Great! I stopped using the GPS a while ago and fly using VOR and NDB only. Lots of fun and much more rewarding when you reach your destination. Also gives you something to do while flying! Following that red line on the GPS is so boring... B) ^_^

Lololol, hey some like canned routes gps provide. Got a good point GPS is boring to me. ADF needle flying that where the real fun starts with non-prescision instrument flying lol.

The problem is, unless you have good photoscenery or are flying in a particularly distinctive part of the world there aren't really many landmarks in FS. Roads aren't really a great source of position information like reality and neither are rivers unless the mesh is accurate. I totally get what you're saying but just flying by looking outside the window alone is a lot harder in FSX than real life so i always have at least one NDB or VOR tuned in.

I've been flying all over northeast and east Texas using the default FSX scenery in the A2A Cub (no GPS) and the only problem I EVER had was trying to use a stream as a landmark. I learned why you wouldn't use a stream as a landmark even in real life.

 

Photoscenery might be nice, but certainly isn't essential, and I much prefer having 3D autogen.

 

I've done a lot of comparison between real world roads and rivers (Google Earth), nav charts, and top down screen shots from in game as well as just flying, and in the USA FSX appears to be quite accurate. Streams can be off (look at Alaska in FSX some time), forested areas are often off, individual buildings that aren't major landmarks (like Cowboy Stadium for example) usually aren't depicted. Lakes, rivers, roads, small towns, radio towers... they're all there and where they're supposed to be. Sometimes small bodies of water are the correct shape in FSX compared to Google Earth while the shape in nav charts is way off.

 

This is not to say people shouldn't use photoscenery, just that it's not as necessary as some would suggest.

 

Hook

My first rule......

 

 

If an instructor, tells you to throw the GPS into the back seat, with a smirk on their face, then throw them out!!!

 

 

I seldom use the GPS for flight simulation, either. Other than that, it's very silly these days, not to let students become familiar with GPS at the beginning. The VOR system is over 60 years old. It can never provide the information, that today's GPS will. In reality, you can go year after year, without a GPS failure. And as far as backup goes, just carry a battery operated portable. I always had two, in my airplane.

 

 

As to the Garmin 1000, around five years ago, a study was done with two test groups of new students. One group started with navigation on the Garmin 1000 on day one. The other group used the traditional six-pac. The Garmin students completed their private license ahead of the six-packers.

 

 

Considering the accuracy of a GPS compared to other methods, it's just plain dumb, to keep a student away from using the device, just for the sake of old school, macho, mumbo, jumbo! There is a lot more restricted airspace, than in the past. Air traffic controllers can usually tell, if you're using a GPS.

 

 

------Yes, do get another instructor, instead of that old fuddy, duddy!!!----

 

 

 

Thank goodness, my instrument instructor was quite amazed, with my new Garmin, that actually had approach plates, back around 97'. Because it was a portable, those plates were eliminated until recently. He now flies a Boeing 737. We keep track of the Boeing's last GPS failure. It's something around 13 years now. The B737-800 uses GPS as it's main nav system.

 

 

P.S.--- we argue about this all the time, on so called pilot forums. There are always two sides. Sim & student pilot forums, are a good place, for the old schoolers, to push their agendas. And yes, I'm an old timer myself..... age wise. And yes,I've argued the merits of modern navigation, many times, with a bunch of my fuddy duddy old school mentality acquaintances. I know a lot of them...

My first rule......

 

 

If an instructor, tells you to throw the GPS into the back seat, with a smirk on their face, then throw them out!!!

 

 

I seldom use the GPS for flight simulation, either. Other than that, it's very silly these days, not to let students become familiar with GPS at the beginning. The VOR system is over 60 years old. It can never provide the information, that today's GPS will. In reality, you can go year after year, without a GPS failure. And as far as backup goes, just carry a battery operated portable. I always had two, in my airplane.

 

 

As to the Garmin 1000, around five years ago, a study was done with two test groups of new students. One group started with navigation on the Garmin 1000 on day one. The other group used the traditional six-pac. The Garmin students completed their private license ahead of the six-packers.

 

 

Considering the accuracy of a GPS compared to other methods, it's just plain dumb, to keep a student away from using the device, just for the sake of old school, macho, mumbo, jumbo! There is a lot more restricted airspace, than in the past. Air traffic controllers can usually tell, if you're using a GPS.

 

 

------Yes, do get another instructor, instead of that old fuddy, duddy!!!----

 

 

 

Thank goodness, my instrument instructor was quite amazed, with my new Garmin, that actually had approach plates, back around 97'. Because it was a portable, those plates were eliminated until recently. He now flies a Boeing 737. We keep track of the Boeing's last GPS failure. It's something around 13 years now. The B737-800 uses GPS as it's main nav system.

 

 

P.S.--- we argue about this all the time, on so called pilot forums. There are always two sides. Sim & student pilot forums, are a good place, for the old schoolers, to push their agendas. And yes, I'm an old timer myself..... age wise. And yes,I've argued the merits of modern navigation, many times, with a bunch of my fuddy duddy old school mentality acquaintances. I know a lot of them...

 

Funny read thanks. Enjoyed your input. I cant say I know ANY pilots that fly without their GPS but from time to time we play with a VOR Nav frequency and track a radial to play and keep busy.

 

I CANT wait for this plane A2A!

 

Charles.

I imagine the reason the GPS students finished faster is because GPS does the spatial work for them, so therefore it took them little or no time to acquire it.  It wasn't asked of them to the same extent.  It's pretty easy to orient yourself in 3 dimensional space and fly a holding pattern when it's drawn on a screen.  I understand that old technology is replaced by the new, until the old is eventually not learned anymore.  Nobody needs to know how to navigate by the stars anymore.  Yet the pilots who learned how to fly the airplane inside their head are likely better pilots all around than those that started with the experience of flying on a screen.  It's like the kids who learned to be able to do their math with a pencil and paper are likely more capable than those who never lived without a calculator.  Remember when you had to figure something out using your noggin instead of your google?  Not arguing against GPS by any means, just saying that I think there are certain benefits to be had, some of them intangible, when the mind is forced to develop the right cognitive pathways. 

My first rule......

 

 

If an instructor, tells you to throw the GPS into the back seat, with a smirk on their face, then throw them out!!!

 

 

I seldom use the GPS for flight simulation, either. Other than that, it's very silly these days, not to let students become familiar with GPS at the beginning. The VOR system is over 60 years old. It can never provide the information, that today's GPS will. In reality, you can go year after year, without a GPS failure. And as far as backup goes, just carry a battery operated portable. I always had two, in my airplane.

 

 

As to the Garmin 1000, around five years ago, a study was done with two test groups of new students. One group started with navigation on the Garmin 1000 on day one. The other group used the traditional six-pac. The Garmin students completed their private license ahead of the six-packers.

 

 

Considering the accuracy of a GPS compared to other methods, it's just plain dumb, to keep a student away from using the device, just for the sake of old school, macho, mumbo, jumbo! There is a lot more restricted airspace, than in the past. Air traffic controllers can usually tell, if you're using a GPS.

 

 

------Yes, do get another instructor, instead of that old fuddy, duddy!!!----

 

 

 

Thank goodness, my instrument instructor was quite amazed, with my new Garmin, that actually had approach plates, back around 97'. Because it was a portable, those plates were eliminated until recently. He now flies a Boeing 737. We keep track of the Boeing's last GPS failure. It's something around 13 years now. The B737-800 uses GPS as it's main nav system.

 

 

P.S.--- we argue about this all the time, on so called pilot forums. There are always two sides. Sim & student pilot forums, are a good place, for the old schoolers, to push their agendas. And yes, I'm an old timer myself..... age wise. And yes,I've argued the merits of modern navigation, many times, with a bunch of my fuddy duddy old school mentality acquaintances. I know a lot of them...

 

So the day when  'autoland' becomes a standard feature on GA airplanes, lets stop teaching pilots how to land then....  LOL  Who needs to learn basic flying and navigation skills when automation can do the job.  When high time airline pilots can't land a 777 by simply looking out the window on a beautiful VFR day, that's a problem.  I don't want the next generation of airline pilots to lack basic flying and navigation skills. 

 

There is nothing macho about requiring a student to demonstrate basic navigation skills before introducing them to a GPS lol.  OMG....maybe you show them how to use an E6B too. :lol:  Do they still use those?

 

I am not a technophobe at all, I work in IT lol, and I would buy a fully glassed up DA-42-VI in a heartbeat, that thing is an awesome machine.  Even with that tho, I would still carry a sectional, AFD, and my trusty old E6B. B)

 

Cheers

TJ

Considering the accuracy of a GPS compared to other methods, it's just plain dumb, to keep a student away from using the device, just for the sake of old school, macho, mumbo, jumbo! There is a lot more restricted airspace, than in the past. Air traffic controllers can usually tell, if you're using a GPS.

There's a big difference between a pilot and an aviator. One is a technician, the other is an artist in love with flight.

 

- E.B. Jeppesen

Hey Dave, you know the solution for those pretty looking but possibly buggy Carenados?  Wait till they hit the F1 wrapper, then you can return them   I wish I had done that sooner, like you I occasionally got the Carenado 'oooh pretty!' disease, got some pretty looking bird only to find it was buggy or the FDE was less than acceptable.  Now I wait until the particular Carenado/Alabeo is on the F1 Wrapper system and it's nice 30 day return.   Some are excellent all around, some are hit and miss, you know how it goes.  :lol:

 

It's a very good point TJ, I should indeed buy them via the F1 wrapper! .... I have to admit I even unistalled the Alabeo Tomahawk last night, while have an installation clear out.  It really is not a bad plane, but I am just saturated with Carenado/Alabeo 'all feel the same' type aircraft....   I looked at the ADI and just thought "I'm sick of staring at that almost identical ADI in all these planes!" :lol:

 

That is why this C172, with all of it's unique individuality and function, will be such a breath of fresh air to GA flying in FSX. :smile:

Just wondering... why do people enjoy flying these trainers in FSX?  Don't read into my question too much, I have no agenda, just genuinely curious.

 

It's a very valid, fair question.

 

For me, it's because it draws a parallel with the type of aircraft I would, and have, been likely to fly in the real world. Circumstance dictates that I would never realistically be flying in the real world in, for example, a Lancair Legacy, and for that reason, I find myself lacking in enthusiasm for exotica type aircraft.   Some people feel the opposite; they fly aircraft that they would never really get to fly in, in the real world.   So everyone is different of course.

 

For me, I love the airliners that I've been a passenger in, in real life. or even that I can see at my local International Airport.  And for GA, again, it's aircraft I have flown in, or seen up at the airport.   That of course doesn't mean I only like basic trainers ...  But I like to have some sort of link to reality, when in the sim.  

There was some talk about if the C172 would be sold as one addon or as two seperate ones (the plane and Accu-sim): I just read on the A2A forum it will be one package because Accu-sim is so popular. Logical decision, I think: I wonder who would ONLY buy the planes and not Accu-sim? Obviously this tells us nothing about the price which will be, I presume, similar to the other planes with Accu-sim in a bundle. Although... considering the fact that this C172 had a lot of new features it may even cost more than previous A2A plane-bundles. But well, I don't care: after watching that second movie all I know is that I WANT THIS PLANE!

$75, that's my bet!

A lot of potential T777 buyers are also interested in this and visa verse. I think its about outstanding quality rather than prop vs jet. So I think who ever gets theirs out first will get the bigger share because most are not going to buy both at the same time.

@ jcomm.....Oh jeez, please don't turn this up until now excellent thread into another price thread..... with people just listing prices for page after page.....

 

Yes, Jeroen, that 2nd vidoe nailed it for me too..... especially the start up and the fouled plugs - AWESOME! ..... I'll be saving my money for this, on release now, and the 777 will need to wait a couple of weeks! :cool:

 

@ Zoran - I agree! ...... first our the stable will get the cash I think, in a lot of cases!

I already have the Katana but that doesn't really light my fire (too impatient).

Even the Otter Extended drives me nuts if I have to go through all those tests in the checklist.

But now I've seen those vids, now I kind of like the idea of having a living, breathing C172 in my hanger.

It seems quite easy to look after and could be fun. Visually stunning too.

 

 

(too impatient)

 

Well... I DID notice in the last video that you have to wait after starting until the temps are right before you can taxi... and they use the real world time for that. I wonder how long that will be...  ^_^ But somehow this C172 seems even more (or a lot more) realistic than the Katana 4x. And as I said already my way of flying has changed lately and that new way of doing things suits this plane very well, I think. 

 

And heck, when I do get tired of it all, it's nice to know I can skip the whole preflight process with one click.  ^_^ Anyway, this is the closest thing to getting a real plane yourself and it's also great that it actually IS the kind of plane you could get or at least fly in real life. so yeah... I am in!

Some good points Jeroen...