ILS Needles

[Nealius]

Ok, I think where I am having the disconnect is with what appears to be two different ILS functionalities: raw and flight director.

[PFunk1606688187]

Yes, flight director is a computer telling you how to fly the ILS based on predetermined constraints, ie. maybe no more than 30 degrees of bank, while the raw data is just that and demands the pilot interpret the data in order to determine how to fly the aircraft.

 

I'm not a huge fan of flight directors myself. I think it puts the pilot into a loop of foregoing active decision making based on strong situational awareness and instead leads people to start making decisions based on the decisions the computer makes for you, ie. just do what the flight director says.

 

My personal experience with flight directors is that it doesn't teach me much about how to fly the airplane without them. Instead of trying to anticipate the changes that occur as you approach glideslope from below for instance and how you need to time a power increase to catch it and not over or under shoot, you're just following a wire and not learning much.

 

Thats my opinion because I think since simmers don't go through normal rigorous long term training in basic aircraft like in real life they are apt to not learn basic aviation skills. I also think that even with those skill over reliance on automated information dulls those skills without a deliberate attempt to bypass them regularly in order to ensure you can fly it manually when battle damage chews up all your lovely little toys.

[Nealius]

It also doesn't help that there isn't much freely available information on instrument procedures. Without actually going through real life instrument certification much of what's done in the sim world is trial and error.

[PFunk1606688187]

Thats why I've come to learn quite a bit from my experience in the FSX community. There are lots of people who are hardcore into the IFR airliner thing, but plenty more who are more than content to do VFR in a Cessna.

 

The beauty of those simple analog aircraft is that they have all the guages for VOR navigation, ILS and DME et al and if you learn how they work you come to understand better the stuff the computers are making easy for you.

 

Most of my simming time has over the years been doing highly unrealistic things in combat simulators. If you try to simulate normal civilian air traffic suddenly you realize that without weapons and enemies, your real task in any scenario is aviating using correct procedures using the instruments that many people tend to ignore in favour of the HUD. Flying a 737 has interestingly made me a better A-10 pilot. :P

[-Pv-]

I have 24 years flying Flight Simulator (I'm sure most of here have some time in it) and over 10 years in the various Falcon iterations.

 

All this gave me a pretty good feel for the flat screen perspective pilots have in sims and how to judge distance and altitude. From just about any angle and distance, I can put the plane on the near end of the runway in any weather if I can see the runway.

 

None of this helps me in learning the systems in the A10 which I consider systems overload. Give me a non-predictive gunsight in WW2 Fighters and I'll nail the guy. When it takes me 20 buttons and tongue twisting hotas combos and having to interpret the results, not so much. I spend more time programming than I do fighting.

 

Oh well... I play it because I do like fidelity in my aircraft and spacecraft. If someone would just modernize Falcon, I would drop A10 like a hot rock. Until then, I'll get what fun I can out of the A10.

 

Now MrP since you like FSX, you might try my SR-71 Blackbird. It will put you to work.

-Pv-

[Nealius]

Falcon has been modernized...it's called BMS ;)

 

Graphics aren't DCS quality, but they run a hell of a lot better. For me DCS is just a non-combat flying simulator with some target practice. I can't fly any actual missions because the game itself is so poorly optimized.

[Headspace]

Also one thing to keep in mind is that LOC sensitivity does not behave in this sim as you would expect it to IRL. In an actual aircraft like the ones the OP and I and others are instrument rated to fly, at the speeds we're normally flying at there is plenty of time to play around in what feels like a large localizer fan (if you will). There is a standard for localizer width at specific ranges that I wont get into here.

Trev:

 

Course guidance is specified to be available +/- 10 degrees 18nm from the transmitter and 35 degrees 10nm from the transmitter. On most approaches you will join the localizer within 10nm (as you know). If you can find an example in DCS where this isn't the case, send me the track file and I will write it up.

It also doesn't help that there isn't much freely available information on instrument procedures. Without actually going through real life instrument certification much of what's done in the sim world is trial and error.

Not necessarily true. The FAA's instrument flying handbook is freely available online and goes through the entire instrument rating curriculum with details on how all of the commonly used navaids (including ILS) work. It is geared towards the civilian environment but there is very little difference other than bugs and quirks in DCS.

 

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/

Edited August 7, 2013 by Headspace

[PFunk1606688187]

None of this helps me in learning the systems in the A10 which I consider systems overload. Give me a non-predictive gunsight in WW2 Fighters and I'll nail the guy.

 

To be fair, the A-10C's systems are frankly beautifully simple to operate in comparison to some others.

 

When I taught a long time Black Shark pilot friend of mine the systems in the A-10 throughout he was constantly saying things like "No ****ing way!" and so on. When he taught me the Black Shark's systems I was jaw dropped and utterly perplexed when he explained the datalink sharing system, which I colourfully dubbed the "fisher price buttons".

 

With that said, the beauty of the A-10 is that you can go as old school as you want. There's a depressible pipper there for a reason. ;) Myself, I like to fly eyes out of the cockpit, mark targets with smoke and vector my friends in on stuff. Flying without TGP is actually a very enjoyable experience, because it forces you to not rely on it, as with many advanced systems. If you build from the ground up and only add a complicated system once you've used the more simple one to some degree of familiarity it becomes a much less taxing experience to learn.

Edited August 7, 2013 by P*Funk

[whartsell]

To be fair, the A-10C's systems are frankly beautifully simple to operate in comparison to some others.

 

When I taught a long time Black Shark pilot friend of mine the systems in the A-10 throughout he was constantly saying things like "No ****ing way!" and so on. When he taught me the Black Shark's systems I was jaw dropped and utterly perplexed when he explained the datalink sharing system, which I colourfully dubbed the "fisher price buttons".

 

With that said, the beauty of the A-10 is that you can go as old school as you want. There's a depressible pipper there for a reason. ;) Myself, I like to fly eyes out of the cockpit, mark targets with smoke and vector my friends in on stuff. Flying without TGP is actually a very enjoyable experience, because it forces you to not rely on it, as with many advanced systems. If you build from the ground up and only add a complicated system once you've used the more simple one to some degree of familiarity it becomes a much less taxing experience to learn.

 

I agree completely you dont really need all the systems to learn good A2G tactics. Actually if you start using all the advanced stuff you never touch on A2G and CAS basics