Best Flight Simulators?

[Mavvrikk]

Just wanted to start a thread about flight sims. Post here the ones that you think are the best and most bang for you buck, here's mine!

#1. X-Plane 9 (Most realistic)
#2. Flight Gear (Pretty realistic, lots of free ad-on planes)
#3. I-L2 Sturmovik 1946 (Great combat flight sim, over 300 planes and great mulitplayer!)

[Pump Scout]

I've put a lot of time into FSX. Picked it up when it was expensive, and thought it was good for the price then. Now that the price has come down a bunch, it adds to that bang-for-the-buck factor.

I do have to try out X-Plane, though. I've been curious to see other flight sims to get a better cross section. The other sims I've used have been FS2 (yeah, back in the Commodore 64 era!) and FS9 on my last computer. The darn machine couldn't run FSX properly, so I took a step back for better flow.

[coudano]

I guess if I don't say Falcon, then I have some explainin to do...

[flyboy53]

Mine is Flight Sim X. I tried X-plane but couldn't get my rudder pedals and yoke to link with the program.

Falcon 4.0 is a great combat simulator. The check lists and manuals give you real insight into the aircraft.

Others that I've tried in the past and liked, however, included Flying I & II and there was for a while a series of Janes combat flight simulators....but my all-time favorite from that era was the B-17

[Thrashed]

If its not a FAA approved flight sim and loggable as a pilot, then its just a desktop computer game. They are fun though. 

[JeffDG]

If its not a FAA approved flight sim and loggable as a pilot, then its just a desktop computer game. They are fun though. 

That's not entirely true.  You can practice a lot of procedures, particularly IFR, in a non-loggable sim...it's all about proficiency, and just because you can't put it in your logbook doesn't mean it's not useful.

[N Harmon]

Be sure to check out the Virtual Air Traffic Simulation Network (Vatsim). A valuable tool for practicing air traffic procedures.

[Thrashed]

If its not a FAA approved flight sim and loggable as a pilot, then its just a desktop computer game. They are fun though. 

That's not entirely true.  You can practice a lot of procedures, particularly IFR, in a non-loggable sim...it's all about proficiency, and just because you can't put it in your logbook doesn't mean it's not useful.

I never said it wasn't useful, I said its not a flight simulator. As a 14,000 hour pilot and instructor I would also argue its usefulness too.

[N Harmon]

I never said it wasn't useful, I said its not a flight simulator. As a 14,000 hour pilot and instructor I would also argue its usefulness too.

Argue its usefulness to you, or to someone with many fewer hours? Like, 3 orders of magnitude.

[Thrashed]

I mean it usefulness as an instruction tool for students. It has limited use and can cause more problems due to negative training. For example, flying without real rudder input/feel. Even if you buy rudder pedals, its not the same. I can list many more.

[N Harmon]

http://www.microsoft.com/Products/Games/FSInsider/freeflight/Pages/FlightSimulatorasaTrainingAid.aspx

[JeffDG]

I mean it usefulness as an instruction tool for students. It has limited use and can cause more problems due to negative training. For example, flying without real rudder input/feel. Even if you buy rudder pedals, its not the same. I can list many more.

Personally, I don't think any sim, up to and including full-motion simulators, can take care of that.

But any sim, right down to the PC type "games" are excellent tools for IFR training/proficiency.  Hell, in IFR, you're trying to divorce yourself from the kinestetic "feel" of the airplane, so the simulator takes care of that perfectly, you can be in a death-spiral and sitting comfortably in your chair with your senses telling you you're straight and level...you have to trust what the instruments are telling you entirely.

[Spaceman3750]

I mean it usefulness as an instruction tool for students. It has limited use and can cause more problems due to negative training. For example, flying without real rudder input/feel. Even if you buy rudder pedals, its not the same. I can list many more.

A CFI friend of my dad that I flew a couple of hours with said the problem he sees with people who play flight sims is that their head is too in the cockpit for VFR flight - they focus more on the instruments than they do the "visual" elements of the flight.

[DakRadz]

I mean it usefulness as an instruction tool for students. It has limited use and can cause more problems due to negative training. For example, flying without real rudder input/feel. Even if you buy rudder pedals, its not the same. I can list many more.

Personally, I don't think any sim, up to and including full-motion simulators, can take care of that.

But any sim, right down to the PC type "games" are excellent tools for IFR training/proficiency.  Hell, in IFR, you're trying to divorce yourself from the kinestetic "feel" of the airplane, so the simulator takes care of that perfectly, you can be in a death-spiral and sitting comfortably in your chair with your senses telling you you're straight and level...you have to trust what the instruments are telling you entirely.

A national "airplane shares" company has an operation here in Ohio which my CAP squadron was allowed to tour (one of their Ops guys is a Maj and Sqd/CC). We were also allowed to experience the flight simulators- full motion, real cockpits, the whole nine yards.

While they said that the motion features would not be activated, not all of the tour guides followed this rule (three groups, three guides). I flew a nice mid-size plane whose name escapes me, but it was amazing- felt just like I was in the air and moving!

Turns out, my guide did not turn on the motion. The pure visuals alone convinced my body we were moving.

Just saying, some of the (12 million USD) full motion simulators do indeed do the job. Also, the company has actually trained pilots via those simulators to the full extent to be rated and proficient, and sent them, with passengers, on their very first flight in the actual aircraft. Talk about an impressive "ground" school

[simon]

I have FSX and found it great for a bit of round dial instrument brush up or if you are proposing to go IMC into an unfamiliar airport and want to try the procedure at your leisure at home first. Keeping the GPS out of sight gets you back in the groove with a pair of needles.

For G1000 proficiency and in the lead up to a check ride, I use Garmin's PC Trainer simulator, which is an excellent simulation of the actual equipment.

Both work with or without my CH Products Flight Sim yoke and pedals.

Of course neither come close to the importance of practicing the real thing with a safety pilot - One can't underestimate the importance of practicing with the additional pilot workload of radios and flying the plane. But they are a good brush up before practice flights, especially on the G1000 where it is more understanding the systems - you'll be on A/P the whole way - Than hand flying the plane.

Speaking of which, I have my abbreviated F5 on Sunday again for the G1000 IFR (Groan! More sim work...)

[Thrashed]

I mean it usefulness as an instruction tool for students. It has limited use and can cause more problems due to negative training. For example, flying without real rudder input/feel. Even if you buy rudder pedals, its not the same. I can list many more.

Personally, I don't think any sim, up to and including full-motion simulators, can take care of that.

But any sim, right down to the PC type "games" are excellent tools for IFR training/proficiency.  Hell, in IFR, you're trying to divorce yourself from the kinestetic "feel" of the airplane, so the simulator takes care of that perfectly, you can be in a death-spiral and sitting comfortably in your chair with your senses telling you you're straight and level...you have to trust what the instruments are telling you entirely.

A national "airplane shares" company has an operation here in Ohio which my CAP squadron was allowed to tour (one of their Ops guys is a Maj and Sqd/CC). We were also allowed to experience the flight simulators- full motion, real cockpits, the whole nine yards.

While they said that the motion features would not be activated, not all of the tour guides followed this rule (three groups, three guides). I flew a nice mid-size plane whose name escapes me, but it was amazing- felt just like I was in the air and moving!

Turns out, my guide did not turn on the motion. The pure visuals alone convinced my body we were moving.

Just saying, some of the (12 million USD) full motion simulators do indeed do the job. Also, the company has actually trained pilots via those simulators to the full extent to be rated and proficient, and sent them, with passengers, on their very first flight in the actual aircraft. Talk about an impressive "ground" school

My company's Boeing simulators by CAE are pretty good. You can feel the cracks in the cement as you taxi across them.

[JeffDG]

But, I'll bet you good money that they cannot simulate the feeling of a co-ordinated turn.

[Huey Driver]

FSX is definitely my favorite. Before I go on a flight lesson, I look at my syllabus and then perform the maneuvers in-game and it does help me very much. It can't really simulate stalls or spins though. It also lacks in glider ops. There's also a lot of good freeware and payware add-ons that make the game much more enjoyable and realistic.

For a glider simulator, the Condor simulator is top in its game.

[Mustang]

But, I'll bet you good money that they cannot simulate the feeling of a co-ordinated turn.

You'd be surprised.