FSX Discussion

[WynnTTr]

It takes about 40-70 flight hours to get your private pilot's license, another 50 or so for your instrument, and tack on 2,500 more for your ATP. What do you think pilots are learning during all those hours?

The plane was relatively easy to fly. RL battle of britain pilots were rushed to the front with only 9 hours flight time in the Spit. Then they were thrown in the deep end and sent up to intercept the Luftwaffe.

Most of the Few were school leavers who didn't know a rats arse about flying. They had a week or two in the Tiger moth to learn the basics then had their 9 hours, then were assigned to a fighter squadron.

 

 

So once you've done a few cuban-eights and you feel like you've mastered it, go ahead and try an IFR approach at night in bad weather with a gyro failure, when suddenly your governor fails and your oil pressure starts plummeting. Have you mastered the plane enough to manage this situation (without pausing)? Do you understand the mechanics of your engine, the Federal Aviation Regulations, and the dynamics of your airplane well enough to fly safely and legally under these conditions?

Haven't done it in a Spit, but I've done it in the BS and A-10. Also tried the big planes in FSX. So when I've finally done that in the Spit have I mastered it? This is just another step that you'll just learn. There is no real competition.

 

But to each their own.

[Stretch]

The plane was relatively easy to fly. RL battle of britain pilots were rushed to the front with only 9 hours flight time in the Spit. Then they were thrown in the deep end and sent up to intercept the Luftwaffe.

Most of the Few were school leavers who didn't know a rats arse about flying. They had a week or two in the Tiger moth to learn the basics then had their 9 hours, then were assigned to a fighter squadron.

 

Yes, but that was during the Blitzkrieg. Times were a little different then. Just because you can take a 9-hour greenhorn and stick him in front of an Me-109 does not mean that nine hours is all it takes to learn the secrets of the Spitfire.

 

Like I said previously, FSX isn't about competition, it's about mastery. And pride thereof.

[Steel Jaw]

Meh.

[WynnTTr]

Yes, but that was during the Blitzkrieg. Times were a little different then. Just because you can take a 9-hour greenhorn and stick him in front of an Me-109 does not mean that nine hours is all it takes to learn the secrets of the Spitfire.

 

Like I said previously, FSX isn't about competition, it's about mastery. And pride thereof.

Yes it does. They had to learn the ins and outs of the Spit fast. Real fast. If not master it they had to become really, really good at flying it. They learnt more in their first COMBAT sortie than hours of acrobatic practice - that's a fact acknowledged by them.

The ones that survived the first 5 sorties had their survival rate go up exponentially. They then became true masters of their aircraft - able to cope with ANY situation to which combat was the major part.

 

You cannot master the Spitfire, a fighter aircraft designed as a fighter aircraft without going into combat.

 

Give me 9 hours straight in a FSX Spit and I guarantee you I can probably accomplish whatever flying scenario you throw at me. Put me up there against a seasoned 109 pilot (virtual ofc) and I'd probably get shot down promptly.

[Stretch]

Well, that's an interesting challenge. Do I have to tell you beforehand what I think up, or can it be a surprise? >:D

[empeck]

Michal I can't wait till your F-104 Starfighter makes it to the A2A Accusim show!!!!

 

:)

[MTFDarkEagle]

Michal I can't wait till your F-104 Starfighter makes it to the A2A Accusim show!!!!

+1!!

[Succellus]

Yes it does. They had to learn the ins and outs of the Spit fast. Real fast. If not master it they had to become really, really good at flying it. They learnt more in their first COMBAT sortie than hours of acrobatic practice - that's a fact acknowledged by them.

The ones that survived the first 5 sorties had their survival rate go up exponentially. They then became true masters of their aircraft - able to cope with ANY situation to which combat was the major part.

 

You cannot master the Spitfire, a fighter aircraft designed as a fighter aircraft without going into combat.

 

Give me 9 hours straight in a FSX Spit and I guarantee you I can probably accomplish whatever flying scenario you throw at me. Put me up there against a seasoned 109 pilot (virtual ofc) and I'd probably get shot down promptly.

 

+1.

Thats part of my point.

Flying fooling around is easy compared to survival in a combat situation. Civ.FS are focused on fooling around and ATC, they are a diferent kind.

If engine and airframe time stress were so important they would have been done in Mil.FS.

Althought flying in Civ.FS may have some use in Mil.FS. Discounting ATC, a Mil.FS flyer will be much more proficient then a Civ.FS flyer on the same vector.

You may have failure at will in a Civ.FS, but in Mil.FS you get failures when you really don t want them :D , and the kind you will never have in a Civ.FS

But each one its kind, some people enjoy simply milling around and enjoy the scenery some don t.

 

just a last needle stab, as someone sayd:

Flying is easy, keeping itself alive in a combat situation ain t.

The same way WW2 pilot where rushed with almost no hours of flying, you get the kid arrested last year that flew planes without any training, and the very sad 9/11.

[Succellus]

Meh.

Meh on what aspect ? Can you be more precise ? Or maybe elaborate more ?

[Succellus]

Flying coffin must be interesting to fly not many sims featuring it.

[Stretch]

Alright, Succellus, WynnTTr, it's clear you guys think that because you fly combat sims you're sierra hotel when it comes to FSX. I'm willing to extend a challenge that will test your airmanship, your precision, your CRM, your ability to read and understand POHs and charts, and your knowledge of airspace and procedures. Just give me a chance to purchase the AccuSim Spit first and come up with something sufficiently devious.

[aaron886]

Alright, Succellus, WynnTTr, it's clear you guys think that because you fly combat sims you're sierra hotel when it comes to FSX. I'm willing to extend a challenge that will test your airmanship, your precision, your CRM, your ability to read and understand POHs and charts, and your knowledge of airspace and procedures. Just give me a chance to purchase the AccuSim Spit first and come up with something sufficiently devious.

 

Either situation has its challenges, but between instrument flying and rote memorization of the manual, and max performing an aircraft with your head outside the cockpit in a (simulated) combat environment, I'll say the latter is more difficult.

 

Also CRM has nothing to do with it... Let me know how well you do fitting multiple crewmembers into a Mk 1 Spitfire. :lol: I see you've learned to spout buzzwords like a good armchair pilot always does. :smilewink:

[Blaze]

[MTFDarkEagle]

Accusim Spitfire has been released!

And it's awsome!!!!!!

[Stretch]

Also CRM has nothing to do with it... Let me know how well you do fitting multiple crewmembers into a Mk 1 Spitfire. :lol: I see you've learned to spout buzzwords like a good armchair pilot always does. :smilewink:

 

When I was a student pilot, my flight instructor told me that CRM can stand for "cockpit resource management" and refers to basically "juggling all the balls." It means proficiency at managing multiple tasks simultaneously, and using the tools you need (maps, checklists, gauges, eyeballs) efficiently.

 

Anyway, now I've got my license so I'm out of the armchair.

 

Also: Rote memorization of the manual does not give you good technique. You could memorize the POH, if for example you wanted to know off the top of your head whether you are landing within max demonstrated crosswind limits, but that does not teach you how to make a safe crosswind landing. Any challenge I make will require no rote memorization, only practiced skill.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Stretch

[aaron886]

When I was a student pilot, my flight instructor told me that CRM can stand for "cockpit resource management" and refers to basically "juggling all the balls." It means proficiency at managing multiple tasks simultaneously, and using the tools you need (maps, checklists, gauges, eyeballs) efficiently.

 

Anyway, now I've got my license so I'm out of the armchair.

 

Also: Rote memorization of the manual does not give you good technique. You could memorize the POH, if for example you wanted to know off the top of your head whether you are landing within max demonstrated crosswind limits, but that does not teach you how to make a safe crosswind landing. Any challenge I make will require no rote memorization, only practiced skill.

 

 

Either you've forgotten, or your instructor taught you wrong. (No offense.) It stands for Crew Resource Management. You could have said SRM, or Single-Pilot Resource Management, which is the challenge of handling all of the duties associated with the flight by one's self.

 

I do believe you have that PPL... you make it very clear with your choice of subject matter. :smilewink: POH, max demonstrated crosswind, etc. When you make your challenge, make sure you include something more challenging than private pilot knowledge. :D

 

Either way, I think you'll find someone who is fully capable at combat flying in a simulator is generally also relatively capable with "heads down" flying, provided they're comfortable with the simulator. Put a capable combat sim pilot in say, a VATSIM environment, and he'll survive and probably do alright. Put a VATSIM autopilot-aholic in a 10-plane furball in IL-2, or a 2v2 in Falcon... and start counting on one hand. :megalol:

 

Sorry, I'm a terrible tease...

[Stretch]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Resource_Management -- the article claims both definitions of CRM are correct and never once implies that CRM is entirely working as a team with your flight crew.

 

The main point, I think, is that most of the people who say "meh" to civilian flight simulators are not fully capable combat sim pilots either. If you truly wanted to be master of your bird, you would study and practice its envelope in both combat and non-combat situations. And if that appealed to you, then you would have fun with the challenges FSX provides. If you think those non-combat challenges are boring, then chances are you're not becoming very proficient in airmanship things like, say, short-field landings in DCS: Warthog, rather spending all your time becoming proficient in putting depleted uranium into tanks.

 

Of course, being a skilled aerial gunner isn't a bad thing, but good airmanship is about the whole package, skill in every situation fate can throw at you. (Lord knows I don't have it yet.) And FSX provides you with a diverse portfolio of challenges fate can throw at you. Just because you never press a trigger doesn't mean they are any less important to a combat pilot.

[aaron886]

"Crew" Resource Management is much more widely used in professional settings... and is technically the "correct" term. (Historically, even!) Your Wikipedia article describes it as "interpersonal... within an organized system." The resources in question are typically crewmembers, but also might refer to an FMS, ATC, and other pilot aids.

 

CRM is concerned not so much with the technical knowledge and skills required to operate equipment but rather with the cognitive and interpersonal skills needed to manage resources within an organized system.

Instead of trusting Wikipedia, I would definitely do a broad search instead, and see how the term is really used by people who coined it, or utilize it daily. This is a much better explanation: http://www.airlinesafety.com/editorials/CRM-InstructorsView.htm

 

I don't think that it's fair to say that people who discount civilian flight simulators are not fully capable... that's a pretty brutal generalization. I would only even look at a sim pilot from either genre who could be considered competent.

 

As much as there are DCS:A-10C users who just start airborne and gun tanks, there are just as many (or more) FSX users who just air start in a Cessna and bank around until crashing. That A-10C user probably has a better knowledge of aircraft handling than the FSX user, because he's employing his aircraft with a purpose. I think you would agree that 90% of flying in FSX is without much of a purpose... just to takeoff and land, maybe somewhere different from the place you started.

 

Now consider a competent pilot from each genre. A competent FSX pilot may use a technically complex payware aircraft, working in a somewhat-realistic simulated ATC environment, taking off from one airport and landing at another. He may deal with somewhat-realistic weather along the way. In landing the aircraft, he will probably use realistic navigation systems, and may need to perform an instrument landing.

 

Apply the situation to a sim pilot using Falcon 4:AF. He's clearly flying a very technically complex aircraft with regard to systems, but even more so with regard to avionics. If flying with an online squadron, he may be employing somewhat-realistic procedures and tactics for arrival and departure from an airfield. Enroute, he's not twiddling with the autopilot and then stepping back, he's probably engaged in monitoring threats, sanitizing airspace, monitoring his flight (and possibly flying formation,) and managing weapons systems. On top of that, after navigating back to his airfield, he may have to perform an instrument approach as well, using fairly realistic systems.

 

The tradeoffs are there, but I think the more technically demanding choice is the combat simulator, and I think most importantly, there is more room to expand into more technically challenging situations using a combat simulator.

 

I feel that civilian flight simulators have not generally held as much appeal for me personally in the past, because I would consider most of the flying in them to be "basic." There's a reason every military jock starts with a small aircraft and earns the equivalent of a private pilot's license, and learns skills related to civilian operations long before getting to the fighting aspect.

 

I settled on virtual (jet) aerobatics as my choice... a medium between non-combat and and combat flying that requires the utmost precision and attention to detail.

Edited January 27, 2011 by aaron886

[Ssnake51]

Personally I greatly enjoy both civilian and combat flight simulators.

 

I don't quite get why some here are so turned off or bored by civvie sims like FSX. But, to each their own, I guess.:unsure:

 

Am glad that both types are available.

[Jinro]

I don't quite get why some here are so turned off or bored by civvie sims like FSX.

 

They're ADD and can't focus unless stuff is being blown up.

[aaron886]

There's really only two civilian simulators I can think of... FSX and X-Plane.

 

FSX is horribly optimized and brings most computers to their knees... the flight dynamics are often poor, and the netcode is simply awful.

 

X-Plane is rough around the edges, with a tiny community and mostly poor addon quality. The netcode is essentially nonexistant.

 

For me personally, that's enough to disqualify both from being long-term entertainment... especially the net code. I'm not turned off or bored of the genre, but I am sick of the sub-par simulators. If there was a simulator with the performance of IL-2, the flight dynamics/systems/net code of DCS, and the world and open-architecture of FSX, I would be satisfied with that simulator and never need another. And last I checked, I'm not ADD.

Edited January 27, 2011 by aaron886

[Stretch]

aaron886: F4:AF and FSX are VERY different in terms of the non-combat procedures and navigation systems used. F4:AF has huge gaps when it comes to radionavigation in particular.

 

Examples:

 

An FSX pilot flying, say, PMDG 747, for a typical mission, will receive an IFR clearance, taxi to the runway, takeoff, fly a DP, then a transition to an airway where he will be handed over to center. He'll fly along the airways until he reaches his destination, where he will transition to a STAR which takes him to his approach.

 

For a typical mission, an F4:AF pilot will receive a runway to taxi to, then takeoff in any old direction and proceed direct to his next steerpoint. He'll fly the mission, blow some stuff up, then come home by pointing his nose at home plate, descending, and calling tower 20 miles out for some vectoring to base and then final.

 

Compare this to real military flying, with its intensive use of TACAN and ILS and let-down plates and DPs/STARs.

 

Look at the missions in available in FSX, vs. the missions in, say, DCS: Warthog. In FSX you will be landing a Cessna in a 500-foot-long mountain strip, landing a Maule above its service ceiling, wrestling with a King Air with a vacuum and engine failure while on short final in LIFR conditions, and landing a stunt Cub on a moving bus. (These are all missions included with stock FSX.)

 

In F4:AF and DCS: Warthog, for example, people will only ever take off from and land on runways of ample size, and will not feel the need to adhere to airspace or routing procedures, at least not nearly as much as they do in the real military. The capability is obviously in the game engine but the combat simmers don't feel the need to push their jet in that way.

 

Now obviously, you say, "Yeah but in DCS: Warthog you will play hide-and-seek with an SA-5." And I get that that also tests you as a pilot; I'm not trying to say it doesn't. I'm just trying to say that the set of skills you hone as a combat sim pilot is not a total superset of those you gain as a civvie sim pilot. In other words, an experienced FSX pilot could probably still teach an experienced DCS: Warthog pilot plenty of things.

[aaron886]

I'm just trying to say that the set of skills you hone as a combat sim pilot is not a total superset of those you gain as a civvie sim pilot. In other words, an experienced FSX pilot could probably still teach an experienced DCS: Warthog pilot plenty of things.

 

Fair enough, if the contrary is also true. I was providing scenarios in which I weighted the complexities of combat simulation, just as you did with civil aviation. However, the vac/engine failure you mentioned for a King Air is even more a strength of DCS:A-10C... consider battle damage and systems degradation in the simulator! Most of those are things you CAN do in most combat simulators, if you create the situation. (ie... high altitude operations, short field operations.) Maybe not landing the Jelly Belly Cub on a truck... but that isn't really my cup of tea. :D

 

As far as radio/instrument navigation goes, that's certainly a strength of FSX over most combat simulators, but I wouldn't say so over A-10C, except with the regard to FSX's more "advanced" ATC simulation. (Which I think is crap.) VATSIM changes that of course. In the end, to me, that's all very routine. Interesting now and then, and certainly I would fly that way if DCS:A-10C allowed it, but it isn't make or break. I don't start up a simulator to do practice approaches in IMC. I loved instrument when I was getting the rating, but if I had an airplane for a day, I wouldn't spend the day in clouds.... that's the general idea.

[WynnTTr]

Alright, Succellus, WynnTTr, it's clear you guys think that because you fly combat sims you're sierra hotel when it comes to FSX. I'm willing to extend a challenge that will test your airmanship, your precision, your CRM, your ability to read and understand POHs and charts, and your knowledge of airspace and procedures. Just give me a chance to purchase the AccuSim Spit first and come up with something sufficiently devious.

I play games as a release and as a medium to let my imagination run free. I slay dragons, throw fireballs, participate in wars and see how good I would be as a combat flyer.

 

But play to simulate routine? No thanks. All those things you mentioned will become routine to any pilot. If I really wanted that I would just sign up with my local flight club and do the real thing. Sorry but my imagination just refuses to factor in routine, rules, regulations, protocols. I get enough of that in the real world.

But to sign up as a real Spitfire pilot going up against hundreds of enemy aircraft....

 

I've tried the civilian flight scene. Fun landing the big jumbos when I first got FS04, it became boring fast even with testing myself with different emergency scenarios.

 

This is an ages old argument but to each their own but as others have stated here - a combat pilot can probably deal with any situation that a civilian pilot can throw at them. Simply because to be good at your game you have to know your aircraft intimately anyway. It's just that a combat pilot, IMO, does find the routine boring. Why be forced to follow it when you can avoid it?

 

I agree though - to be a true master of your aircraft you have to be able to cope with any situation, mundane flight, emergency procedures etc... but in aircraft designed for combat then it's fairly obvious that to claim that you've 'mastered' that type of aircraft it would have to include....combat.

[Jinro]

If I really wanted that I would just sign up with my local flight club and do the real thing.

 

......you have the money for that?