and explanation, really nice experience for you and well vocalised.
The one C172 i flew, had a different yoke though, the grip felt tiny, but sturdy.. or it had been chewed off over the years by other students ;)
photos.app.goo.gl/cRUPiUf16uFbNjPm8
Probably the main difference is that your instructor was controlling the power of the plane during landing, which is the biggest part of the work for a pilot. I can see that you were holding the yoke with two hands for most of the flight, which is natural for beginners, but that seasoned pilots will spot right away. Thanks for the video
I just changed from FSX to P3Dv4. I thought over a year about if I should do it. I had a ton of addons for FSX. After the change and investing some money I am glad I have done it. If you have a decent pc for the 64bit version it will change the whole simming experience. It was a hard decision for me but I am totally happy now with P3D, it is so much more than just a newer version.
This is SO great on so many levels...I started with the SubLogic Flight Simulator in the early 80's. I was hooked. I started flying lessons as a teen and had my Solo sign off before I have my driver's permit! Got my license in 1992 and was fairly active until 9/11. Everything aviation-wise is expensive and once I bought a house and life got busy...aviation sat on the back burner. But all these flight sims kept the pilot light (see what I did there?) burning. Now I am part of a local flying club, working with an instructor to shake the rust off...and getting back into it!
Sorry if this has been mentioned but I use FSX-SE with FlyInside's VR addon software (not to be confused with FlyInside's stand alone VR sim) and an Oculus Rift, and it's amazing. The closest thing to real you can get with out an expensive motion sim. Also, good job on the video.
Flew out of KFRG as a student pilot, it’s a busy airspace and airport! But great scenery, glad you got up though!
You really ought to get you private pilot license! A brother, an uncle, and several family friends have theirs. I think recreational aviation is more common in rural Wyoming, where I live, but flying on actual small planes is so cool!
I've done both. The flight simulator is more difficult. Controls are more sensitive, visibility is more restricted on the simulator. The FS2004 was a great training aid for my flying lessons.
Great video! Fight sims have come a very long way. Once you start flight training, the limitations of desktop flight sims start to become clear. Those limitations, however, don’t take away from the fact that any of the big 3 desktop sims can be a wonderful platform for practicing/reinforcing procedural elements of flight.
But like you observed, stick and rudder skills are honed in a real plane.
I learned to fly using MS flight Sim. When I went though flight school etc, I was more comfortable in the cockpit than most of my other fellow students.
What was the huge difference in real life?
I flew the real Cessna 150 in the 1960s and 1970s doing several cross-country flights solo. Unfortunately, I could not keep my lessons going so I could get my private pilot's license. In any event, I never found the 150 to be really bothered by light turbulence. And I was flying out of Zahns airport just south of Republic. The cross-winds there were very bad as a result of having only a north-south runway. However, the 150 always handled them fine.
In any event, I am interested in relearning my old flying skills and am thinking of getting X-Plane. Based on the reviews I have read in PC-Pilot Magazine, it may become the sim of choice for most serious commercial aviation sim-pilots and already has a professional version for actual pilots.
Right now I am learning to handle the JU-87 Stuka Dive Bomber from in the top combat simulation series, IL-2 Great Battles out of Russia. These modules have been tested for accuracy by former WWII pilots. And if you think handling a 172 is an experience, trying getting a JU-87 into the air and landing it; especially when you have only a short, dirt airstrip to do so.
I really enjoyed the video though, as it demonstrates that novices and current pilots alike can get a lot of training and expertise from the highly sophisticated flight simulations that are now available...
:-)
Great video, thanks for taking the time to share it. I hope you get VR one day because there is nothing like it for simming. I've done it all in simming and soon to build a fairly cheap full motion + VR setup. I've had a full $4,000 C172 glareshield with all working gauges and I've had a near complete 744 cockpit that I had $11k into many years ago. I had 7' of triple screens in front of my face while using track ir. All had their pluses and minuses but my aging Oculus headset blows them all away. The first time I sat on the edge of my bed and took off I swore I was moving to the point I tipped over. The scale and depth of everything will just blow your mind. Taxi behind an airliner in a c172 and it will make you feel so tiny. I hope you at least get p3d or xplane. Both are far better than what I'm seeing here. The graphics are so terrible and can't remember seeing them that bland in many years. I favor p3d and share your need for good atc. Recently I got VOXATC which has been a great addition to added realism. It's the most real I've ever experienced and you use your voice with atc being far smarter and use much more realistic procedures than all of the rest (and yes, I do indeed have them all). I have every weather addon and texture packs, all atc, 90% of all of Orbx and over 200 payware airports. I use Foreflight, which is a pilot all in one program and have more addons than anyone I know (meaning ever met on a forum of any kind). My point being, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Check out some of my videos to see Foreflight being used with p3d/fsx, or my most recent video where I show off VOXATC and another new addition to my 500gb p3d install, Black Marble night lighting. The only thing I prefer in xplane is it's lighting and this addon, though expensive is fantastic. We are living in very exciting times my friend. Simming has never had a better looking now or future. The competition factor of two great sims (p3d and xp) will only bring us there that much faster! :)
For the record, I use both p3d & xp but prefer p3d. So many people think they can only have one. It's ok to like both. Xp made a huge jump with v11 and p3d is just getting started. FSX was stalled for too long and in the last few short years Lockheed have resurrected it but to stay with fsx and such low graphics, yet still be able to talk highly of the comparison of actual flight is a testament and make me hope you get to have VR and either platform sooner than later!
I'm a PC simmer myself, but to me, the scenery is rather a big factor, I like to take note of landmarks that I'm familiar with in real life, and unfortunately, FS-X (Which I've purchased twice now. The original (and a multitude of addons), as well as the steam version) just didn't cut it anymore, so I purchased X-plane 11 which at least incorporates actual roadway data, and a finer terrain detail model (I'm not sure who the provider is for that data, but at least it's better than Stock FS-X landscape), and I'm far happier (without even going in to how much better looking stock XP-11 is) . I fly with VR, and with FS-X I had to purchase a 3rd party program called FlyInside, which did the trick, but X-Plane 11 has native VR, so it just works better than a plug-in. There are obviously pro's and cons to VR at present, but the level of immersion is unmatched. Before VR was available I used TrackerIR, which was.. meh... but at least you could slightly simulate head movement, because it's great to be in a flight sim and "look around" but with VR, it's just in a complete league of its own, so much so that I had my dad in VR with X-Plane in a Cessna Skyhawk (G1000), and he was trying to grab things in the real world that were only in the simulated world. I couldn't and wouldn't use any simulator without VR nowadays, it just doesn't feel right to me... The freedom to be able to look around, lean over and have a peek at things, and experience depth at what I'm looking at is just such a stark contrast to looking at a flat screen in front of me and simulating the looking around by clicking buttons, or even having the triple screen setup. I would highly recommend both Xplane 11 and VR for Flight simming.
As an update to the above, I have now made the leap into Ortho4XP (This is an internet data hog, so beware those who are on capped data), and with a bit of hocus pocus (I lie, it was just a lot of trawling through the internet ) I have managed to get photo-realistic ground scenery, initially without ground traffic, but with a bit more reading and playing around, I've managed to set it up that when layered correctly in X-plane 11, the road traffic overlays over the photographic landscape which is yet another step up in realism. All I can say to this is that it is absolutely stunning to fly over real-world scenery, there is nothing that can compare to it in any other sim. It (obviously) looks like the real thing, and I find it close to impossible to tell the difference once you've gained a bit of altitude when looking down, to tell the difference, it all just looks real... Trees, buildings, main centers, just everything is spot-on (*insert big googly eyes and drooly face here*). I think the next thing would be to get accurate 3D landscape data (Buildings etc... Like google earth has in many places) and I would be all sorted, and in my opinion, one could not actually ask any more from any simulator than that, but FOR NOW, this is probably the closest to real-world flight someone can get at home.
If you're seriously into flight sims and have X-Plane 11, I highly recommend taking the leap into Ortho4XP, it seems like a steep learning curve, but it actually isn't hard at all, I watched someone on youtube strut their stuff, and now it's second nature to add new photo-realistic scenery to wherever I choose to "make it look real" It'll be one of the best (FREE) add-ons you could add to your experience without a doubt.
Microsoft will be releasing a new Flight Simulator for 2020.
A new flight simulator, will be released. For 2020, it will.
Master Yoda!!!
Hello I am from the future they did release it and its graphics are amazing.
That's a great video/documentary/comparison. Great job! Thank you for sharing sir!
Interesting video, I think the weirdest thing of flying a simulator after having flown a real aircraft is the feel of the controls. The yokes on even FAA certified instrument trainers don't feel even remotely close to a real yoke feeling the airflow over the controls etc. Even the million dollar Level D full motion simulators feel a bit different in overall feel than the real aircraft, and funny enough most those simulators have worse graphics than FSX!
Like many of the commentators, I too flew FS1 thru X before I started RW flying. I think it helped dramatically! Especially on instruments and navigation. I was lucky enough to know some USAF IPs and got some invaluable time in the T38 simulator. Any time spent honing your skills is good time!... whether it’s simmimg or flying!
You got balls of steel man!! Nice flyin', both virtual and actual!!
Thank you for sharing your experience and contributing to the flight sim community with you thoughts and reflections, incredible piece of work !
However I am curious having read in the description that your not keen on VATSIM, and this puzzles me when you have an opportunity to practice comms and increase another realism factor towards R/L flying. But then again a family member who was rated on 737's flew PMDG and didn't care for comms so much and just went with default because they were working it all in their head. I remember him telling me how he practiced a few scenarios at home before actually taking R/L check ride in the Big SIM at work! So just how realistic is PMDG?? But that's all systems talk anyway.
Thanks again for sharing !
I think the issue is that a lot of people who use VATSIM seem to think that *talking* is what makes ATC realistic. But it's not. What makes ATC realistic is using proper procedures according to FAA regulations. I've seen a lot of videos of people on VATSIM just screwing around, or using totally unrealistic (or just non-regulation) radio calls, or leaving FAA-mandated crews at various towers unstaffed. That's not realistic or helpful for someone trying to learn how to really fly. PilotEdge apparently does a much better job, because it mandates FAA-standard radio comms, but it only covers a small part of the world, and not the one I'm most interested in. So I'd rather just have a good AI-based system - it doesn't seem like it should be all that hard to implement that, since procedures are all published and most radio terminology is pretty standardized.
The one thing I hear all the time, about fsx is the direct x 10 issue, or the lack of a fully working direct x 10 which would help a lot in reducing oom moments. Such as why dopnt dovetail take out the preview version of direct x 10 and put the full working version in it's place which would solve a lot of problems. Microsoft had told dovetail on it aquiring its license it was not allowed to massively re-engineer the flight sim or replace the dx10 preview. It was simply not in the terms of the licence. Enter Lockheed who bought the license to build a 64 bit version of fsx complete with dx10 and dx11 in the 64 bit version. P3dv4.4 looks exactly like the stock version of fsx right down to its terrible graphics and its stock scenery and the airports not in exactly the correct gps position they should be in real life. Lockheed had the ability to release it's own scenery and make significant improvements on fsx, instead all it is , is a 64 bit clone of fsx, with a truly hideous gui when it could and should be far superior but it it really isn't except you cant go oom anymore. The cost of replacing airports is usually more expensive than the airports bought for fsx, there are far far fewer payware aircraft than fsx. Orbx sort of improves things a bit, but the truth is we are waiting for something more realistic. Rivers look awful, really badly simulated, looking nothing like rivers. The sea is always calm and again looks nothing like water. At least it has as16 and asp16, along with far more airports than the lack lustre and very lacking xp11 that takes 10 times longer to mod than either of these flights sims, due not to having more mods or such but because of the complexity of modding xp11.
i have one of these planes. it was hangared for 20 years (since my granpa died) but we fixed and modernized it now. it's sparkling new. i'm not even going to fly in it once, straight to selling it.
There’s a -not so- old saying among flight instructors that a person who has never even seen an airplane before is ahead of a flight simmer when it comes to really flying an aircraft.
I can say that for sure since I started on Flight Simulator... subLogic FS II on the Amiga 500 and then FS 95 on a Pentium I. I managed to get through a PPL, float rating, multi rating, IFR, CPL, and was halfway through my instructor rating before I realized I’d been “chasing the needles” this whole time instead of flying by attitude like you do in a real plane.
Yes, flight simulators are very good at simulating instruments, avionics, systems, etc... I learned how to use a Garmin 430/530 system on X-Plane 10 good enough to pass my IFR renewal. I learned how to use a real FMS on X-Plane 11 good enough to understand the basics of the Collins 3000 FMS in a Proline 21 cockpit I have 1300 hours on.
But... there are always little things. You can’t put a waypoint into the from (blue) field in an FMS. This is essential for intercepting an airway or localizer with the FMS when you don’t want to track to the waypoint, or if you want to clear a discontinuity in the flight plan or on the legs page.
This speaks to the disconnect between simming and real flying. Simming where you are flying on a flight plan (vs just buzzing around) is often a dot to dot exercise. A flight plan is programmed with a runway, a SID, Airways and intersections and navaids, a STAR, and an approach, and flown in sequence.
In reality, flying an airplane is far too dynamic. We usually do a vector SID, then file the segment of the airway they tell us to in case of comm failure, but really we’re just vectored on course-often direct the destination airport or initial fix on a STAR. We’ll then get vectors or deviate for weather, maybe ask for a different fix based on weather or traffic, get cleared to a different fix to speed things up or slow things down for traffic, get on the STAR... have the STAR canceled for vectors, get cleared to the initial fix on final approach, get the visual, do the side step to a better runway, etc etc. There’s no way you can simulate this and it’s likeky a simmer would be quickly over his head in busy terminal airspace keeping it together.
I still have to fly sims for training (based on X plane, but full motion simulator) and I fly them different than real planes. I jab the controls and wait for the reaction... rather than moving them finely like in a real plane.
but not good at flight dynamics
IF you want absolute every button to work in a 747 Cockpit, or any other plane on the otherhand, i recommend you give FlightGear a good go, as it is very challenging to get a plane even to Taxi without reading the ACTUAL Manual.
747 in the FlightGear is not good example. Try IDG's A32x or 33x family, another perfect plane is B707, or for veterans DC-3 or L1049H Super Constellation.
I also still use FSX.. Steam edition thouigh... with few local sceneries and a2a planes i am still pretty happy with it. I have flown three times a real GA plane and it was super interesting for a seasoned desktop pilot. Once you understand the differences between real world flying and sims, i think desktop sims are really useful tools, not just as games.
Real shame that force feedback yokes never caught on.
FFB steering wheels got incredibly good, so much so that racing sims now have artificial damping because feedback in modern wheels is TOO responsive.
...but for flight sims, where control feel is just as important, force feedback hardware simply doesn't exist beyond few super expensive limited production items.
There one thing you can do to make it more realistic and without actually changing sim.
Now i use both fsx and prepar3d. In both i mostly fly the pmdg 737 and the A2A cesna 172 and i can tell you the difference between them is minimal as far as experience goes.
Luckely most of my addons work on both except the pmdg(which actually does work but i bought both to support them since i love their aircrafts).
The best addon i ever bought for both games has nothing to do with the games itself.
VR.
Going VR was the best thing i ever did.
It enables me to look around like in real life.
It really gives me the feeling of actually being in the aircraft.
It makes you feel things you normally wouldn't feel without VR like ascending and descending, drift etc. I know i sounds weird but it does. It really tricks your brain.
Combined with the voice recognition atc and copilot mod for the pmdg 737 the experience is amazing.
On my channel there's a video in 3D, if you watch in on a phone with one of those cardboard holders or something simular you are able to watch it in 3D.
Unfortunately there's no way i can describe or show you what it's like in VR.
No words or youtube video(and i got one recorded which can be viewed in 3D on my channel) can describe what it's really like in VR.
If you ever get the chance to try it out do so, it will change your sim experience entirely.
To the X-plane 11 players here that want better ATC: try the "124thATC" plugin (or fly on VATSIM, we got a better voice codec coming early 2019!).
Upvote so more people become aware of this wonderful plugin, I'm glad I found out about it!
Use XPlane 11. The stall characteristics are much more realistic than Prepar3d (and it's predecessor Microsoft's FSX,) and yes, I do fly in real life.
Prepar3d hasn't move the environmental flight model on since FSX and still feels a little less realistic with regard to light aircraft. Perhaps try XPlan11 and tune the realism as you did in FSX.
You can thank the table based simulation engine for that lack of feel.
Yes Xplane-11 is the most realistic simulator it even has the dips in the runways.
Yeah but the ATC voices suck balls (text to speech, too robotic)
@@Bedgie01 That's what VATSIM is for.
@@Bedgie01 So you use a simulator for the ATC?
Yes to all of the things you said at the end PLUS multiplayer w/ ATC, which has created some of the funniest youtube content!
Love your videos. I had FS II for my Atari 800. Mostly, I used it to show possibilities of computer rather than to play it.
I used FSX to help me keep my cost down when i was getting my PPL. It helped me learn to track a vor heading. Getting use to the instruments and using a better GPS then what my instructor had. I also did a lot of IFR flying in it. Just in case i needed it.
I can't tell you how much I was caught off guard by the effects of wind and... physics... in a real 172 when I did my intro flight as well.
I had been playing FSX (primarily) for years and thought I had a pretty good grasp on what life is like in a small plane. But NOPE. I was totally wrong. The analogy of a soccer ball being bobbed around on the ocean is 100% accurate. The feel of bumps and bounces is just not something that a sim will prepare you for.
I'm positive that my knuckles were ghostly white any time I was flying that day and it's entirely because of the unexpected physical sensation of flying in a small plane. :D
The various FS series give their best as procedural simulators. As you discovered on your skin, but others did before you, the default dynamics of the default planes are really approximated. There was a dynamics upgrade for the C172 under the immortal FS9 (not that they were perfect, but constituted a good step forward), but it refused to work under FSX, so what's there is what you can have.
And yet, the simulation of the C172 default under both FS9 and FSX is worlds better than the total mess they did with the C182 under FS9 (it was never brought as default plane under FSX). It behaved like a wild horse on sugar high so much that a real pilot of the plane once put forward the hypothesis its dynamics were calculated by the numbers using the raw reactions of the gauges of a C182 without taking the time to round off the rough edges, making it a pretty much uncontrollable machine under any weather condition.
Anyway, if it's close-simulation of how a small GA plane behaves you search, you should really jump system over to X-plane. As a user of both sims (both of them V9), I can assure you the behaviour of the plane is much better under this last sim. Of course graphic realism is what it is.
This doesn't even start to describe the difference about how the weather is simulated between FS and X-plane. I still vividly remember when I started X-plane (the V8, back then) and carelessly took off with an Extra 400 from a long forgotten American strip in a day with rough weather and a supercell right above the airport.
BAD idea in real world, mildly bothersome in FS, as BAD a decision under X-plane as it would have been in Real Life. Not even a minute after having entered the clouds with the snot-nosed presumption I'd find something FS-comparable I found myself in a spin, with the plane in tatters for murderous turbulences way above its ability to withstand, gigantic hail that reduced the windscreen in smithereens and in a merciless downward spiral bringing me urgently for a rather fast and traumatizing unforgiving meeting with mother Earth.