Search

Notices
Hangar Talk For non-aviation-related discussion and aviation threads that don't belong elsewhere

Flight Simulator

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 11-05-2008, 09:56 AM
  #21  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: NWA Ramp/Private Pilot
Posts: 76
Default

I've played every version of MSFS sice '95 came out. I'm now on FSX, but I dont use it too much. Between work, school, and real-life flying the need for a daily FS fix got beat out of me.
RmTrice is offline  
Old 11-16-2008, 06:40 AM
  #22  
New Hire
 
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Posts: 9
Default

Tried just about every one too since the Combat FS came out. Don't think I'll ever get sick of them, but I'm biased cuz Chuck Yeager's one of my heroes B-) <3
AOG4FBO is offline  
Old 05-09-2009, 05:21 AM
  #23  
Gets Weekends Off
 
hotshot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: C172 Left
Posts: 642
Default

Bumping to ask if X-Plane really takes 60 gigabytes of hard drive space. I saw it at the store and I was going to buy it, but 60 gigabytes of storage was listed under system requirements. Does it really need that much room or is that just for terrain files?
hotshot is offline  
Old 05-10-2009, 06:04 PM
  #24  
Gets Weekends Off
 
tangoindia's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: E190
Posts: 172
Default

Nah, thats just the min. recommended PC configuration. It does not mean its going to suck 60gigs out of you HD. Nevertheless i would rather recommend MSFS as there are plenty of add-ons.

ti
tangoindia is offline  
Old 05-16-2009, 08:33 PM
  #25  
Big Poppa
 
LeoSV's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Posts: 613
Default

Originally Posted by Cubdriver
X-Plane is too fussy for casual use. MSFS is watered down to make it more approachable. We have an X-Plane sim set up where I teach and I see the same thing going on- people do not have the knowledge to adjust it for best results nor the ability to handle rapid response control inputs. It's like a Frasca on steriods, too fidgety.

Also, an inherent problem with X-Plane is it encourages hobbyists to make airplanes which get posted to the net. Most of them are horrible and you have to be careful which one you download. Only use those made by the author or one of the better model making companies. The Cirrus should be pretty good if it is made by Austin Myers.

The one on the sim you dislike, is it an SR-22?
How is X-plane on instruments? That is the main reason I use MSFS. I usually just set it on 300' ceilings and practice nothing but IMC flying with failed systems, I like to practice holds, and x-wind landings (even though it doesn't feel real, it helps with technique). Since I am flying in clouds most of the time my graphics don't matter as much.
LeoSV is offline  
Old 05-17-2009, 12:01 AM
  #26  
Gets Weekends Off
 
atpwannabe's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Student Pilot
Posts: 2,277
Default

I've used FSX for IMC as well; usually fog and it's the BE-58. Although somewhat realistic, I, too, am using it only for technique.



atp
atpwannabe is offline  
Old 05-18-2009, 11:51 AM
  #27  
Gets Weekends Off
 
ryan1234's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: USAF
Posts: 1,398
Default

I'm still working on that Redbull air race without the arrows... that's a little beyond my skill level right now... and that darn helicopter roof-top thing!!
ryan1234 is offline  
Old 05-19-2009, 12:06 PM
  #28  
Moderator
 
Cubdriver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
Default

Originally Posted by LeoSV
How is X-plane on instruments? That is the main reason I use MSFS. I usually just set it on 300' ceilings and practice nothing but IMC flying with failed systems, I like to practice holds, and x-wind landings (even though it doesn't feel real, it helps with technique). Since I am flying in clouds most of the time my graphics don't matter as much.
I quit buying Flight Sim at version FS2004 but even that version should be fine for instrument work. The problem is how it models flight: it generates flight dynamics based on tabular lookups rather than real-time calculations. I don't know if FSX still has the same weakness but for instrument flying it should be fine.
Cubdriver is offline  
Old 05-20-2009, 07:47 PM
  #29  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Planespotta's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Dream within a dream
Posts: 1,306
Default

Originally Posted by Cubdriver
I don't know if FSX still has the same weakness but for instrument flying it should be fine.
Yeah it does . . . I've flown a CE550 at 70 knots from the outer marker to the threshold without stalling Some (read: most) of the airplane models are completely unrealistic, but I still bum around in a Lear every now and then for fun . . . the C172 and Baron are great for instrument practice, though.
Planespotta is offline  
Old 05-21-2009, 10:44 PM
  #30  
Gets Weekends Off
 
atpwannabe's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Student Pilot
Posts: 2,277
Default

Originally Posted by Planespotta
. . . the C172 and Baron are great for instrument practice, though.

Yepper!!! I just did a four day'er in the Baron; IFR and always at 12K ft.

Ft. Myers to Valdosta, GA
Valdosta to Shreveport
Shreveport to Kansas City (downtown)
KC (downtown) to Dupage
Dupage to Dayton, OH
Dayton, OH to Bowie, MD
Bowie to Elizabeth City
Elizabeth City to Augusta
Augusta to Crystal River
Crystal River to Ft Myers

FWIW, my skills have improved.


atp
atpwannabe is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Longbow64
Part 135
117
07-23-2009 08:46 AM
AmericanEagleFO
Hangar Talk
3
09-10-2008 09:40 PM
vagabond
Major
46
09-02-2008 01:07 PM
AZFlyer
Military
12
08-16-2008 11:36 PM
AV8tr001
Corporate
4
08-15-2008 03:57 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices