Keith Smith wrote:This level of analysis might normally be applied by a customer who is trying to choose between purchasing a $300k training device versus one from another manufacturer.
It's ok, Keith, thanks. I appreciate your opinion. At this point, I've pretty much heard all the angles thrown at my approach for determining the best arrangement for my needs. In less than two weeks, I've been banned from one forum, called a troll and ridiculed merely for asking questions. People feel like, hey - its just a
game, get on with it - there is no need for the kind of "analysis" that you are wasting your time on. So, they sigh, roll their eyes and conclude that I'm just unable to see the "light" of day about which Flight Simulator or ATC platform to use.
The problem is that most of those people who sigh at my approach, don't understand the real world training regimen coming my direction and rather quickly.
I stumbled across Flight Simulator 10. In doing so, I stumbled (yet again) across X-Plane 10. And, as if that was not enough, I stumbled yet one more time across PilotEdge, but only after stumbling across VATSIM and I just now stumbled across IVAO, for the first time two days ago. So, I'm new to the flight simulator world as of just three weeks ago. However, I am far from new to Aviation and/or Aerospace - I just never participated in the "simulation" side of either discipline. I started flight training many years ago when I really did not have the money to continue, so I stopped after my first three to four lessons. I still have my log book in storage after all these years along with my ASA flight bag, E6B, hand-held digital flight computer, custom ATIS notepads that I created for my kneeboard so I could easily recall the information, Skyhawk POH, King Private Pilot Videos, Jeppesen Private Pilot Syllabus, Jeppesen Instrument Flight Training Course (to get a head-start on the instrument training), a sectional of the training area, a very comfortable ANR/DSP headset and most importantly - a copy of the Piratical Test Standards by ASA.
The point for me was not the cost, but the cost to me in time spent putting together and learning a simulator platform and aircraft model, there were helping me develop bad flying habits in the real world. That is what I am trying really hard to avoid.
After spending some time looking at the flight sim world, I have learned that you do not always get what you see, or what you are promised by vendors. Moreover, if you want a complete "desktop" simulation experience, there is no singular product that you can buy, that covers all the aspects of flight simulation and
to a high degree of fidelity. I quickly learned that you have to build your own Flight Simulator Experience, using several dissimilar components and sometimes those components don't play well together, or at other times, they do not deliver on what their developers have promised. For example, at some point, I will need a Phenom 300 with the Prodigy Flight Deck 300 and I want it for X-Plane 10 Global - but I can't get it. There is no such aircraft model with the appropriate G1000 simulation for XP. It only exists for FSX and P3D.
My goal was two fold:
1) Avoid building a flight simulation experience that is always plagued with technical problems.
2) Use the flight simulator experience to get a head-start on instrument procedures, before I re-start my actual flight training later this year.
To accomplish that, I can't help but do the homework necessary to figure out what I should avoid like the plague, so I don't waste a lot of time creating a bogus flight simulation experience that is not very realistic and that teaches me bad habits that I will only have to
unlearn when the real flight training resumes. Which means, I have to be sure about things such as: accurate Navdata and Navaids, accurate Aircraft Models, accurate Avionics models, fairly accurate cockpit Instrumentation and fairly accurate Airport models (runway length, width,
slope, elevation, etc.).
I need to be fairly sure that that Radios/Comms and other aircraft systems function the way they should. That the Auto-Pilot is properly coupled to the FMS, or properly integrated with the EFIS (G1000/G3000) as it would be in any real aircraft with such a panel arrangement. That the aircraft modeled flight dynamics is fairly accurate and that that aircraft behaves typically the way it might (within reason) in real 3-dimensional space (I realize I can't get 6-degrees of freedom with a desktop computer). That the ATC platform I use has controlled airspace that is accurately modeled against what any pilot might experience in real FAA controlled airspace (Ground, Tower, Departure, Approach, Sector/Area Control and the Vertical/Lateral limits of Airspace Classes).
I have an upcoming flight training path at the end of this year that will take me from a single engine trainer, to multi-engine time building, to multi-engine turbo-prop time building, and finally into a twin engine Very Light Jet. A program that will run approximately two (2) years and move me from private pilots license through to a jet type rating (including a glider rating, some aerobatic training for better upset recovery skills and a skydiver rating just for the fun of it). So, my aviation agenda over the next two years+ will be filled with real training and real flying, starting at the end of this year.
However, what I'm trying to do right now, is get a head-start on the
mental aspects of
procedures and I want the most realistic desktop set-up that I can get. And, because all the components of a good desktop flight sim arrangement are broken into "third-party" pieces (to get the really good stuff), I am forced to ask a lot of questions up front and learn as much as I can, before I set out to put these components together:
- Flight Simulator Platform
ATC Simulator Platform
Aircraft Models (single engine, multi-engine na, multi-engine tp, twin-engine VLJ)
Physical Flight Controls (Yoke/Rudder/TPM or Quadrant for Twins)
Independent 3D Cockpit Visualization (TrackIR 5 or other)
Scenery & Surface Topology (plausible)
Weather & Clouds (plausible)
Airport Models (plausible)
Eight different components that can
potentially (not necessarily) come from eight (8) different sources and they must all play well together to provide the level of plausible accuracy that I'm looking to achieve.
So, this is not just a game for me as you can see. I'm trying to get my brain ready for a two year journey into some fairly high-performance real world flying. I don't want to experience "instrument procedures" for the very first time once my training begins. I want my brain to recognize the "procedures" as being old hat, which will afford me a deeper learning experience when working with my instructor inside the cockpit. But, those procedures need to be correct, or I face unlearning bad habits which only complicates my training down the road.
The last thing I remember about my final lesson some 20 years ago, was how utterly preoccupied my brain was with remembering even the smallest of procedures and radio comms with ATC. I want that stuff in the bag the next time I start real training, so I can focus more attention on flying and learning the nuances of being a competent, safe, proficient and efficient pilot.
I know that most people don't appreciate my approach to this - but I am the one that will be going from Cessna 172 to VLJ in two years. If the sim can help with grooving the mental stuff right now, then the physical stuff inside the real cockpit will go a lot more smoothly at the end of this year.
I am currently evaluating both FSX and X-Plane 10 Gobal. My understanding is that PilotEdge will not work with Prepar3d (correct me if I am wrong).
Keith Smith wrote:
That said, the controllers pull the approach plates from real world sources, usually in real time, so they are working with current data. Other than RNAV procedures, the sim has no concept of an approach procedure. An non-RNAV approach is a virtual construct that utilizes navaids. So, the question is really whether the sim has correctly modeled navaids. Other than some odd navigation reception issues at certain ranges, both sims model them well enough for training purposes.
This is really good to know. So, basically, what I hear you saying is that I can go here:
FAA IFP Search, grab one of these:
...and then go through the
procedures for setting up the avionics and instruments for flying that particular Plate, correct? And, you are saying the degree to which that procedure will be accurate, is dependent upon the Flight Simulator Navaids, Flight Simulator Navdata, and the Aircraft Model's on-board Avionics/Instrumentation, correct? So, with those three components in place, I can work the procedures using either one of these two sims?
This, along with basic meat and potatoes manual tuning VOR navigation, is the type of stuff that I want to do a lot of work with in the sim. I want to make all my mistakes there, so that I don't make them or carry bad habits with me into my real training. Plausible?
Keith Smith wrote:
Simulators are great for practicing the skills associated with flying various procedures. The mechanics of flying one ILS procedure at airport A versus the ILS at airport B are pretty much identical. Therefore, if a navaid happens to be missing (for argument's sake) in the sim, you can always find a functional equivalent elsewhere.
Sounds like getting a NOTAM with respect to the temporary outage of a ground based navaid and then having to figure out which alternative navaid will line you up with the runway in a below VFR minimums scenario. Or, deciding that the weather conditions combined with the navaid outage at that particular airport is too risky and therefore, diverting to a planned alternate airport is the wiser choice. It would seem to me that a really good Weather Engine would be one that is configurable for
randomly set cloud bases minimums over various airports that created operational scenarios for the pilot where the aircraft breaks-out underneath the base either bit too low, or where the aircraft breaks out but the pilot is still
unable see the runway and according to the flight rules must therefore, call a missed approach, fly the hold and wait for ATC to clear another approach -or- to once again, simply make the decision that use one of the preplanned alternate airports.
That whole scenario is predicated on the fact that navaids, navdata, aircraft avionics, aircraft flight instruments, weather engine and the ATC service are all working properly. This is the kind of thing I need to know - whether or not they work well enough together to provide that kind of procedural experience.
Keith Smith wrote:
I say this with confidence, because when I'm going to fly somewhere real world and I want to sharpen my skills, I hop on PE and shoot a few different types of approaches at some random airports. I don't feel any need whatsoever to go practice the approaches at my destination airport.
Very interesting indeed! This gives me hope that what I am trying to do, can be done efficiently and with the desired affect.
Keith Smith wrote:
If you'd like to see some typical training flights being run in X-Plane 10 with stock scenery, check out the videos in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=2321
Wait a minute. Are you "that" Keith? LOL!
I've been watching your videos off and on for a couple weeks now. You are a very proficient instrument rated pilot and you obviously have some time under your belt - I can tell by the way you handle the procedures - it is like second nature to you. Well, that's what I'm talking about doing. I want the
procedures and much of the mental work already grooved in my head, before I re-start my training this year.
I actually learned a couple things from your videos believe it or not. Not that it is official flight training, but I did learn some things about instrument flying procedures. Thanks for posting the videos. Heck, if I had know you were "that" Keith, I would have asked you a whole bunch of other types of questions, but I'm sure you get enough questions - I don't want to bother you with "flight training" stuff. Anyway, much appreciated!
Keith Smith wrote:
- you will not be guaranteed ATC presence during your flight between 8am - 11pm PST
No good for me.
Keith Smith wrote:
- you will not be guaranteed that the controller you're working with will know how to handle your training requests for non-precision approaches (vectors or full approaches), pop-up IFR, approaches under VFR, non-towered IFR operations, etc.
Definitely no good for me - I'm going to need a lot of that work (you know how it goes!)
Keith Smith wrote:
- you will not experience many frequency changes, nor will you be looking up frequencies from real world sources or via your avionics, instead, you'll be referring to an online controller list to see who's out there, and working out how to call based on that ever-changing list.
Not good - because that's not real world.
Keith Smith wrote:
Hope this helps, good luck with your decision.
Yes, indeed it does. Nice to see you here, as well as on YouTube! I hope we can chat again some time.
I'll start with a brief description of my intentions and then ask my questions. 