Hi I'm new to this website - apologies if I create this post in the wrong area.

I'm new to FS, but not new to flight sims - was into them in the days of 16 bit computers, and I recently started playing with IL2 - the WW2 combat flight sim.

Which version of FS should I go for?  I've seen many posts saying FS2004 is actually better than FSX?

What I'm mainly interested in is doing a basic pilots license within the program (the real world is too expensive for me).  I've heard this is a feature of the game.  Ideally I'd like something as detailed as possible - even down to correct procedure for taxiing (i.e. contacting tower for permission to enter runway etc).  Is FSX better than FS2004 for this?

I'm based in Australia, so I'll be after Australian scenery, preferably Brisbane.  Not sure if that impacts my choice, but I've heard there are more add ons available for FS2004.

Any help would be appreciated!

I don't have much experience with FSX, but I'll warn you, as a real-life PPASEL holder, that the in-game lessons in FS9 are not very realistic, and very frustrating due to the limitations of the AI (the "virtual instructor" is a bit irrational).
But you will learn about the tasks required, and if you back it up with the info in the aforementioned lessons found here in the Flight School forum, you will have a pretty realistic experience.
Another smart thing would be to get a copy of the FAA's pilot training manual, and maybe the FAR/AIM (the AIM portion has a lot of good info on airspace and airport procedures).

Quote:

Rotty's got it pretty much on the numbers.

If you aren't interested in absolutely flawless images of the aircraft's exterior and really want to learn how to fly, I would recommend FS9.  It is much easier on system resources.

I think the Private Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge is downloadable in PDF format at www.Faa.gov.  Probably lots of pages but it's a good one.  The flight training part should be very similar to that in Australia but regulations and ATC procedures will differ somewhat.  If you'll be training strictly for FS, the U.S. material is what you need.

As for the training while FSX did get a little better than FS2004 it is still not very realistic. What I do is to make up a flight plan and then try to fly it as accurately as possible with out the use of auto pilot. You can be your own judge as to how well you do. I use plus or minus 200 feet for altitude holding and plus or minus 10 degrees for course heading. If you can maintain those then you are good to go. Oh I almost forgot that means making a good landing as well  

simonhazelgrove wrote on Jul 8^th, 2009 at 6:36pm:


I foolishly didn't check your location... sorry. I'm not sure how the Australian regulations vary, but the basics- maneuvering, aircraft systems, navigation, weather- are the same, obviously. But I'm sure there are equivalent publications to the FAA handbook and the FAR/AIM... and they're probably not written in "American".

simonhazelgrove wrote on Jul 8^th, 2009 at 1:26am:


As the other members already said above, if your computer is alsready a few years old, then most probably it won't be able to handle FSX. From a flight-lesson point of view, I think there are not so much improvements in FSX anyway.

For the Australian scenery enhancement, there's a very good freeware scenery mentionned above, Oz, which covers a good part of the country and make it look much more realistic.

However, when you will change your computer in the future and get able to fly FSX, you will have to take a look at the Australian sceneries from Orbx: http://fullterrain.com/features.html

Also, you have mentionned IL-2. This was considered as the most realistic simulation when it came to flight model and damage model for warbird... until a new kind of addon appeared in FSX: Accusim from a company nammed A2A. This addon transforms FSX into the most realistic simulation. You might want to take a look at the preview video of their upcoming Piper Cub with Accusim system, you will understand the differences with the stock sim:
http://www.a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16555

Their previous addons using this Accusim technology are the P-47 and the Boeing 377. You can see the P-47 in those videos, you'll notice the difference with IL-2.
http://www.a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=16093

Travis:  Mystery solved! Thank you so much for that info. I've gone to Wiki and bookmarked it for later study. Appreciate the prompt reply.

FLAMING  Yep! That's what it is!  Thanks!

The altimeter setting provides a height above sea level rather than a height above terrain thus assuring that all aircraft, using the setting, are truly at the indicated altitude on their altimeters.  Without continuous setting adjustments as you fly cross country your indicated altimeter altitude would become incorrect as you flew into areas of higher or lower pressure.  No jokes  .

I just drop a Plumb Bob over the side, on the end of a piece of string, and measure it now and again as I come in to land....

...simple... ...!

Paul...feeling all "strung out" again...... ...!

Brett_Henderson wrote on Jul 10^th, 2009 at 11:01am:


I think it may be due to the fact that the ATC at Headcorn is classified as A/G ( Air Ground Advisory, I think) which means they don't give permision to land or take off and any action is at the pilots discretion. They only provide local information.

Zaphod.

olderndirt wrote on Jul 10^th, 2009 at 11:09am:


According to Wikipedia QFE is "Atmospheric pressure at airfield elevation". In the case of Headcorn which I believe is approx 72 feet ASL the difference between QFE and QNH is normally about 2 millibars (QNH being the higher figure.)
As previously stated QFE is only qouted to incoming aircraft who intend to land or aircraft that are remaining in the circuit for touch and goes. Any departing aircraft and aircraft transitting the ATZ are given QNH.
To me, and I hassen to add I'm not a real life pilot, it makes perfect sence. Approach using QNH and change to QFE when on finals to have the altimeter read zero at touch down?

Zaphod.

I always scratched my head    over using pressure altitude (29.92) for everything over 18,000feet..

But, at least everyone is on the same page..  AND above 18,000 is class 'A' airspace.. so you're under ATC control for vertical seperation..

Zaphod wrote on Jul 10^th, 2009 at 11:06am:
Back in the 'good old days' we had a similar luxury called Airport Advisories, provided at non-towered airports by the resident Flight Service Station.  Our government, with its usual wisdom, decreed this no longer necessary so now, even with a local Unicom providing limited information, pilots basically sort themselves and beware the no radio guy on a long straight in.

olderndirt wrote on Jul 10^th, 2009 at 12:17pm:



Hey Fozz.
Ever caught a tree with that thing??

Zaph.
PS
That'll be QBOB will it?

Nav wrote on Jul 11^th, 2009 at 4:00am:


I perform that operation, (B) and (D), with all my Aircraft now, after finding that one or two models actually responded to it!

No matter how much I peer at the "pressure indicator" on the Altimeter, its impossible to see the tiny numbers to tune them in, so pressing "B" solves the problem!

...and pressing "D" will often spin the Heading Indicator to point in the right direction!...Very important!.... ...!

Paul...G-BPLF...FS 2004... ...!

olderndirt wrote on Jul 10^th, 2009 at 12:17pm:


More useful information for our American chums.......

"Plumb Bob"...>>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plumb-bob

Paul...G-BPLF...FS 2004...dangling from a piece of string... ...!

..also used my Mariners to gauge the water depth......!

Press "B" and "D"  during longer flights.  Noted.  Thanks.

G'day, Simon,

As often happens, replies to your post seem to have strayed 'off-course', but here's my suggestion (if you're still reading these):-

Since you seem primarily interested in the training value of FS, have you thought about FS Flying School?  From reading other forums, it seems this is a piece of software you either love or hate.  I've tried the demo version and found it OK, although the virtual instructors are very strict and will correct you almost BEFORE you screw up  

That said, it's meant to be fun and it can be programmed to make it more 'serious' if you want.  Here's a link:-

http://www.fsflyingschool.com/

Happy Landings!  

Andi

Thanks andi & co - I have gone ahead & bought a copy of FS2004, and am currently working my way through the lessons.  Slowly.  There is a bit more to get my head around than I expected, even for straight & level flight 

I've seen the flying school video and it does look great.  Definately less annoying than the built in instructor and his jokes.  I'll be getting the demo soon - keep forgetting to be honest!