hi
I just signed in . I've got a FAA PPL , going for commercial, but no experience at all with flight simulator.
So I need some suggestions on how to start : I 've got pc's , monitors and good graphic cards .
Since I have no experience with any kind of simulator I need suggestion how to start ;
and I'd like to "assemble " something more than just a keyboard ,mouse and a single monitor
Any suggestion / instructions is very welcome
zero experience in simulator
Re: zero experience in simulator
This is a huge open ended question. Perhaps if you started out with:
What kind of planes do you want to fly?
What equipment levels are needed in the plane (VOR, GPS, FMC)?
What value do you place on the accuracy of the "flight model"?
How important are the external visuals to you?
How PC savvy are you? How much effort are you willing to place into working out PC configurations?
Just how far do want to take your home sim?
If going for a type rating, it may be more important to have your home sim as close as possible to the RW plane. This may dictate or limit the choice of simulator.
If on the other hand you are mainly looking to work on an instrument rating, then this opens up the choices.
Me personally I started using FSX flying big iron (737). Then switched to PMDG's Jet Stream 4100. And recently to X-plane's default Beech Baron BE58. So a ton of hours on both simulator platforms.
Everything that follows is IMO:
When I first stated using X-plane, I hated the UI. Now that I have yoke, rudder pedals, throttle, and radio stack, the differences between FSX and X-plane largely disappear from a UI point of view. And I'm now more familiar with X-plane switching back in forth isn't a big deal.
For me, X-plane is much more stable. X-plane almost never crashes. Where as FSX crash to desktop (CTD) was an occasional nuisance.
If you are the kind of guy that wants to look out the window and see real world scenery, you may find X-plane lacking.
If on the other hand you are more interested in how the airplane itself works, X-plane may be a better choice.
If you looking for a sim that's easy to set up and doesn't require a ton of PC experience, then X-plane may be a better choice.
X-plane works better with today's multi-core CPU's than FSX. However, at the ultra highest rendering settings, X-plane can bring even the strongest PC's to it's knees. YMMV.
X-plane is still being developed where as FSX is frozen in 2005. Add on packages are available to bring FSX up to date.
X-plane is more $$ to buy than FSX. However, the difference changes if the cost of add on packages are taken into account. If $$ is a concern and only flying on PilotEdge, then it's possible to save some money by not getting the world edition of X-plane.
In general the FSX default airport scenery more inclusive than X-plane. In fact, it could be said that X-plane doesn't have any airport scenery. But that's not entirely true as X-plane has more accurate taxi ways and run ways but almost zero scenery around the airport.
Note, X-plane is working to fix the airport scenery complaints. The new 10.30 version will include a method to update the airport layouts from user input.
The default weather is head and shoulders better in X-plane. If going for a commercial ticket, this could be an important factor to you. To get anything close to decent weather in FSX requires an add on package. In my case, adding REX cost more than FSX itself (see what I mean about the cost of add on packages?).
Bottom line, is there are both positive and negatives to each of the simulators currently on the market. There is no right or wrong answer. I suspect that there may be others to weigh in on this topic. But their opinion may be more based on the sim they happen to be familiar with.
Welcome aboard.
What kind of planes do you want to fly?
What equipment levels are needed in the plane (VOR, GPS, FMC)?
What value do you place on the accuracy of the "flight model"?
How important are the external visuals to you?
How PC savvy are you? How much effort are you willing to place into working out PC configurations?
Just how far do want to take your home sim?
If going for a type rating, it may be more important to have your home sim as close as possible to the RW plane. This may dictate or limit the choice of simulator.
If on the other hand you are mainly looking to work on an instrument rating, then this opens up the choices.
Me personally I started using FSX flying big iron (737). Then switched to PMDG's Jet Stream 4100. And recently to X-plane's default Beech Baron BE58. So a ton of hours on both simulator platforms.
Everything that follows is IMO:
When I first stated using X-plane, I hated the UI. Now that I have yoke, rudder pedals, throttle, and radio stack, the differences between FSX and X-plane largely disappear from a UI point of view. And I'm now more familiar with X-plane switching back in forth isn't a big deal.
For me, X-plane is much more stable. X-plane almost never crashes. Where as FSX crash to desktop (CTD) was an occasional nuisance.
If you are the kind of guy that wants to look out the window and see real world scenery, you may find X-plane lacking.
If on the other hand you are more interested in how the airplane itself works, X-plane may be a better choice.
If you looking for a sim that's easy to set up and doesn't require a ton of PC experience, then X-plane may be a better choice.
X-plane works better with today's multi-core CPU's than FSX. However, at the ultra highest rendering settings, X-plane can bring even the strongest PC's to it's knees. YMMV.
X-plane is still being developed where as FSX is frozen in 2005. Add on packages are available to bring FSX up to date.
X-plane is more $$ to buy than FSX. However, the difference changes if the cost of add on packages are taken into account. If $$ is a concern and only flying on PilotEdge, then it's possible to save some money by not getting the world edition of X-plane.
In general the FSX default airport scenery more inclusive than X-plane. In fact, it could be said that X-plane doesn't have any airport scenery. But that's not entirely true as X-plane has more accurate taxi ways and run ways but almost zero scenery around the airport.
Note, X-plane is working to fix the airport scenery complaints. The new 10.30 version will include a method to update the airport layouts from user input.
The default weather is head and shoulders better in X-plane. If going for a commercial ticket, this could be an important factor to you. To get anything close to decent weather in FSX requires an add on package. In my case, adding REX cost more than FSX itself (see what I mean about the cost of add on packages?).
Bottom line, is there are both positive and negatives to each of the simulators currently on the market. There is no right or wrong answer. I suspect that there may be others to weigh in on this topic. But their opinion may be more based on the sim they happen to be familiar with.
Welcome aboard.
Re: zero experience in simulator
hi wmburns ty for replyingwmburns wrote:This is a huge open ended question. Perhaps if you started out with:
What kind of planes do you want to fly?
What equipment levels are needed in the plane (VOR, GPS, FMC)?
What value do you place on the accuracy of the "flight model"?
How important are the external visuals to you?
How PC savvy are you? How much effort are you willing to place into working out PC configurations?
Just how far do want to take your home sim?
If going for a type rating, it may be more important to have your home sim as close as possible to the RW plane. This may dictate or limit the choice of simulator.
If on the other hand you are mainly looking to work on an instrument rating, then this opens up the choices.
Me personally I started using FSX flying big iron (737). Then switched to PMDG's Jet Stream 4100. And recently to X-plane's default Beech Baron BE58. So a ton of hours on both simulator platforms.
Everything that follows is IMO:
When I first stated using X-plane, I hated the UI. Now that I have yoke, rudder pedals, throttle, and radio stack, the differences between FSX and X-plane largely disappear from a UI point of view. And I'm now more familiar with X-plane switching back in forth isn't a big deal.
For me, X-plane is much more stable. X-plane almost never crashes. Where as FSX crash to desktop (CTD) was an occasional nuisance.
If you are the kind of guy that wants to look out the window and see real world scenery, you may find X-plane lacking.
If on the other hand you are more interested in how the airplane itself works, X-plane may be a better choice.
If you looking for a sim that's easy to set up and doesn't require a ton of PC experience, then X-plane may be a better choice.
X-plane works better with today's multi-core CPU's than FSX. However, at the ultra highest rendering settings, X-plane can bring even the strongest PC's to it's knees. YMMV.
X-plane is still being developed where as FSX is frozen in 2005. Add on packages are available to bring FSX up to date.
X-plane is more $$ to buy than FSX. However, the difference changes if the cost of add on packages are taken into account. If $$ is a concern and only flying on PilotEdge, then it's possible to save some money by not getting the world edition of X-plane.
In general the FSX default airport scenery more inclusive than X-plane. In fact, it could be said that X-plane doesn't have any airport scenery. But that's not entirely true as X-plane has more accurate taxi ways and run ways but almost zero scenery around the airport.
Note, X-plane is working to fix the airport scenery complaints. The new 10.30 version will include a method to update the airport layouts from user input.
The default weather is head and shoulders better in X-plane. If going for a commercial ticket, this could be an important factor to you. To get anything close to decent weather in FSX requires an add on package. In my case, adding REX cost more than FSX itself (see what I mean about the cost of add on packages?).
Bottom line, is there are both positive and negatives to each of the simulators currently on the market. There is no right or wrong answer. I suspect that there may be others to weigh in on this topic. But their opinion may be more based on the sim they happen to be familiar with.
Welcome aboard.
I agree with you , further details will definitely help
I use to fly with small cessna (152 , 172 ) and since I didn't fly in past couple of years in General Aviation and I am going back to USA in 2/3 months, for time building and commercial training I thought using a flight simulator could be a wise choice for saving money and time before I get back on a real plane.Radio communication and navigation are the things I 'd like to focus more, at least in the beginning . IFR is not my primary concern right now , I will use a certified one when I will start to study so I can log flight time .
I am not a that savvy in pc stuff but I can find someone that will help me for the things I don't know .Before leaving for the US I will sell all my stuff (money makes airplane flying )so I don't want to spend too much money or time on my simulator. I surely need VOR ADF and radio navigation instrument in general.
I never used GPS yet
. I am more interested in pilotage and dead reckoning , so having the choice of outside visual references should be good.My graphic cards are 1 R9 290 and 4 R9 280x
once again thanks for helping me
-
whoispankaj
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 7:02 pm
Re: zero experience in simulator
You can use A2A Simulations Cessna 172 and Cherokee 180 for your GA planes. They both are very good
Re: zero experience in simulator
wow I saw the presentation , impressive !!I'll definitely go for it :Do you have any suggestions for yoke pedals and that kind of stuff ?whoispankaj wrote:You can use A2A Simulations Cessna 172 and Cherokee 180 for your GA planes. They both are very good
-
whoispankaj
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 7:02 pm
Re: zero experience in simulator
Saitek Cessna yoke and saitek pro rudder pedals along with Cessna trim wheel are serving me good
Re: zero experience in simulator
I can also recommend the Saitek Combat Pro pedals over anything else in the price range.... very sturdy, realistic feel.
Track IR5 is good for head tracking and VFR especially.... sometimes not the best for IFR if you're using a fixed 2d panel but I use it all the time - a godsend.
For airplanes I think two great ones for FSX were already recommended. My personal favorites are the Realair Duke v2 and Realair Lancair Legacy - but probably not realistic since they travel about twice as fast as you'd fly in real life with a light GA. If you go XP10 check out Carenado C337 (technically a twin but in line so no big deal), and their new Stationair is excellent, powerful good visibility and GNS530 in case you get lost or violate a Bravo lol
Basically the PE ground rules: Connect to the network only on a non movement area (gate, apron, GA ramp etc), first time get a radio check like you would in real world, state intentions to controller and go.... read the charts and use the appropriate frequencies just like you would in real world.... easy peasy!
Track IR5 is good for head tracking and VFR especially.... sometimes not the best for IFR if you're using a fixed 2d panel but I use it all the time - a godsend.
For airplanes I think two great ones for FSX were already recommended. My personal favorites are the Realair Duke v2 and Realair Lancair Legacy - but probably not realistic since they travel about twice as fast as you'd fly in real life with a light GA. If you go XP10 check out Carenado C337 (technically a twin but in line so no big deal), and their new Stationair is excellent, powerful good visibility and GNS530 in case you get lost or violate a Bravo lol
Basically the PE ground rules: Connect to the network only on a non movement area (gate, apron, GA ramp etc), first time get a radio check like you would in real world, state intentions to controller and go.... read the charts and use the appropriate frequencies just like you would in real world.... easy peasy!
PE ID: 29
FAA ATCS
FAA PPL ASEL
FAA ATCS
FAA PPL ASEL
Re: zero experience in simulator
thank you guys ,I 'll take off in a couple of days ,just waiting for my saitek stuff