Pilots: What are your opinions about Microsoft Flight Simulator?

Question

And flight simulators in general?

Answer 1

It depends.  Flight simulators in general fly nothing like a real airplane.  Even the full motion sims that airlines use fly nothing like a real airplane.  For new students getting their private, I don't think they help very much, except for maybe getting familiar with what all instruments and avionics in the plane are and how they work.  They certainly don't help with initially learning to fly visually, nor should they be used for that.

Once one gets into instrument flying, simulators are great.  They are typically very unstable and much harder to fly than a real airplane.  That's why many pilots hate them and dismiss any benefits they might have.  It forces you to develop a good instrument scan and learn that less-is-more when it comes to controlling a plane, because if you look away for more than a couple of seconds, you'll be upside down.  I've never had a student have any problems flying, a real plane, just by the instruments if they could master an AST-300 simulator (an archaic simulator that's still used at many flight schools).    

At the airlines, simulators are heavily used.  At many places, you'll do all your initial training, including checkride, in a simulator.  It's helpful because it allows one to learn the plane's and airline's procedures, flows and call-outs in a controlled setting.  By this point, the fact that it flies nothing like a real plane doesn't matter because the basic stick and rudder skills are now second nature.  Personally, I think the fact that they move around is a useless feature.

Answer 2

Pilots tend to become rather polarized when discussing simulation. Some (especially the oldsters) will contemptuously dismiss simulation right off the bat, but others understand the utility and limits of simulation and don't hesitate to engage in it.

Simulation obviously isn't real flight, but various aspects of flight can be simulated to various degrees.  Microsoft Flight Simulator is a miracle of bang for the buck, since it doesn't cost much and provides a very respectable simulation of real flight, given the technical limitations of a desktop PC.  X-Plane is another simulation program that provides great value for the money.  Both can be greatly enhanced with add-ons and can be used on networks to dramatically increase realism and accuracy.  They are not the same as flying a real airplane, but you cannot beat the value (flying a real airplane might well cost hundreds of dollars an hour, depending on various factors).

Microsoft Flight Simulator is especially useful for instrument flight, since instruments are easy to simulate with near-perfect accuracy even on a desktop PC.  It's less useful for visual flight, because a PC screen isn't nearly as informative as large windows in real life (although some enhancements to Flight Simulator, such as multiple screens or TrackIR, can greatly improve this).  You can still learn a lot for either type of flight with this simulator (and X-Plane, for that matter).

Microsoft Flight Simulator is not a certified flight simulator, and some pilots dismiss it for this reason.  However, certification doesn't prove the overall quality of a simulation, it simply allows time in the simulator to be logged officially for certain purposes in certain tightly constrained circumstances.  Often certified simulations are accurate for one specific aspect of flying, for which they are certified, but aren't very good for other aspects that aren't part of the certification; that is, a sim might be certified for practicing instrument flight, but its visual simulation of terrain outside the window or the internal appearance of the cockpit might be dismal.

If you cannot fly, MSFS is a great choice.  If you're a pilot, it's still a great choice, since it's so cheap and easy to use.  If you want to fly eight hours a day but can't afford to do it all in a real plane, you can fly some of the hours in the sim, which is better than nothing.  And simulation can let you fly in ways that are impossible in real life.  Even if you are an airline pilot, you're never going to have a 747 at your disposal to fly anywhere you want; you're only going to get that with a simulator.  And since even full-motion simulators are too expensive to use for "playing" most of the time (to say nothing of the expense of flying a real airplane), MSFS and its ilk are the only choice if you want to fly for anything other than official business.

You can use MSFS to stay in practice for instrument flight, which is useful to many pilots.  The simulation of instruments in MSFS is excellent, especially with appropriate add-ons, and it's enough to help you stay current, although you can't log the time you spend on it in MSFS.  It's a lot cheaper than flying IFR for real just for this purpose (it's also a lot less dangerous, if your instrument skills are rusty or nonexistent).

If you connect MSFS to a network, you can also practice with ATC communications (MSFS has this built-in, but the built-in version of ATC is much less realistic).  With VATSIM or IVAO, you can fly in a virtual world with other pilots and with air traffic controllers who use the same procedures and phraseology as the real world.  It's very useful for practicing radio communications and procedures.

So, in summary, I think that open-minded pilots don't hesitate to use MSFS for fun and for practice.  It's better than not flying at all, and most pilots cannot just walk out to an airplane on a whim and fly it (too impractical, too expensive, etc.).  Even airline pilots can only fly the way their company wants them to fly—if they have a sudden desire to fly their own 737 to the Bahamas, at least they can simulate it with MSFS.

There are some pilots who ridicule any mention of simulation.  I feel sorry for them because their prejudice and obstinacy is preventing them from enjoying a fun pastime.  Sure, it's not a real airplane, but it's as close as you can get, and if flying the real thing isn't always possible, why deprive yourself of an activity that is very similar (and thus also quite fun)?

Answer 3

While MS Flight Simulator do little to none in helping you hand fly the airplane, it can sharpen your navigation skills. FAA approved PC based devices are not much different from MS Flight Simulator.  The very core essential of these two is the instrumentation.  You can practice  and focus on the different navaids on the computer and just let autopilot do the flying.  This inexpensive method certainly will help you understand the procedures invovled tremendously.

Answer 4

Mircrosoft Flight Simulator is c**p.

Flight models are junk, even most payware add-ons do not have the proper flight models.

Built-in multiplayer is no-go either. Most people are total wannabes on there anyways. You need to join VatSim or some other group like that.

There is absoluetly no "feel" of anything. For instruement flying, it's a little useful, but not much for me. And to back up avio, they DO cause bad habits. I was a victim.

Most computer flight simulators are not good for much. Mainly eye candy. They can help you learn the theory side of flying, and maybe get you used to IFR flying but that is it. It won't get you close to knowing how to fly an aircraft nor what to do in emergencies.

Full Motion Flight Simulators are awesome! They are the only simulator worthy the name of "simulator"

Answer 5

I never had any training problems because of Microsoft Flight Sim. It sounds like the other posters are coming up with a defense mechanism to deal with troubles during training.

Although it does not "feel" like a real aircraft for the most part, they are a great tool to practice procedures such as instrument approaches, holding, navigation, autopilot ops., patterns, and emergencies. I do not like the joysticks however since they dont give a realistic feel for the aircraft.

Full-motion simulators are by-far the best, but unless you have a few million to spare stick with the Flight Sim Software.

What you are actually getting for the money is incredible considering how well it can be a training aid during actual training, but in no way should it substitute real aircraft/real simulator experience.

Answer 6

It doesn't work. You need to fly real airplane to learn how to fly.

Answer 7

Real pilots don't give much thought to FSX or other simulators of that type.  Airlines, big corporate operators, and the military use full motion enclosed simulators that are much more powerful learning tools.  Still not the same thing as flying a real airplane in the same conditions.

The main point I would make is that the computer based simulators do not give a very accurate impression of what it is like to fly a real airplane.  They can promote bad habits, and give a prospective pilot a bad start when first taking lessons in a real trainer.

Pilots learn to fly in real airplanes, and it can never be any other way.  I strongly recommend any prospective pilot get some experience in real airplanes before spending much time with the simulator.  The minute you sit in the real airplane, you will see what I mean.

If you have some flight hours, and you want to use the simulator to sharpen your instrument procedures and emergency readiness, please go ahead.  That is what the multi-million-dollar full motion simulators are used for.  But remember you will take your checkrides in real airplanes.

Good luck!

Answer 8

As a pilot it is great for simulated I.F.

If you talking about "still sim" only good for I.F. but if you go to Alteon that is flight training.http://rides.webshots.com/photo/27680009...