Putting The Components Together

[SmallJet]

One comment on the navaids in X-Plane. While they model real world facilities, there can on occasion be errors (e.g. lack of DME on the KCRQ ILS RWY 24 approach) or changes over time (e.g. NDB's being shut down, airport closures, etc.).

Would you say that this happens more frequently than it does in real world flying? If so, that could be a potential hassle for someone actually trying to practice instrument procedures at various airports to develop the mental acuity for such things. But, if it happens with the same degree of regularity found in the real world, then it should be par for the course, right?

A nice feature of x-plane is that all navaids (and many other features in x-plane) can be easily modified by simply editing entries in a text configuration file.

Do you know the name of the file, so I can take a close look at it, please?

I am not certain if FSX offers similar functionality.

Editing Navaids in FSX.

Yes - it can be done. However, there are apparently several complications behind making such changes and there is no guarantee that all required Navaids information that needs to be updated to reflect the real world changes, can be done without flushing FSX entirely. So, apparently, some Navaid information can be altered and respected by FSX, while other Navaid information cannot. In my mind, if there is a real world change in the Navaid or the Navdata, then with FSX you are basically stuck, if that is not one of the changeable values that FSX will respect. FSX, apparently locks down one of the files necessary to make such changes and you must unlock that file in order to get FSX to respect it after the changes have been made. The problem is that this does not work with all navaid or navadata elements in the FSX Airport Design Editor, or Raw Data Viewer.

So, for me - the answer is no, not without flipping through several hoops just to get it done. I'm not sure if X-Plane's method for editing navaids and navdata are more or less forgiving?

Thanks for the input!

[kullery]

Would you say that this happens more frequently than it does in real world flying?

Very infrequent but nice to know you can easily correct issues or adjust for real world changes.

Do you know the name of the file

The Navaids are in the 'earth_nav.dat' file which is located in the resources/default data directory.

http://data.x-plane.com/ is an excellent resource for the exploring some of the editing options. A detailed explanation of the file format is available on their site at http://data.x-plane.com/designers.html#Formats

[Keith Smith]

This is going to have to be a very short response again, I sincerely wish I could write more as it's a fascinating topic, but I just can't swing it right now.

You stated that you haven't started your training yet and that you're looking to understand the procedures more than anything else. In that case, I can tell you that for IFR, at least, visual systems don't matter. Beautiful 3d cockpits don't matter.

Here's a video I've specifically chosen to illustrate this point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwfGvW-d6VI

Notice the lack of visuals. Notice the incredibly simple 2d panel. Notice the lack of advanced avionics. That is bare bones IFR flying with the needles, and it's a very powerful training tool. It requires 100% reliance on the few instruments which are present (don't even have DME). That video was launched prior to the launch of PE, before we even started the public beta.

If you haven't started your flight training, but plan on going all the way, I don't think you should care about specific avionics, let along the FMS/EFIS from a Phenom VLJ just yet. That will come in time.

Again, I apologize for not being able to contribute more to the discussion for now. If I can return to this, I will. Nice to meet you by the way. I'm "A" Keith, don't know about "the" Keith. But, I'm glad you find the guy you were lookin' for! Lastly, buy and read this book: http://www.rodmachado.com/_available_pr ... manual.php It's how I learned to fly IFR before taking a single IFR lesson. Between that, and practicing with online ATC (it was pre-PilotEdge, but PE was available, I would've used it), I ended up learning only a few things when I did my real training. So, if you want a head start, I'd recommend that.

[Tim Krajcar]

To back up what Keith said and perhaps state it a different way...
I applaud you for having a goal in mind, specifically one that many of us would love to be able to attain (and will always lack the resources to be able to). We would all love to be owner/operators of Embraer Phenom 300 someday, but nobody, but nobody, learns to fly in one. You have clearly outlined this by listing your progression through piston singles VFR, IFR, multi, turbine transition, to a jet type rating. You should keep the same perspective for your sim platform. In my opinion, you're worrying about the end state when you should be worrying about what sim is the best to learn how to fly a piston single VFR and IFR. Once you are proficient at that, you can look at changing your simulation platform, and because you will have advanced both your virtual and real-world skills significantly, you'll be in a much better place to evaluate the proper simulation solution for building your multi-engine skills (which may be similar to what you already have or may be different).

I also frankly think you are spending a lot of up-front time doing this analysis that would be better spent reading and learning about flight and airmanship and getting flight experience using a simple simulator setup, rather than doing endless internet research and forum posts. But that's just my opinion.

[SmallJet]

Read your reply. Thanks again for the input, Mark. I've been bouncing between FSX and XP forums, putting the pieces together - that's why my responses are delayed.

I'm beginning to suspect that unless I want to go with FSX Version 11.0 (P3D), that I'm really making a mistake. The reason for that is that base code extension development work has been halted (with the exception of version 11.0) on FSX - whereas, for XP, base code extension continues through Laminar Research. I really get the impression that Lockheed Martian (pun intended) does have the intention of pushing FSX even further than before. So, I can see FSX version 12.0, being a lot better than the current version 11.0.

This would seem to crank-up the fire under Laminar Research, to start turning up the dial on real world scenery, as the current product, while touting the praises of AutoGen, cannot seem to populate the city of San Francisco, in an accurate fashion - when I can fly over that same city in pretty good detail in FSX today, without having to look at a bunch of pasteurized farm land and sparse construction where the Financial District should be. So, I've learned that clearly, FSX out of the box has won the graphics war against XP, as the only native topology for XP that is "real world" happens to be the Seattle, area. Of course, there is other scenery for XP that is even of a higher order than what FSX produces, but you have to fly out of areas in the United Kingdom, in order to enjoy it. Your high fidelity scenery options in XP seem to go way down when you arrive on North America soil, The United States.

Yet, I tend to like the way the aircraft handle better in XP, aside from the highly annoying Simulator Flutter. I do not know if FSX suffer from Simulator Flutter, but it is a problem in XPX Global. Since my purpose is to have a simulator experience where I can engage in the process of going through instrument procedures, having Navdata and Navaids easily updated is a significant plus over FSX, where editing a Navaid is possible. Yet, not all aspects of Navaid values can be edited in FSX, without blowing up the simulator at runtime.

I'm doing more evaluation for the remainder of this week, hopefully getting more questions answered on other forums and then making my decision on Monday.

Not to worry, though. I will be holding a Press Conference live on CNN's simulated affiliate, lol!

Thanks for all your help.

[SmallJet]

The Navaids are in the 'earth_nav.dat' file which is located in the resources/default data directory.

I found it - there are a lot of them. Much appreciated.

http://data.x-plane.com/ is an excellent resource for the exploring some of the editing options. A detailed explanation of the file format is available on their site at http://data.x-plane.com/designers.html#Formats

Bookmarked, thanks.

[SmallJet]

Here's a video I've specifically chosen to illustrate this point:...

Man, you are so right. I didn't give a fly rats tail through out the entire 11 minutes about "scenery," now did I. So, true. All I cared about was whether or not I could make the same radio calls, recognize the same radio calls and still fly the plane at the same time. Of course, I'm going to have to learn how to do this, in order to get where I need to be in the world of aviation.

Even after you broke underneath the ceiling, there was no time for scenery! The runway was sitting right there in your face - so there's simply no time for scenery! Thanks for showing me this video - I missed this one when I was browsing your other videos. I have a million questions off that one video alone, but I'll hold those for my instructor when the time comes.

All this instrument flying stuff looks nice and pretty in a Jeppesen Text Book. All color coded, neat and clean looking. But, when you have to fly through this stuff, manage the aircraft, hold altitude, maintain airspeed, work the radios, re-set the VOR and all the other stuff that really matters, it is a whole different ballgame at that point. If you are using X-Plane and PilotEdge in this video, then that's probably exactly what I need.

Was there anything during this approach that was not working as it would on a real approach into John Wayne? Were all the navaids, avionics and instruments working as they should? Also, which aircraft model were you flying?

Geepers. I've got a ton of learning to do.

Notice the lack of visuals. Notice the incredibly simple 2d panel. Notice the lack of advanced avionics. That is bare bones IFR flying with the needles, and it's a very powerful training tool.

That's exactly how I plan to learn. Private through Instrument & commercial using old school avionics and instruments. Actually, learning how to use an E6B, running manual fuel calculations, correct flight planning, weight and balance, X-wind component, accounting for magnetic variations in the compass heading, becoming friends with the VOR, holding altitudes, maintaining headings, constant rate turns, constant rate descents, turning descents, turning ascents, etc. All the basic nuts and bolts that will help prepare me for flying approaches like that. A fiber rich diet of nuts and bolts, all the way through to the instrument and commercial ratings.

After that....I plan to step up in weight class and then add the glass through the multi-engine rating and then on to robust time building phase in high performance NA twins and then multi-engine turbine props. I'm scheduling between 900 to 1,200 total PIC time before making the move to the Phenom, which will include mostly cross country continental flight profiles, including a two leg Atlantic crossing (because I'll be doing that fairly regularly and I want to do it in another aircraft first, before I start doing it in the Phenom). It is a two (2) year training and time building program that I am creating for myself - to make sure I am well prepared and competent.

It requires 100% reliance on the few instruments which are present (don't even have DME). That video was launched prior to the launch of PE, before we even started the public beta.

Yes - it was pretty bare bones and effective. I assume this was still PE, however- even though it was prior to PE being publicly available?

If you haven't started your flight training, but plan on going all the way, I don't think you should care about specific avionics, let along the FMS/EFIS from a Phenom VLJ just yet. That will come in time.

The Phenom 300, is the destination. That's been the destination every since I found about its development. I wanted to see of the aircraft had any major bugs in its first couple of years in production and then watch to see how Embraer went about handling those technical issues with customers and to see what the maintenance track record of the aircraft would be relative to the all the hype that gets spewed in marketing campaigns. Thus far, from what I can tell, the aircraft has lived up to all the expectations and I'm planning my first trip to Embraer in Sao Jose dos Campos, Brazil, later this year for a factor walk. It should be one of several trips. I'm giving myself two years two get ready.

Again, I apologize for not being able to contribute more to the discussion for now. If I can return to this, I will. Nice to meet you by the way. I'm "A" Keith, don't know about "the" Keith. But, I'm glad you find the guy you were lookin' for!

It's the accent in your voice. Of course, to you - it is no 'accent' at all. I had seen other videos of yours on Youtube, long before I came here.

Lastly, buy and read this book: http://www.rodmachado.com/_available_pr ... manual.php It's how I learned to fly IFR before taking a single IFR lesson. Between that, and practicing with online ATC (it was pre-PilotEdge, but PE was available, I would've used it), I ended up learning only a few things when I did my real training. So, if you want a head start, I'd recommend that.

Done. I'll be sure to add Rod's book to my existing aviation library.

Hey, thanks for the videos and the feedback. I think I am really beginning to see how beneficial taking this immerse sort of "pre-training" path might be for me. Just as long as I do not learn bad habits that will need undoing later.

[SmallJet]

...In my opinion, you're worrying about the end state when you should be worrying about what sim is the best to learn how to fly a piston single VFR and IFR.

Hello, Tim.

I'm an engineer by heart, soul and formal education, though I do other things today. My world gets filtered through a screen of big pictures first, details second, then Implementation and observation/optimization third. I've got to see the scope of what I'm dealing with first, design a plan/strategy/tactic and then drill down to implement the vision. I need the big picture to be as vivid as possible - as soon as possible. I then work backwards from there filling in the details, understanding the requirements and then I measure my capabilities against the reality of the task ahead. In this way, I know what need to be done, when it needs to be done and what skills sets I will need on my team to get it done. How to pick my team and the required tools then becomes significantly more clear. It is a methodical approach to the important things in life, but it works for me. So, visualizing the Phenom, with me in the left seat is not enough.

It is a two (2) year training and skills development process. I'm designing it to be just as structured as any part 141 flight school training, and as flexible as any part 61 flight club program. Initial training will be exactly like a full-time job of eight (8) hours per day (sometimes more when travel is involved) which will include some instructor lead ground training, instructor lead flight training, one-on-one instructor Q&A, simulator training (new!), PIC time building (actual), personal aviation related study, attendance at aviation seminars, attendance at general and business aviation conventions, as well as aviation related field trips to welcoming FAA facilities where I can learn something specific that is unrelated to physically flying an airplane, but helpful for my overall aviation related knowledge.

When you add it all up (including the PIC time building phases and cross country trips to aviation conventions and seminars), its about the equivalent of an eight (8) hour work day, five days a week, for two years.

My day will commence at 0515 every morning with a 1-3 mile run and then breakfast. The morning work session will commence at 0815 (containing some of the activities above). Lunch at 1200. Afternoon work session will commence at 1300 (containing some of the activities above). 30 minute break at 1500 sharp (sleep or brain rest). Last afternoon session will commence at 1530 (containing some of the activities above). Evening session will end at 1730/1800 hrs. Dinner/shower spend time with Wife. Sleep by 2100/2200 (max). Back up at 0515 to rejoin the program already in progress.

I want to be a safe, competent, proficient and efficient pilot. This is how I plan to go about making that happen. The Instructors will be former Military and former Commercial Airline Pilots, who still love to teach eager students a thing or two about flying. Embraer, will handle the transition training, as well as assist in the preparation for single pilot certification and RVSM pilot certification. A two (2) year immerse program of learning and skills development, culminating in the realization of a long time dream. This is but one step in that process.

I can't do Flight Safety, or ATP because it would keep me away from home too long. So, I had to tailor something that kept me home at night and on the weekends (all married men understand this), but still intensive and engaging enough to cut the mustard and meet my requirements. The plan was already in place before I learned that such flight simulators even existed. So, I am taking the appropriate time necessary to learn about the efficacy of using such a simulation experience in my own personal flight training program.

I also frankly think you are spending a lot of up-front time doing this analysis...

I understand what you mean. After learning a little more about the bigger picture, now you hopefully understand why I spend so much time sorting this stuff out up front. I just learned about X-Plane's existence a little more than 2.5 weeks ago. I heard about Microsoft Flight, but was under the impression that it was just a game - so I never looked into it because I am not a gamer. I am interested in integrating this stuff into my flight training program because after installing and flying both simulators, it does appear on the surface that it can be used as a literal procedures enhancement tool - not merely a game. So, my motives are different that a gamers motives and I have to be sure that I am not developing bad procedural habits as that will stunt the growth curve in my real flight training.

If there was one single flight simulation solution from a singular source that delivered quality simulations across the board, then my homework would be easy. But, that's not the case. Picking the right combination of components, could be just as important as picking the right Flight Instructor. Once I build and then start with a flight simulator solution (putting the pieces together), I won't have time for looking backwards and starting over again.

This is but one component of a much larger scope of work to be done. I hope that makes more sense.

Thanks for the wise counsel. I appreciate your sincerity. I know you were trying to be helpful.