What's the best realistic flight simulator?
November 29, 2014 10:22 PM Subscribe
My friend's son is planning to join the Navy ROTC with the hope of becoming a pilot. What is the best computer (console?) flight simulator for the purpose of developing those skills? Are there any special peripherals to get? Is there a different answer for piloting drones than piloting traditional aircraft? Helicopters? Thanks.
Best answer: The classics I know of in the field are DCS (in particular their A-10 simulator) and Falcon 4.0 with BMS. Peripherals run the gamut from basic flight sticks all the way up to sophisticated mock cockpits and head-tracking rigs; for a proper simulator setup, the gold standard baseline is a HOTAS flightstick and throttle, like the Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog, and a set of pedals. (CH Pro Pedals are well-regarded.)
That said, two caveats. First, there's no substitute for real time in the air, so he shouldn't expect simulator time on its own to turn him into a fighter jock. Ideally, if he has the resources, I'd recommend he work his way up from unpowered gliders, which are held in many quarters to be the very best way to get rock-solid fundamental flight skills. Maybe check if there's a local club he could fly with?
Second, it may be prudent to remind him that military recruiters will make all manner of promises to get you in the door, but once you sign on the dotted line they really can put you pretty much wherever they need you. Unless he's willing to hazard winding up spending a few years as a reserve generator mechanic or whatever, he may want to look into another way to start flying.
posted by fifthrider at 11:11 PM on November 29, 2014 [2 favorites]
That said, two caveats. First, there's no substitute for real time in the air, so he shouldn't expect simulator time on its own to turn him into a fighter jock. Ideally, if he has the resources, I'd recommend he work his way up from unpowered gliders, which are held in many quarters to be the very best way to get rock-solid fundamental flight skills. Maybe check if there's a local club he could fly with?
Second, it may be prudent to remind him that military recruiters will make all manner of promises to get you in the door, but once you sign on the dotted line they really can put you pretty much wherever they need you. Unless he's willing to hazard winding up spending a few years as a reserve generator mechanic or whatever, he may want to look into another way to start flying.
posted by fifthrider at 11:11 PM on November 29, 2014 [2 favorites]
I don't want to question the question too much here, but at least for drone pilots, the services are consistently falling short of their recruiting and training goals -- because it's a stressful, unrewarding job with what pilots feel is a career dead-end. So it may not matter too much in that they'll take anyone who meets the basic requirements and actually wants the specialty.
In any case, it's my impression (and I considered the Navy myself a *cough* while back) that academics and the ability to manage the pilot (or at least fighter pilot) culture and career environment are more important than showing up with flight simulator hours under your belt (on the other hand, a pilot's license probably does help). The Aviation Standard Test Battery is a crucial item here.
Are there any special peripherals to get?
The "pros" who use M$ Flight Simulator or any others will do it with a proper yoke control and pedals. Some enthusiasts go to elaborate lengths to simulate particular cockpit configurations as well.
posted by dhartung at 11:13 PM on November 29, 2014 [1 favorite]
In any case, it's my impression (and I considered the Navy myself a *cough* while back) that academics and the ability to manage the pilot (or at least fighter pilot) culture and career environment are more important than showing up with flight simulator hours under your belt (on the other hand, a pilot's license probably does help). The Aviation Standard Test Battery is a crucial item here.
Are there any special peripherals to get?
The "pros" who use M$ Flight Simulator or any others will do it with a proper yoke control and pedals. Some enthusiasts go to elaborate lengths to simulate particular cockpit configurations as well.
posted by dhartung at 11:13 PM on November 29, 2014 [1 favorite]
X-Plane all the way! They make actual flight simulators for actual pilots. It's kick-ass, seriously. I have a couple of versions back and I could (attempt to) fly all kinds of aircraft - Cessnas, Learjets, commercial airliners, fighter jets, C-130s (my personal favorite), helos and even a plane on Mars. X-Plane 10 has exponentially better graphics and offers the Space Shuttle Orbiter!*
There's a free demo here.
I only had a pretty basic Logitech joystick (and crashed pretty quickly in the helo since I didn't have foot pedals!) that worked well enough in the beginning. X-Plane recommends X-Force peripherals.
I'd say a joystick and foot pedals to really give it a shot.
*Now I know what I'm going to ask Santa for for Christmas.
posted by Beti at 12:12 AM on November 30, 2014 [5 favorites]
There's a free demo here.
I only had a pretty basic Logitech joystick (and crashed pretty quickly in the helo since I didn't have foot pedals!) that worked well enough in the beginning. X-Plane recommends X-Force peripherals.
I'd say a joystick and foot pedals to really give it a shot.
*Now I know what I'm going to ask Santa for for Christmas.
posted by Beti at 12:12 AM on November 30, 2014 [5 favorites]
Best answer: Realistic pc simulator is a little vexed. It's not that realistic but it can help with procedures a great deal. I've used both Microsoft flight simulator and x-plane and don't have a strong opinion on them. X-plane is still being made/supported so there is that. These 2 programs have all the airports and navaids so they are tied geographically to the real world. You can get vat sim, (google it,) for simulated air traffic control. The problem with both of them is that the airplanes don't behave that realistically especially when it comes to unusual attitudes.
As far as stick and rudder flying the two best sims I have used are Condor, which is a soaring simulator, and Aces High 2 which is an online air combat game using world war 2 equipment. Neither of these would be very useful in terms of learning how to use navaids or instrument flying but they feel much more like flying.
Regarding peripherals you can still buy a joystick and that's all you need to start. I personally like rudder pedals. Plastic control yokes I consider pointless. I wouldn't spend money on throttles, radio stacks and panel switches but instead would suggest flying lessons, google redbird simulators.
I don't consider operating a drone to be flying.
posted by Pembquist at 12:56 AM on November 30, 2014
As far as stick and rudder flying the two best sims I have used are Condor, which is a soaring simulator, and Aces High 2 which is an online air combat game using world war 2 equipment. Neither of these would be very useful in terms of learning how to use navaids or instrument flying but they feel much more like flying.
Regarding peripherals you can still buy a joystick and that's all you need to start. I personally like rudder pedals. Plastic control yokes I consider pointless. I wouldn't spend money on throttles, radio stacks and panel switches but instead would suggest flying lessons, google redbird simulators.
I don't consider operating a drone to be flying.
posted by Pembquist at 12:56 AM on November 30, 2014
Rather than sim time, if he can afford to, he should find himself a soaring club and go flying! It's relatively affordable (I've probably spent as much over the years on flightsim peripherals as I did on my private pilot glider rating, but, granted, I own a lot of silly computer things). The one person I know personally who got into naval aviation was a teenage sailplane pilot.
That said, I've heard stories of at least one sim pilot in a big-name "realism unit" / "virtual fighter wing" group entering training to become a naval aviator in the last year. Not sure how that will turn out, but I suspect the obsession with accurately simulating comms, brevity, and procedures helped. Those guys fly DCS World and Falcon 4 BMS 4.32, both of which were mentioned upstream. I'd be a bit worried with primacy and learning bad habits here, though, especially if self-teaching or getting in with a group that's almost-but-not-quite right.
posted by Alterscape at 3:25 AM on November 30, 2014 [1 favorite]
That said, I've heard stories of at least one sim pilot in a big-name "realism unit" / "virtual fighter wing" group entering training to become a naval aviator in the last year. Not sure how that will turn out, but I suspect the obsession with accurately simulating comms, brevity, and procedures helped. Those guys fly DCS World and Falcon 4 BMS 4.32, both of which were mentioned upstream. I'd be a bit worried with primacy and learning bad habits here, though, especially if self-teaching or getting in with a group that's almost-but-not-quite right.
posted by Alterscape at 3:25 AM on November 30, 2014 [1 favorite]
Best answer: I've used both X-Plane and FSX. I've also done some, but not many in-the-air lessons. My current setup is four computers with three wrap-around displays and a console display for instrument gauges. Mostly Saitek hardware on an off-the-shelf seat/frame thing designed for sims.
X-Plane pros:
* platform agnostic (you can use it on mac, linux, or windows)
* most realistic flight modeling. This is what pros use when they want to practice a particular approach. This also covers things like slanted or curved runways much better than FSX
* very active community with many free and low-cost add-ons for aircraft and scenery
X-Plane cons:
* almost no default scenery/airports. If you want it to look pretty, you need to track down a lot of add-ons
* little-to-no device support. To use my Saitek hardware with X-Plane, I had to use modules built by community memebers, since the manufacturer doesn't provide them. And they had limited functionality, so I wound up contributing to the code base and compiling my own drivers. You don't need to know C++ to have fun with X-Plane, but it's convenient if you're going to start adding hardware and whatnont.
FSX pros:
* broadly supported, most 3rd party hardware works right out the box
* includes lots of high quality scenery by default, so you get all the landmark buildings, terrain, etc you expect
* because many of the add-ons are commercial enterprises, they're of very high quality
* includes flight lessons narrated by a professional flight instructor. These are extremely helpful, especially for solidifying ground-school material.
FSX cons:
* the add-on ecosystem isn't cheap
* the flight modeling is organized more around enjoying the activity than real-world accuracy. It's not bad at all, it's just not as excellent as X-plane's.
I think the rule of thumb you see a lot is that X-plane is best suited for professionals, and FSX is best suited for enjoying flying a round.
That said, having put significant investigation into both, my preference is for FSX (and I'm not a microsoft person in general. The only windows computers I've ever bought were to evaluate, and then dive deeper into FSX). The flight modeling is more than sufficient, the "missions" and lessons are great for developing skill, and I really like not having to track down add ons just to get most of the buildings I expect to see in major cities.
Finally, I'll add that getting a home simulator going is an excellent adjunct to real flight training. I haven't ever met a flight instructor who wasn't a fan of home simming. They all really like that their students come in better practiced and more knowledgeable, and get much more out of the live training.
One instructor told me about a student who had done the full private pilot track in FSX, and when he came in for his first ever trial lesson, he had no problem with the tower communication, taxiing to the runway, take off, basic maneuvers, etc. The only thing he didn't do perfectly was entering the pattern in the right direction, because the sim had always done left, and the airfield was going right. Then he stuck the landing right on the line.
posted by colin_l at 9:18 AM on November 30, 2014 [3 favorites]
X-Plane pros:
* platform agnostic (you can use it on mac, linux, or windows)
* most realistic flight modeling. This is what pros use when they want to practice a particular approach. This also covers things like slanted or curved runways much better than FSX
* very active community with many free and low-cost add-ons for aircraft and scenery
X-Plane cons:
* almost no default scenery/airports. If you want it to look pretty, you need to track down a lot of add-ons
* little-to-no device support. To use my Saitek hardware with X-Plane, I had to use modules built by community memebers, since the manufacturer doesn't provide them. And they had limited functionality, so I wound up contributing to the code base and compiling my own drivers. You don't need to know C++ to have fun with X-Plane, but it's convenient if you're going to start adding hardware and whatnont.
FSX pros:
* broadly supported, most 3rd party hardware works right out the box
* includes lots of high quality scenery by default, so you get all the landmark buildings, terrain, etc you expect
* because many of the add-ons are commercial enterprises, they're of very high quality
* includes flight lessons narrated by a professional flight instructor. These are extremely helpful, especially for solidifying ground-school material.
FSX cons:
* the add-on ecosystem isn't cheap
* the flight modeling is organized more around enjoying the activity than real-world accuracy. It's not bad at all, it's just not as excellent as X-plane's.
I think the rule of thumb you see a lot is that X-plane is best suited for professionals, and FSX is best suited for enjoying flying a round.
That said, having put significant investigation into both, my preference is for FSX (and I'm not a microsoft person in general. The only windows computers I've ever bought were to evaluate, and then dive deeper into FSX). The flight modeling is more than sufficient, the "missions" and lessons are great for developing skill, and I really like not having to track down add ons just to get most of the buildings I expect to see in major cities.
Finally, I'll add that getting a home simulator going is an excellent adjunct to real flight training. I haven't ever met a flight instructor who wasn't a fan of home simming. They all really like that their students come in better practiced and more knowledgeable, and get much more out of the live training.
One instructor told me about a student who had done the full private pilot track in FSX, and when he came in for his first ever trial lesson, he had no problem with the tower communication, taxiing to the runway, take off, basic maneuvers, etc. The only thing he didn't do perfectly was entering the pattern in the right direction, because the sim had always done left, and the airfield was going right. Then he stuck the landing right on the line.
posted by colin_l at 9:18 AM on November 30, 2014 [3 favorites]
There are a lot of specialized boards where current and aspiring Naval aviators post, and it's worth checking those out.
Now this is definitely old info, but some time back I knew some folks who were pursuing pilot slots through ROTC and prior flight, to say the least of simulator, experience never ranked high on what they said drove selection. Goldilocks height (not too short, not too tall) and perfect eyesight were the genetic lottery component, with high athletic and academic attainment being the things you can work at. There also was (and maybe still is?) a meaningful component of Marines vs Navy in the calculus. NROTC produces both Marine and Navy officers, and each service chooses its own pilot and backseater candidates, although they go on through a mostly common flight training regime after graduation.
posted by MattD at 9:46 AM on November 30, 2014 [2 favorites]
Now this is definitely old info, but some time back I knew some folks who were pursuing pilot slots through ROTC and prior flight, to say the least of simulator, experience never ranked high on what they said drove selection. Goldilocks height (not too short, not too tall) and perfect eyesight were the genetic lottery component, with high athletic and academic attainment being the things you can work at. There also was (and maybe still is?) a meaningful component of Marines vs Navy in the calculus. NROTC produces both Marine and Navy officers, and each service chooses its own pilot and backseater candidates, although they go on through a mostly common flight training regime after graduation.
posted by MattD at 9:46 AM on November 30, 2014 [2 favorites]
as an aside to MattD's notes about selection, that doesn't mean he shouldn't pursue aviation for its own sake!
posted by colin_l at 11:07 AM on November 30, 2014
posted by colin_l at 11:07 AM on November 30, 2014
I believe I read that Drone operators use xbox controllers, weirdly; it's an accurate method of control and the pilots are likely to be already familiar with it.
posted by Sebmojo at 1:11 PM on November 30, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Sebmojo at 1:11 PM on November 30, 2014 [2 favorites]
« Older Stitched leather car seat + diarrhea = ? | Help me identify this (probably fictional)... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:02 PM on November 29, 2014 [2 favorites]