PilotEdge Forums

Greetings PilotEdge Forum Members,

Thanks, I appreciate this forum. This is my first post but not my first visit. I have a lot of questions to ask. I'll be brief, direct and organized to make reading and responding to my questions as easy as possible. Thank you in advance for your help. I'll start with a brief description of my intentions and then ask my questions.

Personal Goals

Obtain (real) FAA Ratings:
- Glider Rating
- Private
- Instrument
- Commercial
- Multi-Engine
- Multiple Jet Type Ratings (LOA)
- Preparation for operating the Embraer Phenom 300 (personal and business use)


Experience

Real Aircraft Flown:
- Less than 5 hours | Prior dual instruction received (not currently training)
- Aircraft Type | C-172, AA-5B, C5-B, T-37 Full-Motion Simulator (only)


Aircraft Exposure Projections

Anticipated Airframe Experience (purpose):
- C-172 and PA-28 (private/instrument/commercial)
- BE-76, PA-34 and PA-44 (multi-engine)
- King Air C90 (turbine time/experience building)
- Embraer Phenom 300 (manufacturer's flight training & type rating)
- Phenom 300 (routine PIC operations)
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Current Status

- All my training and time-building preparation phases are geared for operating Phenom 300 at some future date.
- My actual flight training will not resume until later in 2013.
- I've watched both King Schools and Sporty's Private Pilot DVD Courses at home several times already.
- I just discovered PilotEdge 3 days ago.
- I have no computer based (at home) flight simulator experience.
- I've done some initial study on at home flight simulators such as FSX and X-Plane.
- I know that using at home flight simulators will not give me kinetic flight experience.


Question Set 1: Aircraft Availability & Procedures Capabilities

Which flight simulator (FSX or X-Plane) offers as standard:

a) All of the aircraft listed above?
b) Most of the aircraft listed above?
c) The best overall (most accurate) VFR procedures experience?
d) The best overall (most accurate) IFR procedures experience?


Question Set 2: Realistic & Interactive 3D Cockpit Layouts/Panels/Instrumentation

Which of the flight simulators (FSX or X-Plane) offers as standard:

e) 3D cockpits and wide-angle cockpit panel views?
f) The highest level of logical replication of real world instrument/avionics functionality?
g) The highest level of real world visual cues from instruments/avionics?


Question Set 3: Specific Avionics (IFR) Capabilities

Which of the flight simulators (FSX or X-Plane) offers as standard:

h) The widest availability of real world ILS approach types (what kind of approaches are available)?
i) The most accurate real world Auto-Pilot coupled to FMS functionality?
j) The Garmin G1000 EFIS (NOT including the FlyThisSim FTS1000)?


Question Set 4: PilotEdge Functionality

k) When I use PE and connect it to my FS (FS = FSX or X-Plane), does PE override the FS Scenery displayed on my monitor to show its own rendered Scenery, or will I still see the Scenery being driven from the FS application?

l) I care far more about developing actual VFR/IFR and Radio Communications procedures and skill sets. Still, I'd like to be able to look outside the cockpit and see actual geography that is representative of the real topology being overflown by my aircraft. Which of the two flight simulators (FSX or X-Plane) offers the best En Route topological representation?

m) Which FS (FS = FSX or X-Plane) offers the best Airport topological representation? (most accurate airport features - runway length, width, slope, lighting, taxiways and longitude/latitude positions, etc. Physical details found in the Airport Facilities Directory or Airnav.com, etc.)

Thanks again for all the help, guys!

Regards,
SmallJet


References

Garmin G1000 for Embraer Phenom 300 (Prodigy Flight Deck 300)

SmallJet wrote:Greetings PilotEdge Forum Members,

Question Set 1: Aircraft Availability & Procedures Capabilities

Which flight simulator (FSX or X-Plane) offers as standard:

a) All of the aircraft listed above?
b) Most of the aircraft listed above?
c) The best overall (most accurate) VFR procedures experience?
d) The best overall (most accurate) IFR procedures experience?

I think only FSX has all of the aircraft you mention above, though X-Plane has several.

I don't know what you mean by VFR/IFR "procedures" experience. Both of those are things that you learn do to, irrespective of the flght simulation environment you're using. If you mean "which simulator most accurately provides a good VFR and or IMC experience?" -- they both provide an excellent experience. X-Plane has better out-of-the-box weather, but add-ons for FSX (Active Sky 2012, REX, Opus FSX -- especially this last one) provide great weather as well.

SmallJet wrote: Question Set 2: Realistic & Interactive 3D Cockpit Layouts/Panels/Instrumentation

Which of the flight simulators (FSX or X-Plane) offers as standard:

e) 3D cockpits and wide-angle cockpit panel views?
f) The highest level of logical replication of real world instrument/avionics functionality?
g) The highest level of real world visual cues from instruments/avionics?

Both offer 2D and 3D cockpits. I partly guessing as to what you mean by "wide-angle" cockpits -- but the answer I'd give is: "it depends entirely upon the simulated aircraft publisher" (for both platforms).

I don't know what you mean by "logical replication" of instruments/avionics. If you mean "which simulator has the highest fidelity of simulation?" then the answer is again that "it depends upon the aircraft author". Pretty much every aircraft had high-fidelity instrument simulation. Some aircraft have superb fidelity in their avionics and systems. The bigger the aircraft (and to some degree, the more expensive aircraft sims) have better fidelity of the avionics and systems.

I don't know what you're looking for with respect to question (g). Practically every airplane has very good fidelity instruments.

SmallJet wrote: Question Set 3: Specific Avionics (IFR) Capabilities

Which of the flight simulators (FSX or X-Plane) offers as standard:

h) The widest availability of real world ILS approach types (what kind of approaches are available)?
i) The most accurate real world Auto-Pilot coupled to FMS functionality?
j) The Garmin G1000 EFIS (NOT including the FlyThisSim FTS1000)?

H) is not an completely an attribute of the simulator -- it's an attribute of what nav data is available, and what the airplane developer decided to use. Many of the higher-end payware airplanes on both FSX and XP use Navigraph data, which makes most instrument approaches (and DPs and STARs) available (and accurate).

I) is not one I can answer very well. I think the AP in both of them kind of sucks, but I think it's also to some degree an attribute of the airplane publisher. Many of the XP airplanes (both stock and payware) have a tendency to "porpoise" like crazy when in altitude hold or FLC mode. I'd give a slight edge to the AP in FSX.

J) Is a huge problem. The ONLY vaguely accurate G1000 simulation I've found is from Flight1 software. It's available in their C-182T payware plane and in the Citation 510 ("Mustang") VLJ. Both of them are pretty darned good -- they'll let you load and fly procedures, perform VS holds with altitude capture and perform constant-airpspeed FLCs. The will "fly" the GPS flight plan almost perfectly, including very good predictive turns. Flight1 has an even more accurate "standalone" G1000 simulator that can be used with a small handful of airplanes (see Flight1 Technologies "Student" G1000 sim). There is no decent G1000 EFIS for XPlane that I've run across. If you find one, let me know.

The Phenom 100 simulation (from FeelThere, IIRC) has a G1000 cockpit, but I have a dim memory that it doesn't let you fly procedures.

None of the G1000 sims I've run across will do VNAV correctly.

SmallJet wrote: Question Set 4: PilotEdge Functionality

k) When I use PE and connect it to my FS (FS = FSX or X-Plane), does PE override the FS Scenery displayed on my monitor to show its own rendered Scenery, or will I still see the Scenery being driven from the FS application?

l) I care far more about developing actual VFR/IFR and Radio Communications procedures and skill sets. Still, I'd like to be able to look outside the cockpit and see actual geography that is representative of the real topology being overflown by my aircraft. Which of the two flight simulators (FSX or X-Plane) offers the best En Route topological representation?

m) Which FS (FS = FSX or X-Plane) offers the best Airport topological representation? (most accurate airport features - runway length, width, slope, lighting, taxiways and longitude/latitude positions, etc. Physical details found in the Airport Facilities Directory or Airnav.com, etc.)

k) your scenery is used. PE doesn't touch scenery.

l) Both have very accurate scenery. Which is "better" is a matter of taste. Some like XP's out-of-the-box scenery better -- but until recently it had crappy (basically non-existent) auto-generated buildings and I believe it still has NO airport scenery -- all of XP's airport scenery is payware or user-contributed. FSX has large numbers of libraries of scenery available, with photo-realistic detail down to 2m resolution on some of them.

m) Both are good. XPlane is more up to date.



References

Garmin G1000 for Embraer Phenom 300 (Prodigy Flight Deck 300)[/quote]

Mark,

You are very much appreciated. Thank you for the help. I think starting to put the pieces of the puzzle together. The more you learn anything the better your questions should be - so here goes.

It appears as though the components required for properly doing at-home computer based simulation are as follows (please correct me if needed):

1) Flight Simulation Software (platform)
2) ATC Simulation Software (platform)
3) Aircraft Model (Plug-In)
4) Weather Model (Plug-in or METAR)
5) Scenery Model (Plug-In)
6) Avionics Model (Plug-in - Optional)

So, here's what I would like to know,if you don't mind. What are the primary functions of each of these components from a technical standpoint? That is to say, what output does each component provide for the entire simulation process. What does each component (individually) bring to the simulation experience?

My Temporary Confusion:

Based on my reading on the web from several different sources, it seems like some of these components have potential overlap issues with the primary component, the Flight Simulator Software itself. My question is about that potential component overlap and how its dealt with in the larger scheme of things. Here's an example of part of my confusion.

Mystery #1: Third-Party Weather & Scenery Conflict with what the Flight Simulator Weather & Scenery

Take the Weather and Scenery Models as just one example of potential overlap. If you decide to use third-party Weather and Scenery Models respectively, what happens to the Weather and Scenery that is a natural part of the Flight Simulation Software platform? Does it get suppressed? Does it somehow get integrated into third-party models at runtime?

Mystery #2: Third-Party Scenery & Weather coverage -vs- Primary Flight Simulator Weather & Scenery coverage

If you install third-party Weather and Scenery, you effectively have two (2) solutions for Weather and Scenery on your hard-drive. The Flight Simulator Weather and Scenery is obviously the default and it will cover the entire planet. What happens if I install third-party modules for Weather and Scenery that cover only California (as just one example) and I fly outside the boundary layer of that third-party module?

Let's say I have third-party Northern California Weather and Scenery installed and in use and have selected conditions for low level clouds and rain near the California/Oregon boarder. What happens when I fly the aircraft across that boarder - does the screen automatically switch to the default Flight Simulator Weather and Scenery? (it would seem so)

Mystery #3: Available Instrument Approaches and Available NavData

I might be getting slightly ahead of myself by asking too many questions about IFR flying, without actually having done more homework on the subject. However, since I am considering the use of either PilotEdge or VATSIM as one method for both VFR and IFR procedures skills development prior to re-starting my actual private pilots flight training, I think it might be important for me to understand this next subject area a bit more.

You mentioned above that qualitative/quantitative nature of my IFR/IMC experience would be dependent upon several factors with the Aircraft Model, Avionics Model and Flight Simulator Model (my emphasis added) being contributing factors. How do I go about insuring (if possible) that I am receiving the most optimal and realistic IFR Departures and Approaches and the most complete (realistic) simulated NavData?

I ask this question because I've been a Trainer before in a different life and I know how difficult it can be to be forced to unlearn bad habits. If I am constantly using IFR Departure and Approach simulation procedures that are incomplete, half-baked, partial, unrealistic or just flat out wrong because someone did not design the simulation appropriately, then I could be learning bad habits that I carry with me into my future Instrument Flight Training (not something I want to have to unlearn). For this reason, this becomes a very important question for me and for all future Instrument rated pilots - I would imagine.

In other words, I'm not contemplating the use of Flight Simulation just fun and games.

G1000:

Thank you for your tip.

I found a couple Phenom 300 FSX options out there, but not many X-Plane. It seems as though developer are more into FSX than X-Plane, though I have seen some really nice X-Plane content on the web. That lead you gave me on the Phenom 100 with the G1000 was very nice - thank you. The Prodigy Flight Deck 300, is the G1000 with Phenom 300 customization - so, using the Phenom 100 G1000 solution should not place me that far away from the G1000 procedures for the 300.

Best Regards,
SmallJet

Mystery #1: Third-Party Weather & Scenery Conflict with what the Flight Simulator Weather & Scenery

Take the Weather and Scenery Models as just one example of potential overlap. If you decide to use third-party Weather and Scenery Models respectively, what happens to the Weather and Scenery that is a natural part of the Flight Simulation Software platform? Does it get suppressed? Does it somehow get integrated into third-party models at runtime?

Mystery #2: Third-Party Scenery & Weather coverage -vs- Primary Flight Simulator Weather & Scenery coverage

If you install third-party Weather and Scenery, you effectively have two (2) solutions for Weather and Scenery on your hard-drive. The Flight Simulator Weather and Scenery is obviously the default and it will cover the entire planet. What happens if I install third-party modules for Weather and Scenery that cover only California (as just one example) and I fly outside the boundary layer of that third-party module?

Let's say I have third-party Northern California Weather and Scenery installed and in use and have selected conditions for low level clouds and rain near the California/Oregon boarder. What happens when I fly the aircraft across that boarder - does the screen automatically switch to the default Flight Simulator Weather and Scenery? (it would seem so)

These can both be resolved with a single response, I think.

I can speak authoritatively about FSX, and have a not-perfectly-confident assumption that XP10 works the same way. 3rd party scenery does indeed "override" the default scenery. In FSX there is a specific control panel that tells the simulator which scenery should take precedence for a give location. That is, if more than one set of scenery is present for a geographical area, you specify the priority for which scenery set should be used, and FSX displays the appropriate scenery as needed.

I do not know what happens in XPlane if more than one set of scenery is present for a given location -- I've not spent enough time with that simulator to know. Most of the 3rd party scenery available for XP seems to be focused on airports.

There is probably 20x as much scenery available for FSX vs. XP at this point in time.

For FSX, 3rd party weather plugins automatically change FSX weather settings to 'Custom' and then inject the weather themselves. Note that there are really two separate things going on in FSX with respect to weather and 3rd party add-ons: the weather itself, and the graphical textures used to depict the weather. Large add-on products like REX and ActiveSky 2012 supply both textures and a weather engine. When you install either of those products you select a texture set that you want installed (which replaces the standard set of textures used by FSX). That's a one-time operation (or an infrequent operation; you can choose to have a different combination of textures installed any time you want. Both packages supply a LOT of different textures, usually grouped into "themes" of some sort). Separately, each of them have a weather engine which runs in real-time as a plug-in and pulls METARs from the internet to display the weather you'd really be seeing out the window of the airplane. FSX has the ability to pull "real" weather as well, but it's ability to properly interpolate weather between station A and station B is simply terrible. By all means, plan on getting a weather add-on. If you truly want the BEST (and most accurate) weather depiction, buy REX Essentials (which has wonderful textures) and buy OpusFSX (which has the best weather engine for FSX that exists). Install REX textures, but disable it's weather engine. Instead, run OpusFSX as your weather engine. It's uncanny how good this combo is.

XPlane 10 has its own weather engine that is much better than the stock FSX version (though not, in my opinion, quite as good as the REX/OpusFSX combo) -- but it's still very good and very nice looking. In particular, XP's depiction of rain is beautiful.

Bottom line: yes, 3rd party add-ons override the base simulator's functionality for weather and scenery, and scenery (in FSX, anyway) gets used with the priority you assign for a given geographical area.

Mystery #3: Available Instrument Approaches and Available NavData

I might be getting slightly ahead of myself by asking too many questions about IFR flying, without actually having done more homework on the subject. However, since I am considering the use of either PilotEdge or VATSIM as one method for both VFR and IFR procedures skills development prior to re-starting my actual private pilots flight training, I think it might be important for me to understand this next subject area a bit more.

You mentioned above that qualitative/quantitative nature of my IFR/IMC experience would be dependent upon several factors with the Aircraft Model, Avionics Model and Flight Simulator Model (my emphasis added) being contributing factors. How do I go about insuring (if possible) that I am receiving the most optimal and realistic IFR Departures and Approaches and the most complete (realistic) simulated NavData?

I want to emphasize again that learning instrument procedures has almost nothing to do with the simulator itself. Both FSX and XP correctly model all of the modern navigational aids -- NDB's (non-directional beacons), VOR's (VHF Omni-directonal Range) , localizers and localizer/glideslope (i.e., ILS - instrument landing system) equipment. Both FSX and XP also model the GPS satellite constellation by making a continuous 3D position fix (i.e., lat/long/altitude) available through an API. In order to use any of these navaids, airplanes need to model the corresponding navigation avionics (ADF receivers, VOR receivers, ILS receivers, GPS receivers). Not every aircraft has all of these. Some aircraft have more than one of them (it's very common to have two VOR receivers, for example). The simulator models the navaid transmissions; the aircraft models the navaid receivers. You will have to pick an aircraft that has the combination of navaids you want to use when flying IFR.

That said, the published instrument flight procedures are completely independent of both things (in a way) -- they describe how to use a particular navaid (or set of navaids) to depart an airport, to fly enroute from one location to another, to approach an airport for landing, and what to do if the approach doesn't go as expected (a "missed" approach). Instrument flight training consists of learning how to use your primary flight instruments for keeping the aircraft oriented correctly, and for using the avionics to navigate from place to place (some of which you learn in primary flight training).

Instrument flying is a team sport -- you don't (generally) do it alone. The "team" is you and the team of air-traffic controllers on the ground. This is what makes PE so valuable (and to a lesser degree, in my opinion, VATSIM). You can practice the mechanics of, say, a VOR approach within either simulator by yourself -- but you're not simulating the entire IFR experience by any means if you do that. For the full, real-world experience you MUST be talking to ATC from the time you call for clearance delivery to the time you say "thank you" to ground control on your taxi to parking, and PE is by far the best way to achieve this part of the experience. The experience you'll have talking to ATC on PE is, for all practical purposes, identical to the experience you'd have talking to ATC on a real-world flight to/from the same origin/destination. Not kinda-sorta the same -- identical. If you correctly fly an instrument procedure on PE, you have learned to fly it in the real-world as well. You haven't necessarily honed your flight skills or your aircraft systems knowledge , but you have learned the proper communications procedures and the nuts-and-bolts of flying the instrument departure, enroute, and approach procedures.

You will not develop any bad habits that have to be unlearned by flying on PE -- just the opposite.

-M.

Hello Mark,

Thanks again for the detailed feedback! I really appreciate the help. Because there were not many replies to my post here, I decided to go over to the X-Plane forum to begin my evaluation of that flight simulator and to see if I could get some of my questions answered about that product. So, I'm just now getting back to this forum.

Mark Hargrove wrote:I do not know what happens in XPlane if more than one set of scenery is present for a given location -- I've not spent enough time with that simulator to know. Most of the 3rd party scenery available for XP seems to be focused on airports.

When I look for Scenery for X-Plane 10, I basically find RealScenery and some individual Developers that place their products on the X-Plane forums. The "Inside Passage" scenery produced for X-Plane 10 looks really good and it requires the X-Plane 10 base Global Scenery as its foundation - so it apparently enhances what's already ships with X-Plane 10. Other than that, I don't see a lot more really high praise Scenery add-ons for X-Plane 10.

Mark Hargrove wrote: There is probably 20x as much scenery available for FSX vs. XP at this point in time.

I had it closer to 10x after my research. If you know of some vendors and sources that I might have missed, please let me know.

Mark Hargrove wrote: For FSX, 3rd party weather plugins automatically change FSX weather settings to 'Custom' and then inject the weather themselves. Note that there are really two separate things going on in FSX with respect to weather and 3rd party add-ons: the weather itself, and the graphical textures used to depict the weather.

Can you tell me where I can find these two (2) distinctions on the file system? I have FSX Deluxe (Non-Accelerated) installed, but I'd like to see what the "Texture" files look like, as opposed to the "Weather" files, because I never knew there was any difference in how the Weather was delivered to the screen. I'll also check the file system on my own, to see if I see a folder called "Texture" and/or "Weather." Hopefully, locating them will be just that easy.

Mark Hargrove wrote: Separately, each of them have a weather engine which runs in real-time as a plug-in and pulls METARs from the internet to display the weather you'd really be seeing out the window of the airplane. FSX has the ability to pull "real" weather as well, but it's ability to properly interpolate weather between station A and station B is simply terrible.

Nice to know that METARs can be read-in and used dynamically. I did see this feature in FSX, but have not used it yet. I never knew it had a problem with mid-station interpolation, however.

Mark Hargrove wrote: By all means, plan on getting a weather add-on. If you truly want the BEST (and most accurate) weather depiction, buy REX Essentials (which has wonderful textures) and buy OpusFSX (which has the best weather engine for FSX that exists). Install REX textures, but disable it's weather engine. Instead, run OpusFSX as your weather engine. It's uncanny how good this combo is.

I've heard a lot about both REX Essentials and OpusFSX, but never in that context before. I've never heard anyone make the REX texture to OpusFSX engine union before, so I'll definitely look into it.

Mark Hargrove wrote: XPlane 10 has its own weather engine that is much better than the stock FSX version (though not, in my opinion, quite as good as the REX/OpusFSX combo) -- but it's still very good and very nice looking. In particular, XP's depiction of rain is beautiful.

This is also what I hear. I'm told that X-Plane 10's handling of Clouds is superior to FSX and more realistic. Fore example, when penetrating Fog or a Cloud base, X-Plane 10 shows a gradual clearing of the cloud structure, while the cloud simply vanishes from the screen in FSX, failing to show a realistic transition from thick to thin cloud density.

How true has that experience been with your set-up?

Mark Hargrove wrote: Both FSX and XP correctly model all of the modern navigational aids -- NDB's (non-directional beacons), VOR's (VHF Omni-directonal Range) , localizers and localizer/glideslope (i.e., ILS - instrument landing system) equipment. Both FSX and XP also model the GPS satellite constellation by making a continuous 3D position fix (i.e., lat/long/altitude) available through an API.

Well, that's one of the biggest things I've been trying to find out all this time - which component was responsible for handling navaids. Thanks.

What "API" are you referring to in both cases? I've not ever heard of an application programming interface that specifically deals with GPS functionality within either flight simulator platform?

Mark Hargrove wrote: In order to use any of these navaids, airplanes need to model the corresponding navigation avionics (ADF receivers, VOR receivers, ILS receivers, GPS receivers). Not every aircraft has all of these. Some aircraft have more than one of them (it's very common to have two VOR receivers, for example). The simulator models the navaid transmissions; the aircraft models the navaid receivers. You will have to pick an aircraft that has the combination of navaids you want to use when flying IFR.

Ok, then it is just like in real aviation. That's exactly what I needed to know! I just did not know whether or not a different standard of practice as being employed in the virtual world by both flight simulator developers. The way you have laid it out, makes perfect sense and it should be the case that Navaids and Avionics be handled separately.

So, as you say - I have to pick the aircraft with the necessary equipment. Absolutely, no different in the real world. Thanks for handling that question for me - that's been a long standing issue for me and I'm glad it is finally resolved.

Mark Hargrove wrote: That said, the published instrument flight procedures are completely independent of both things (in a way) -- they describe how to use a particular navaid (or set of navaids) to depart an airport, to fly enroute from one location to another, to approach an airport for landing, and what to do if the approach doesn't go as expected (a "missed" approach).

Ok, but - I can still use real published procedures, correct? In other words (as just one example of a "real published procedure"), will I be able to use any FAA approved NDB approach plate, while using either FSX or X-Plane 10? Again, this is just one example of a 'real' published procedure.

Mark Hargrove wrote: Not kinda-sorta the same -- identical. If you correctly fly an instrument procedure on PE, you have learned to fly it in the real-world as well.

Ok, so when you say "identical," do you mean that PilotEdge Controllers are working for the same 'real' published procedures? If we are not working from the same sheet of music on an instrument procedure, they could give me vectors that don't match either my flight simulators navaids, or my aircraft model's ability to track that navaid. So, I just want to be clear - when you say "identical," do you mean that PilotEdge Controllers are only using official sources for their information about the available navaids in the area?

In the real world, I can't use a "procedure" that I made up on my own (an unofficial version), while ATC gives me vectors based on a different understanding about that navaid in question. I just want to make sure that these kinds of glitches are not a permanent part of the PilotEdge experience I receive once I sign up.

Also, can you say the same for VATSIM? Can you say that VATSIM Controllers are also using real published procedures as well? What's your opinion on the comparison between the two ATC platforms in relation to the use of 'real' published procedures? Are there times when either of them do not use the 'real' information (for whatever reason)?

Mark Hargrove wrote: You will not develop any bad habits that have to be unlearned by flying on PE -- just the opposite.

That's what needed to hear! Thanks a bunch for all the help!

Smalljet,

Forgive my lack of responses, but your question set was larger than usual and I wasn't able to commit the time to fully respond. I will make a brief comment, though. 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.

FSX is available for $27 from Amazon. X-Plane 10 is $69. That, and X-Plane can be demoed at no cost. So, your evaluation of the core products will cost $27.

I suspect you can see where this is going...try them both and see which appeals more to you. Certainly, use the forums to find out the best way to configure the sim to your needs, though.

Lastly, regarding procedures, you'll find that changes to instrument approach procedures are few and far between. 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.

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. 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.

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

Regarding your likely experience on VATSIM vs PE, I can help there. VATSIM will save you $15/mth (compared to an annual subscription to PE), but you will give up the following distinguishing features from your flight experience:
- you will not be guaranteed ATC presence during your flight between 8am - 11pm PST
- 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.
- 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.
- you will probably not see or hear any other GA aircraft, nor will there be any aircraft conducting the sort of operations that you're conducting.
- you will have to deal with a mix of text and voice communication.

Hope this helps, good luck with your decision.

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.).

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.

I am not certain if FSX offers similar functionality.

Re Vatsim, you get exactly what you pay for & Vatsim is free.
With Vatsim it very much depends when & where you want to fly. In the past I have spent hours looking for who is online (Vatsim controllers). You find yourself flying where controllers are on line as opposed to flying in an area you want to. Quite often halfway through the flight that they are closing down. Some controllers are helpful & some are not. Their level of expertise is variable. If you are lucky & get a helpfull knowledgable controller they are on a par with PE controllers.
What I much prefer is the added realism you get with the availabillty of ALL delivery/ground/tower etc positions on PE, something you never get on Vatsim.
My personal choice would be to stick with the pro's & go PE for that near to real world experience.

Smalljet wrote: I had it closer to 10x after my research. If you know of some vendors and sources that I might have missed, please let me know.

The 20x number was just a SWAG. I was just estimating how many scenery sets I've seen for FSX vs. XP

Smalljet wrote: Can you tell me where I can find these two (2) distinctions on the file system? I have FSX Deluxe (Non-Accelerated) installed, but I'd like to see what the "Texture" files look like, as opposed to the "Weather" files, because I never knew there was any difference in how the Weather was delivered to the screen. I'll also check the file system on my own, to see if I see a folder called "Texture" and/or "Weather." Hopefully, locating them will be just that easy.

Sorry, but I don't know where they are on the filesystem. I never needed to look for them. The distinction I was making was this: the weather "texture" files are used to actually display clouds, fog, etc. The 'weather' files are the current weather observations that are used to decide what textures to display. The two big "environmental" products (REX and ActiveSky 2012) have huge collections of environmental textures (runways, concrete aprons, grass, clouds, water, etc.) AND, separately, a weather engine to pull in METARs to know what cloud types and layers to display, as well as telling FSX what other conditions are (temperature, wind magnitude and direction, etc.).

Smalljet wrote: Nice to know that METARs can be read-in and used dynamically. I did see this feature in FSX, but have not used it yet. I never knew it had a problem with mid-station interpolation, however.

Also,do a google search on "FSX winds aloft bugs" -- the OpusFSX add-on is working very hard (mostly successfully) to solve this long-standing problem with FSX.

Smalljet wrote: I'm told that X-Plane 10's handling of Clouds is superior to FSX and more realistic. Fore example, when penetrating Fog or a Cloud base, X-Plane 10 shows a gradual clearing of the cloud structure, while the cloud simply vanishes from the screen in FSX, failing to show a realistic transition from thick to thin cloud density.

How true has that experience been with your set-up?

It's largely true -- XPlane 10 does a better out-of-the-box job with weather and FSX. That's not surprising -- FSX has had no direct development done on it in 10 years. Add-ons like OpusFSX narrow the difference, but if great weather depiction is your number-one driver, XP is superior.

Smalljet wrote:
What "API" are you referring to in both cases? I've not ever heard of an application programming interface that specifically deals with GPS functionality within either flight simulator platform?

It's not a GPS-specific API for either. Both sims have a full API for third-parties to interact with the simulator. In FSX it's called 'SimConnect'. I don't know if it has its own name in XP -- think it might just be called the "API".

Smalljet wrote:
Ok, but - I can still use real published procedures, correct? In other words (as just one example of a "real published procedure"), will I be able to use any FAA approved NDB approach plate, while using either FSX or X-Plane 10? Again, this is just one example of a 'real' published procedure.

Yes, as Keith said in an earlier post -- you use the real-world published approaches.

You now have enough information to know that training with either FSX or XP is going to help you further your aviation career. There are trade-offs between the two simulators (and just to make things even more complicated for you, Lockheed-Martin acquired the rights to FSX source code and has published an enhanced version of FSX called 'Prepar3d' that's gaining some momentum -- it's not an "entertainment" product, and is more expensive than FSX or XP (about $200), but it has removed quite a number of the bugs and stability issues that has plagued FSX over the years).

Keith's advice is right-on -- install *both* FSX (with at least SP2 or the Acceleration Pack) *and* XP10, start a trial with PilotEdge, and fly both sims for a couple of weeks using just a typical trainer (so that you're not messing with complex aircraft to confuse things). Find out the differences in the sims for yourself and see which you like better. Keith, and many others, are long devotees of XPlane. I'm more of an FSX fan, but trying to make the conversion to XP10 because I think it's likely the long-term solution to home-based simulators.

After you settle on one or the other (or, heck -- don't settle on one or the other -- I jump back and forth between them all the time), one of the next stages is to increase the fidelity of your simulator by adding hardware -- a real yoke instead of a joystick, rudder pedals, radio and autopilot stacks (like those available from Saitek), and so forth.

Time to quit researching and start flying!

-M.

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.