neilends

Just my hiker's perspective: Google Earth is not that helpful for exploring an area I wish to hike. If you're properly preparing for a long hike or even a backpacking trip, you're already studying topo maps and route guides so intensely that they are basically emblazoned into your brain, in addition to being conveniently located in your backpack. Google Earth doesn't really add any value to this task. I don't think I would even glance at it. Route-planning for a challenging hike is as detail-oriented and demanding as route-planning for a pilot. GE will not cut it. Google's satellite imagery is slightly more helpful because the same trails you are studying on the topo map are instead depicted with the vegetation in the images--assuming you're in the same season of the year. The seasons thing is a problem though. The inability to navigate in a human-realistic way through the terrain is also a hindrance. Sure I can pop into one valley and then pop into another valley, using top-down views only, but that's not giving me the overall understanding of the landscape that "flying" through it in an acrobatic small airplane would. On top of all that, using MSFS to understand terrain is fun.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but you also need to hit a specific switch to turn on the morse code audio identifier. In the middle panel there's one for "NAV1" and if it is not selected, there will be no audio signal.

See my post about more accurately setting up live weather per Asobo's own directions, here: https://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?328936-Where-did-you-fly-today&p=2152075#post2152075

The Rift S is not the most current headset available from Oculus, though. The Quest 2 has gotten a few software updates in the last few weeks and looks spectacular to me, on ultra settings. I've basically decided at this point that I won't upgrade to a new device again, until reviews come out for a brand new one.

Lol! My daughter and I hiked RIGHT by that exact fence in real life just a few weekends ago. I love that hike because the views are spectacular and while hiking you can look up and see small planes landing and departing. KSEZ's location on a tabletop mountain can create optical illusions that screw up landings. You're not the first even if you did it in real life. I don't know if that was a factor in this video but the description points to a crosswind causing the crash:

This was an enjoyable read. Situations like these are exactly what I love about MSFS!

I still haven't figured out how to use VNAV so I won't try to answer that question. Instead I wanted to comment on my perspective as a new, real-life student pilot and a long-time simmer, since realism is usually the goal of most of us who love this game (you included, as you've said). From a realism perspective, what I am learning is that the autopilot should not be heavily relied upon. Real pilots, certainly GA pilots, first learn how to actually just fly the plane. While the simmer in you might want to figure out how to program your autopilot so that everything lines up with the ILS approach automatically from start to finish, I think a real pilot (at least a new one, which I am) will be much more focused on keeping the autopilot turned off and learning how to manually fly the plane to the correct waypoints, altitudes, and positions to lock in that ILS. Hopefully a more experienced pilot will chime in here on whether my sense on this is correct. Regarding FLC: I use FLC heavily when using autopilot in the sim. It works exactly as you've described. Once you hit the FLC button, you can move the desired airspeed up or down and then just sit back and let the plane climb/descend according to that pre-selected speed. This vastly reduces the odds of a stall or overspeed when relying on autopilot to do a climb or descend for you.

I've noticed that the Quest 2 resolution is already considerably nicer. Looking forward to an even better upgrade.

I've actually already done this. I have used MSFS to scope out hiking areas in Arizona just to increase my familiarity with the landscape I am exploring on foot. I would definitely do this for any area I intended to hike in that was outside of Arizona, much less in other countries.

Follow the news from Qualcomm, the company that makes the actual chips for both Quest 2 and the G2. In 2020 before the pandemic hit they said that new VR products were in the works for 2021. The pandemic hit after that so I assume there will be some delays, but new VR devices will give you more options, and may also drive down the prices for a G2.

Almost always VR now. I originally got the monitor for work, really. MSFS is still enjoyable on the monitor but I just don’t fly on it as often.

I’ve always assumed that you can’t. Following, if someone knows otherwise.

I did a Skypark mission yesterday and today during which I basically crashed and died because of icing. I was supposed to take off from a small airstrip near the Washington-Oregon border and fly to an island off the British Columbia coast. The RL weather appeared to be decent so I used a Cessna 172. Immediately after take-off I iced up, so I circled back, landed, and picked a more powerful plane, the Piper Arrow. This was a dumb decision too though. The Piper is more powerful than the C-172 but it still doesn't have de-icing equipment. I iced up again and this time tried to soldier on a little further. Right after crossing the Canadian border, I could barely keep the nose up. I tried to emergency land on flat terrain somewhere, but I was over the Vancouver suburb of Surrey by this time. And, all of my windows were iced over so I could barely see. With the realism advantage of VR, I actually opened up the tiny window on my left windshield for a small unobscured view to properly land on flat terrain. Failure. Being over a city as I rapidly descended, I crashed into a building. The plane completely flipped over. I would probably not have survived. Waited until this morning to reincarnate. The live weather was better anyway, but I also opted for a Beech Bonanza to just get the job done. Took off from a small airstrip in Surrey, flew along the gorgeous BC coast to Texard Island, and landed smoothly. Lots of cloud cover and slight icing on the windshield, but the Bonanza at least has a propeller de-icer.

I am like most simmers a gadget nerd. Entering the real-life flying world as a student has its challenges with this new technology though, because of the danger of over-reliance. I am also an avid hiker and heavily use all of the latest technology to supplement my hiking experiences. But even if I have a GPS device in my hand, I have a paper map stored in my backpack, and I have properly studied that map beforehand. Even though I can use InReach (not just cellphone) to contact Search and Rescue within minutes from any isolated area, I still bring a first aid kit, fire starting equipment, an emergency blanket, and adequate water. I can see similar principles in play with this fancy new stuff in aviation. I was especially reminded of this today simply when I started up my Jeep to drive my daughter to school: the Garmin GPS interface in the Jeep failed to properly boot. No GPS navigation available today, unless I brought up my smartphone as a substitute.

See my post about more accurately setting up live weather per Asobo's own directions, here: https://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?328936-Where-did-you-fly-today&p=2152075#post2152075

It's neither downgraded nor inaccurate, from what I can tell. I just looked up a POH for the DA-40 from 2010. There, the maximum structural cruising speed is listed as 129 knots, meaning this is the maximum recommended speed in perfectly smooth air. This number is consistent with the speed display as you describe it. The yellow portion of the display is telling you that it may be permissible to reach speeds in that portion, in perfectly smooth air, but do so with caution. I don't know what your source is for "specs" saying that cruise of 150 is normal. That doesn't sound right per the POH. Anyway, if you're cruising at 129 and lower the nose, you could easily reach 150, and this is where the manufacturer is warning you: go ahead and hit 150 if you like, in perfect conditions, but be careful. In the real world, the consequence of exceeding speed barriers is the breaking apart of your airplane in mid-air. This is terrifying stuff!

Also: https://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/content.php?2-flightsim-news

I’ve heard of one website that does this. I think it’s called flightsim.com or something? :D Sorry to rib you a little but I had to. Very useful work done by the site’s moderators here: https://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/content.php?4-reviews

Interesting observations. At 49 I'm no spring chicken myself, so how does that saying go? "Youth is wasted on the young"? Though I learned plenty academically in my youth, as an adult I have acquired additional skills such as the following: * A realistic understanding of US history. * How to play the banjo. * Like you, how to ski. I'm no Earl Scruggs yet but I'm an advanced-intermediate on the banjo right now. And on ski slopes, I can handle black-rated slopes, though as I get older my desire to risk a nasty bruise is rapidly diminishing and I prefer to glide through nice blues instead. For the skills requiring physical learning (the last 2), it is fascinating to watch the process as I personally moved toward the end goal that you state above. When I learned to ski in my early 20s I just jumped onto the slopes and crash-banged my way to expert status (a few ski classes to get started but that was it). But when learning a new musical instrument in my 40s, I burned probably hundreds of hours reading, analyzing, watching musical performances, listening to albums, and watching YouTube videos. I worked with a teacher as well. I had no choice for this. Not living in the Appalachian South, banjo players are rare where I live and it's hard to find opportunities to just show up and jam with people. And then the pandemic happened anyway. I'm a family guy with a good career that I enjoy, so no banjo jam parties in South Carolina for me. So one process was crash-bang "just do it." The other was very analytical. Is one superior to the other? Not really. I'd say it should be a combination of both, if one can afford the time, the money, and the resources.

A real pilot in a pilot forum I’m on gave me this advice that you might be interested in considering: “Yes, instrument fixation is a big problem for those of us who started on home sims (especially without wrap-around displays). I strongly recommend ordering a copy of Wolfgang Langwiesche's classic book Stick and Rudder, which shows how to use the angles, etc, you're seeing outside the window to get the same information. Then, when you go back to your home sim, practice flying a plane with minimal instrumentation, like a J3 Cub.”

Every real pilot I’ve met so far carries an ipad with them. And even the 1969 Cessna 177 I flew in real life recently had a new wifi transmitter installed on it. So this has already happened, at least in the US. Literally yesterday, in real life I got to fly as a student pilot a 2019 Cessna 172 with a G1000. The G1000 was actually even more advanced than the MSFS version. It has every imaginable feature you would want in an on-screen display while flying a small aircraft. You can even pull up some airport information right on it. But no pilot with even this cool technology would ever take off without first using an off-site source about airports to figure out their plan. Real pilots will use ForeFlight to download the “plates” with all the approach information into their ipad, plus the airport chart with labeled taxiways etc. A simmer would typically not want to waste money on a ForeFlight subscription so Google and some key bookmarks are a perfectly good substitute. This whole discussion will worry any experienced real pilot here (which I am not, just a student). “First, fly the plane. Aviate, navigate, communicate.” These are the mantras of safe flying today.

I've flown two lessons with two different instructors (the first was just an acquaintance who took me up for free just to be nice, the second will be my regular for a while). Both of them were pretty interested in my thoughts about the MSFS experience. Neither played MSFS but one had played older versions. Both seemed to kind of assume that I had some built-in academic knowledge about aviation thanks to the sim, which is probably true. I was sure to jump in to ask questions if they glossed over anything, but it didn't happen often. I do know what the throttle, rudder, ailerons, elevators, trim, and flaps do. On the other hand, I had no clue how fuel goes into a C-172, how to sump fuel, what normal fuel when sumped looks like, and more. I did have to pause the instructor and ask him to go back and explain a bunch of fuel stuff.

I went up for my second flight lesson today. We departed from Scottsdale, KSDL, practiced some straight and level flight, easy turns, did an introduction to sharp turns and slow flight, and flew over some spectacular sights near Arizona's famous Superstition Mountains before landing back at KSDL. The instructor had me take off partially on my own: he handled the rudder but had me handle the throttle and yoke. The take-off experience was probably aided quite a bit by MSFS. Because I had done it hundreds of times in the sim, what might have been my anxiety level at the mere thought of doing this event myself was a lot lower. Again, I emphasize, it did not "train" me in any way for the sensory overload of the experience, or for the needed muscle memory (which remains zero). But when the instructor told me I am aiming for 55 knots to take off, that was a familiar goal notched into my brain. Seeing the airspeed indicator increasing up to 55 was also a familiar sight. The notion of slightly lifting on the yoke was, again, familiar. I had even practiced this very take-off routine, from the same airport, in the same direction. I have a paid add-on for Phoenix scenery (which is excellent btw). I knew exactly what the visual looked like, taking off from either of the two runway directions. This, again, helped calm my nerves for the real thing. The take-off felt smooth and very comfortable. I can sense one tangible negative effect of simming a lot before real-flying: in the sim there is no danger to staring at your instruments all day long. You can try to fly like a real VFR pilot if you're a real pilot, and it would work, but non-pilots have no idea what this means. So when I have simmed, I am practically glued to the airspeed, the bank angle, the VS indicator, the altimeter, with the visual horizon cues only playing a minor role while I reach cruising altitude. After two lessons, I have seen that this has created a tendency in me that takes a bit of effort to undo while I get used to flying with my eyes first, and the instruments later. I don't think it's a serious problem but it's something to think about for any simmer who wants to start flying. One more note: My plane today was a pretty new Cessna 172 with the G-1000. I have to admit, it was spectacularly fun seeing it in action after using it so often in the sim. To my surprise, the real G1000 in this real plane actually had some features that were even more advanced than the MSFS version. The G1000 is even cooler than I'd realized, in other words. In addition, the ability to see all other traffic on the G1000 second screen, thanks to FlightAware technology, is just mind-blowing. In the US, federal law only required this technology in all small airplanes in 2020, so this is brand new stuff. It reduces the odds of a midair collision by an astronomical amount, not to mention reducing the constant task burden and stress on real-life pilots. You still have to constantly scan the air around you, but having this highly effective tool to aid you in doing it is a game changer. This feature again does not exist in the MSFS version of the G1000.

True, but I am pretty happy with my Quest 2. If I were to start over, I may have opted for the G2 instead. But since I got the Quest 2 and love the experience, I'm not paying $600 for only an arguably better experience that will likely be outdated by yet another new device by the end of 2021.

I really have no idea what licensing arrangements the corporate entities behind X-Plane may have entered into with various airlines, if any. But I would point out that Microsoft is a few gajillion times bigger than X-Plane and therefore has deeper pockets. That changes everything. X-Plane either took risks with intellectual property, or it entered into profit-sharing licensing agreements. Microsoft, on the other hand, will take absolutely no risks with intellectual property, or if it wants to negotiate licensing agreements is probably being asked to shell out big bucks by the airlines for them. Intellectual property in game design is always a super frustrating issue for fans like us. I've always been a huge fan of baseball simulation games, and I find it absolutely tragic that game design companies are prohibited from creating likenesses of historic players like Babe Ruth, Cy Young, Ted Williams and the like. No player who appears in a game is allowed to take on the visual characteristic of the real-life historic player, for this reason. Why? In part because until modern times there was no one owner of the intellectual property of all baseball players. As a result, the estate of Ted Williams might give Microsoft permission to use his likeness, but then the estate of Babe Ruth might refuse. You would have to negotiate with thousands of players' estates. It's just impossible. The loser: we the fans.