The Value of Using Real World Checklists in FSX
Another way for advanced flight simmers to enhance their FSX experience is to use and follow real world checklists. Real pilots use checklists to help organize and make sure all the steps needed to complete complex procedures are done and confirmed, so nothing is left to chance.
Checklists can have simple items that need confirming like making sure the Passenger and No Smoking signs are turned on... Or they can be more pressing like confirming all the cargo doors (even on passenger craft) are secured and there are no indicators stating otherwise. Checklists also help pilots allocate the heavier workload that occurs during the various phases of flight to other members of the crew like the Co-Pilot (First Officer).
Real world checklists follow certain government regulations along with basic operating procedures for a specific airplane. All commercial airlines regardless of size (large, small), or aircraft type (turboprop, turbojet) use checklists to standardize their daily operations and keep the work flow moving. These standards differ from airline to airline and you will probably not find two airline standards exactly alike.
Flight simmers who use checklists are obviously going to have to make some concessions if they opt for real world checklists (link below). I bring this up because a lot of real world checklists have items virtual pilots are just going to have to either skip, or ignore completely because they are sitting at home behind a desk and not in the flight deck of a multimillion dollar aircraft.
However, that does not diminish their usefulness at all. In fact, it is even *more* of a reason for FS pilots to use them as much as they can, wherever and whenever they can, in my opinion.
Checklists earn their weight in gold when you've been flying online, or by yourself for so long that you aren't even thinking about what you're doing any more. While this is obviously the level of experience you want to eventually get to... It also provides a lot of opportunities for mistakes to be made because you are going through the motions, but not really paying attention.
For example, one evening I was "piloting" a 747-400 into San Francisco International (KSFO) from a flight from Los Angeles International (KLAX). I had the speed set, autobrake set, flaps set, localizer armed, and landing gear down. As I turned on final I noticed I was descending (as expected), but down to my minimum safe altitude of 2800FT. I leveled off, and just stayed at this altitude as the airport kept getting closer... And closer... But I still wasn't making my expected descent?
If you have been reading closely, you probably figured out I forogt to select the "APP" (Approach Hold) button once the Localizer became active to follow the GS down. It is (big) mistakes like this that can't be made if you are following a checklist.
So, I hope you can see the value of checklists after reading my fairly embarrassing experience... Because at least, it demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt how checklists make sure we don't become complacent in the comfort of our virtual flight decks where nothing is really at stake.
Checklists not only enhance the realism of your flight simming, but they also serve a very real purpose and that is to make sure you are flying "by the numbers", so stupid mistakes like I made don't happen that often.
WHERE TO DOWNLOAD REAL WORLD CHECKLISTS
Freechecklists.net
This site also contains checklists for Microsoft Flight Simulator, both payware addons and the default planes. The checklists from FS2002 and FS2004 should also work in FSX and vice versa.
Fine Tuning In The Default Flight Planner
In this entry I am going to discuss the default Flight Planner that is often overlooked in FSX due to it being considered "too basic" and not full-featured enough. Granted, it isn't as complex as stand alone programs like FSCommander, or FSNavigator, but its strengths lie within its simplicity and ease of use.
If you are new to the default flight planner, or have always used more featured programs to plan your routes here is a brief overview of how it operates and what it has to offer:
1) You select your city pair (departure and arrival airports).
2) You select either VFR or IFR.
3) You then have a choice between VOR to VOR, high altitude airways, low altitude airways, or a direct route.
4) You hit "Find Route" and it generates a route.
This is good for the default aircraft that do not simulate complex navigational systems like FMGCs and vertical profiles, and these generated routes can be followed using the default GPS autopilot found in all the default FSX airplanes.
You can also interact with the simulated ATC and it will guide you along your route like real ATC would (initial altitudes and climb speeds, transition to higher cruise altitudes, traffic reports, and way point reporting points).**
**For realistic aircraft equipped with FMCs, you must IMPORT the FSX generated flight plan into your FMC in order for ATC to follow along and vice versa. ATC can only interact with flight plans generated by FSX.
However, I strongly recommend FSX pilots not use ATC at all. It has severe shortcomings, bugs that have never been fixed and isn't all that realistic to begin with. The worst of these bugs was mentioned in a previous entry ("The Theory of Managed Flight") and this particular bug makes commercial flight useless when it comes time to land (vector for final approach).
Here is where the default flight planners value ends and its limitations begin, unfortunately:
The primary limitation is the FSX flight planner doesn't follow any SID, STAR or real air route charts. In the rare cases it does, the routes are very general and only include one way point (out of maybe three, or four) from the entire SID, or STAR. This should come as no surprise because FSX is designed primarily for casual virtual pilots who fly the default planes that do not simulate realistic navigational systems.
A bigger limitation of the above is a lot of times the generated routes merely consist of marking the departure (origin) airport, destination airport, and maybe a single way point in between as a reference marker. This becomes a major problem when it comes time to land because what it neglects to do is line you up with the destination airport's ILS Feather (the green arrows on the flight planner map) and localizer for approach.
However, this is also where the power and flexibility of the default planner comes into play for users who know how to use it properly:
In the "Edit" window... The window that displays the route once it is plotted... Virtual pilots can edit (how appropriate!) the route to be more realistic (follow real world charts) AND by doing so, they can make their routes align the plane for a perfect ILS hand-flown approach, or Category III autoland.
So, the next time you think about not using the default flight planner, I recommend you re-evaluate your initial stance and take advantage of just how powerful and easy to use it is for those willing to take the time and use it as it was intended.
Of course, this will require you to do additional research and preparation on your part, but taking the extra time to obtain things like real world SID, STAR and Approach plates and use them to fine tune the generic routes generated by the default planner should greatly improve your in-flight experience and make it more enjoyable and realistic in the end.
In addition, it should also make the entire flight simulation experience more realistic because this kind of (simulated) preparation is what real pilots do on a daily basis before they even set one foot on the tarmac for a pre-flight inspection, or sit behind the controls ready for pushback.
If you are new to the default flight planner, or have always used more featured programs to plan your routes here is a brief overview of how it operates and what it has to offer:
1) You select your city pair (departure and arrival airports).
2) You select either VFR or IFR.
3) You then have a choice between VOR to VOR, high altitude airways, low altitude airways, or a direct route.
4) You hit "Find Route" and it generates a route.
This is good for the default aircraft that do not simulate complex navigational systems like FMGCs and vertical profiles, and these generated routes can be followed using the default GPS autopilot found in all the default FSX airplanes.
You can also interact with the simulated ATC and it will guide you along your route like real ATC would (initial altitudes and climb speeds, transition to higher cruise altitudes, traffic reports, and way point reporting points).**
**For realistic aircraft equipped with FMCs, you must IMPORT the FSX generated flight plan into your FMC in order for ATC to follow along and vice versa. ATC can only interact with flight plans generated by FSX.
However, I strongly recommend FSX pilots not use ATC at all. It has severe shortcomings, bugs that have never been fixed and isn't all that realistic to begin with. The worst of these bugs was mentioned in a previous entry ("The Theory of Managed Flight") and this particular bug makes commercial flight useless when it comes time to land (vector for final approach).
Here is where the default flight planners value ends and its limitations begin, unfortunately:
The primary limitation is the FSX flight planner doesn't follow any SID, STAR or real air route charts. In the rare cases it does, the routes are very general and only include one way point (out of maybe three, or four) from the entire SID, or STAR. This should come as no surprise because FSX is designed primarily for casual virtual pilots who fly the default planes that do not simulate realistic navigational systems.
A bigger limitation of the above is a lot of times the generated routes merely consist of marking the departure (origin) airport, destination airport, and maybe a single way point in between as a reference marker. This becomes a major problem when it comes time to land because what it neglects to do is line you up with the destination airport's ILS Feather (the green arrows on the flight planner map) and localizer for approach.
However, this is also where the power and flexibility of the default planner comes into play for users who know how to use it properly:
In the "Edit" window... The window that displays the route once it is plotted... Virtual pilots can edit (how appropriate!) the route to be more realistic (follow real world charts) AND by doing so, they can make their routes align the plane for a perfect ILS hand-flown approach, or Category III autoland.
So, the next time you think about not using the default flight planner, I recommend you re-evaluate your initial stance and take advantage of just how powerful and easy to use it is for those willing to take the time and use it as it was intended.
Of course, this will require you to do additional research and preparation on your part, but taking the extra time to obtain things like real world SID, STAR and Approach plates and use them to fine tune the generic routes generated by the default planner should greatly improve your in-flight experience and make it more enjoyable and realistic in the end.
In addition, it should also make the entire flight simulation experience more realistic because this kind of (simulated) preparation is what real pilots do on a daily basis before they even set one foot on the tarmac for a pre-flight inspection, or sit behind the controls ready for pushback.
Hardware Update: Intel E5200 Wolfdale and FSX
I stated earlier in this blog that I was going to "upgrade" (downgrade?) my AMD x4 9600 (2.3 GHz) Pehnom processor to an Intel E5200 Wolfdale (2.5 GHz) Dual Core processor. I have made the transition and now want to share my findings.
In a nutshell... GET THIS PROCESSOR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!
The improvement in FSX is astonishing! Using an Intel E5200 O/C (Over Clocked) to 3.0 GHz on the stock retail heatsink that comes with the chip, I saw an overall increase in my frames per second and an averaging of my frames per second that gives me a much smoother in-flight experience than before.
As a point of reference, using the native resolution of my 22" LCD monitor (1680x1050 w/ 4xAA and 2xAF) flying the PMDG 747-400, I would average around 20 FPS in the 2D cockpit, and around 15 FPS in the Virtual Cockpit (VC). Frames would drop to around 7 to 8 FPS in the VC whenever I (or the autopilot) would bank while making a turn.
Using the O/Ced E5200, I now average 45 FPS in the 2D cockpit and around 24 FPS in the Virtual Cockpit. That is an average increase of about 50% in the 2D environment and 10% in the VC environment. Not only that, but textures redraw much faster now, too. Switching from various points of view no longer gives me a gray shaded airplane, or interior because there is no more delay in the redrawing of the 3D environments and exteriors.
In addition to the overall performance gain in FSX, the E5200 has the advantage of not requiring a lot of additional power to be over clocked. This in turn means less heat. I was able to obtain a stable over clock of 3.0 GHz (from the stock 2.5 GHz) by raising the voltage a single volt. I am sure I could even go higher than 3.0 GHz, but see no need to yet. This is significant because most processors require two, three, or even four volt increases just to come close to what the E5200 is currently running at, and with a lot more heat (requiring after market heatsinks and cooling solutions). This is the real world benefit of Intel's 45nm engineering and why the E5200 is still classified as Wolfdale core, the same cores as the faster E7200, and E8000 series Dual Core chips currently dominating the consumer desktop market.
So, for virtual pilots on a tight budget looking for the best "bang for their buck"... I highly recommend the E5200 Wolfdale and the Gigabyte GA-EG31M-S2 (revision 1.0, or 2.0) motherboard in combination with a PSU (Power Supply Unit) of 600 Watts, or more. Make sure the PSU has good 12 Volt rails (or rail) to make sure the CPU has enough power to be over clocked and still provide plenty of power to the rest of your system. Also, be sure you have good DDR2 RAM that can also be over clocked as well.
In closing, I cannot stress this enough: This is one of those rare occurrences where the price/performance ratio lives up to the hype and is worth the initial investment. A simple upgrade of just the processor and motherboard can run you less than $150 total (depending on where you buy and what brand of motherboard), but you will receive approximately $350 to $400 in comparable performance.
WARNING: Over Clocking a processor is for experienced "Power Users" only.
I do not recommend it be done by those new, or unfamiliar with computers, or computer hardware. If you feel you would like to try over clocking an E5200 with the components I recommended, please, make sure you research the process of over clocking thoroughly before attempting it. Over clocking hardware voids the warranty and can damage hardware permanently if it is not done carefully.
I cannot stress this enough: If you are not familiar with over clocking, I highly advise against it unless you have researched it and or have an experienced friend who(m) might be able to help and guide you as you go.
1/9/2009 - UPDATE:
I have now successfuly O/Ced my E5200 to 3.6 GHz stable using the stock heatsink. It is still very cool and gives outstanding performance in FSX. I can now have AI Traffic set anywhere from 60 to 80% and still get flyable (20-30 FPS) frame rates even at busy airports like Chicago Midway, or Los Angeles, International. I am now officially running FSX "at the suggested hardware level of performance".
In a nutshell... GET THIS PROCESSOR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!
The improvement in FSX is astonishing! Using an Intel E5200 O/C (Over Clocked) to 3.0 GHz on the stock retail heatsink that comes with the chip, I saw an overall increase in my frames per second and an averaging of my frames per second that gives me a much smoother in-flight experience than before.
As a point of reference, using the native resolution of my 22" LCD monitor (1680x1050 w/ 4xAA and 2xAF) flying the PMDG 747-400, I would average around 20 FPS in the 2D cockpit, and around 15 FPS in the Virtual Cockpit (VC). Frames would drop to around 7 to 8 FPS in the VC whenever I (or the autopilot) would bank while making a turn.
Using the O/Ced E5200, I now average 45 FPS in the 2D cockpit and around 24 FPS in the Virtual Cockpit. That is an average increase of about 50% in the 2D environment and 10% in the VC environment. Not only that, but textures redraw much faster now, too. Switching from various points of view no longer gives me a gray shaded airplane, or interior because there is no more delay in the redrawing of the 3D environments and exteriors.
In addition to the overall performance gain in FSX, the E5200 has the advantage of not requiring a lot of additional power to be over clocked. This in turn means less heat. I was able to obtain a stable over clock of 3.0 GHz (from the stock 2.5 GHz) by raising the voltage a single volt. I am sure I could even go higher than 3.0 GHz, but see no need to yet. This is significant because most processors require two, three, or even four volt increases just to come close to what the E5200 is currently running at, and with a lot more heat (requiring after market heatsinks and cooling solutions). This is the real world benefit of Intel's 45nm engineering and why the E5200 is still classified as Wolfdale core, the same cores as the faster E7200, and E8000 series Dual Core chips currently dominating the consumer desktop market.
So, for virtual pilots on a tight budget looking for the best "bang for their buck"... I highly recommend the E5200 Wolfdale and the Gigabyte GA-EG31M-S2 (revision 1.0, or 2.0) motherboard in combination with a PSU (Power Supply Unit) of 600 Watts, or more. Make sure the PSU has good 12 Volt rails (or rail) to make sure the CPU has enough power to be over clocked and still provide plenty of power to the rest of your system. Also, be sure you have good DDR2 RAM that can also be over clocked as well.
In closing, I cannot stress this enough: This is one of those rare occurrences where the price/performance ratio lives up to the hype and is worth the initial investment. A simple upgrade of just the processor and motherboard can run you less than $150 total (depending on where you buy and what brand of motherboard), but you will receive approximately $350 to $400 in comparable performance.
WARNING: Over Clocking a processor is for experienced "Power Users" only.
I do not recommend it be done by those new, or unfamiliar with computers, or computer hardware. If you feel you would like to try over clocking an E5200 with the components I recommended, please, make sure you research the process of over clocking thoroughly before attempting it. Over clocking hardware voids the warranty and can damage hardware permanently if it is not done carefully.
I cannot stress this enough: If you are not familiar with over clocking, I highly advise against it unless you have researched it and or have an experienced friend who(m) might be able to help and guide you as you go.
1/9/2009 - UPDATE:
I have now successfuly O/Ced my E5200 to 3.6 GHz stable using the stock heatsink. It is still very cool and gives outstanding performance in FSX. I can now have AI Traffic set anywhere from 60 to 80% and still get flyable (20-30 FPS) frame rates even at busy airports like Chicago Midway, or Los Angeles, International. I am now officially running FSX "at the suggested hardware level of performance".
Maximize Your Flight Time
As with most things in life, the majority of us do not have unlimited free time to devote to our hobbies and other leisure activities. Real life commitments of work and family along with unforeseen events often take up a majority of our waking ours leaving very little time for things like Flight Simulator. That being the case, here are some ways to maximize your time with FSX when time is of the essence.
1. Pick City Pairs That Are Not Too Far Apart
When deciding what two airports (cities) to fly between, try and pick ones that are not too far from each other, but that have enough way points for the proper calculation of climb, cruise and descent most FMCs need. The actual distance, nautical miles, should not the deciding factor, however. The most important factor should be the Estimated Flight Time between the two cities.
For example, the nautical distance between KBOI (Boise International) and KPDX (Portland International) is 305NM. The actual flight time, however, is just 38 minutes. This is a perfect route to fly if your time is limited (one hour) and it has enough way points for most FMCs on realistic payware addons to function properly.
A good place to find short (less than an hour) routes is:
Flightaware.com
First, do a search for the major airport of your choice. Once there, the site then allows you to look at specific flights and aircraft arriving to and flights departing from that major airport. Click on a specific flight, or aircraft type and it will give you the route in the standard SID-Trans(ition)-STAR format. You can then go to Aeroplanner.com and then download the real SID, STAR and Approach Plates referenced in previous blog entries ("The Realistic Way to Fly").
The added benefits of doing shorter hops like this are two fold:
A) The actual flight time is relatively short, but what this means for you as the pilot is you will constantly have something to "do" -- monitoring the autopilot; monitoring the thrust if the aircraft has no auto throttle; monitoring course headings, etc. -- Instead of just sitting back and day dreaming as the autopilot flies the plane.
B) Shorter hops give virtual pilots more chances to improve their skills than longer trips. Since the distance (flight time) is relatively short, this means you have more chances to practice and refine your overall skills (procedures, techniques). This applies to both commercial jets, prop planes and everything in between.
2. Save Your Flight Whenever and Wherever You Want To
This might seem obvious, but because Flight Simulator is often regarded as a simulation more than a "game" a lot of flight simmers completely forget they can save whenever and wherever they want to if they choose to.
In my opinion, virtual pilots shouldn't be worried about "impressing" someone by saying they can go from point A to point B in one session without saving because... The purpose of a game, or real life simulation is a certain event, or scenario can be done over and over again as many times as you want.
As a point of reference, real world pilots often focus on short scenarios in simulators and not long, drawn out ones. For example, they will run one specific scenario... Like an engine failure during takeoff... Or.... a difficult ILS approach with one engine out... Over and over again until they can respond to this type of emergency like it is second nature before moving onto the next scenario/event/procedure.
This aptly applies to virtual pilots whose time is limited because they can save at any time* during their flight and pick right up where they left off during another session, or if they want to practice certain skills over and over like real pilots in simulators do.
*The ability to save anywhere depends entirely on how an addon is developed. The default FSX aircraft can be saved at any point during a flight. However, certain addons may not have what are called "panel states" that allow a snap-shot of the instrument readouts to be saved. The only way to know if your particular addon has panel states active is to read the manuals, and just save and load FSX and see if the instrument readouts match the moment you saved the game.
1. Pick City Pairs That Are Not Too Far Apart
When deciding what two airports (cities) to fly between, try and pick ones that are not too far from each other, but that have enough way points for the proper calculation of climb, cruise and descent most FMCs need. The actual distance, nautical miles, should not the deciding factor, however. The most important factor should be the Estimated Flight Time between the two cities.
For example, the nautical distance between KBOI (Boise International) and KPDX (Portland International) is 305NM. The actual flight time, however, is just 38 minutes. This is a perfect route to fly if your time is limited (one hour) and it has enough way points for most FMCs on realistic payware addons to function properly.
A good place to find short (less than an hour) routes is:
Flightaware.com
First, do a search for the major airport of your choice. Once there, the site then allows you to look at specific flights and aircraft arriving to and flights departing from that major airport. Click on a specific flight, or aircraft type and it will give you the route in the standard SID-Trans(ition)-STAR format. You can then go to Aeroplanner.com and then download the real SID, STAR and Approach Plates referenced in previous blog entries ("The Realistic Way to Fly").
The added benefits of doing shorter hops like this are two fold:
A) The actual flight time is relatively short, but what this means for you as the pilot is you will constantly have something to "do" -- monitoring the autopilot; monitoring the thrust if the aircraft has no auto throttle; monitoring course headings, etc. -- Instead of just sitting back and day dreaming as the autopilot flies the plane.
B) Shorter hops give virtual pilots more chances to improve their skills than longer trips. Since the distance (flight time) is relatively short, this means you have more chances to practice and refine your overall skills (procedures, techniques). This applies to both commercial jets, prop planes and everything in between.
2. Save Your Flight Whenever and Wherever You Want To
This might seem obvious, but because Flight Simulator is often regarded as a simulation more than a "game" a lot of flight simmers completely forget they can save whenever and wherever they want to if they choose to.
In my opinion, virtual pilots shouldn't be worried about "impressing" someone by saying they can go from point A to point B in one session without saving because... The purpose of a game, or real life simulation is a certain event, or scenario can be done over and over again as many times as you want.
As a point of reference, real world pilots often focus on short scenarios in simulators and not long, drawn out ones. For example, they will run one specific scenario... Like an engine failure during takeoff... Or.... a difficult ILS approach with one engine out... Over and over again until they can respond to this type of emergency like it is second nature before moving onto the next scenario/event/procedure.
This aptly applies to virtual pilots whose time is limited because they can save at any time* during their flight and pick right up where they left off during another session, or if they want to practice certain skills over and over like real pilots in simulators do.
*The ability to save anywhere depends entirely on how an addon is developed. The default FSX aircraft can be saved at any point during a flight. However, certain addons may not have what are called "panel states" that allow a snap-shot of the instrument readouts to be saved. The only way to know if your particular addon has panel states active is to read the manuals, and just save and load FSX and see if the instrument readouts match the moment you saved the game.
The Realistic Way to Find Your Way
The last decade of advancements in home computer technology and hardware has allowed flight simulation to reach a level that used to be reserved only for million dollar training programs available to real pilots, military and commercial.
However, even with the increased realism flight simulator brings to flight simulator enthusiasts, it is still up to the flight simmer to find as many ways as he/she can to bring more immersion to the flight simulator experience, too.
One way they can do this is by using SID and STAR charts.
A SID (Standard Instrument Departure) and STAR (Standard Terminal Arrival Procedure) are official routes used by real world pilots. They are freely available on the internet from various sites (links below) and they are like road maps for the sky. Real world airways are made up of interconnected way points that comprise various SID and STAR routes.
An ancillary part of SID and STAR routes are Approach Plates. Approach Plates are what real pilots use when approaching the runways to airports. They give vital information like the altitude of obstacles that might surround the airport/runway like mountains, trees, antenna towers, etc. They also list altitude points where a plane should ideally be as it descends to the runway. Most important, they list crucial information like the ILS frequency and type of ILS the airport is equipped with. They also list the true course heading of the runway that is used to align the plane during an ILS approach.
I highly recommend virtual pilots print out real SID, STAR and Approach Plates when planning and flying virtual routes. Not only will it enhance the experience, but it will keep the immersion level constant because they will not have to pause the simulation and look up the ILS frequency, for example.
Links to SID, STAR and Approach Plates:
Aeroplanner.com
For more in-depth explanations of how to read SID, STAR and Approach Plates, I recommend searching Youtube.com for various video tutorials.
However, even with the increased realism flight simulator brings to flight simulator enthusiasts, it is still up to the flight simmer to find as many ways as he/she can to bring more immersion to the flight simulator experience, too.
One way they can do this is by using SID and STAR charts.
A SID (Standard Instrument Departure) and STAR (Standard Terminal Arrival Procedure) are official routes used by real world pilots. They are freely available on the internet from various sites (links below) and they are like road maps for the sky. Real world airways are made up of interconnected way points that comprise various SID and STAR routes.
An ancillary part of SID and STAR routes are Approach Plates. Approach Plates are what real pilots use when approaching the runways to airports. They give vital information like the altitude of obstacles that might surround the airport/runway like mountains, trees, antenna towers, etc. They also list altitude points where a plane should ideally be as it descends to the runway. Most important, they list crucial information like the ILS frequency and type of ILS the airport is equipped with. They also list the true course heading of the runway that is used to align the plane during an ILS approach.
I highly recommend virtual pilots print out real SID, STAR and Approach Plates when planning and flying virtual routes. Not only will it enhance the experience, but it will keep the immersion level constant because they will not have to pause the simulation and look up the ILS frequency, for example.
Links to SID, STAR and Approach Plates:
Aeroplanner.com
For more in-depth explanations of how to read SID, STAR and Approach Plates, I recommend searching Youtube.com for various video tutorials.
The Theory of Managed Flight
Now that we know the basic work flow model realistic payware addons are built on we should also discuss the real world method most commercial airlines and aviators in general follow when doing an actual flight.
The Shortest Distance Between Two Points Is...
We should start our discussion with the basics: The shortest distance between two points on the ground is a straight line. However, the Earth is not flat. Therefore, when flying between two points the shortest distance is an arc. An arc is a semi-circle with a radius of 180 degrees (1/2 of 360 degrees). An arc also just happens to be the basic model that managed flights are based upon. It is a physical representation of the actual climb, cruise and descent the aircraft does while performing the flight. This should come as no surprise because...
What Goes Up...
The aircraft starts out on the ground at the departure airport (the point of origin), it takes off and climbs toward the cruise altitude. Once it reaches cruise altitude (Top of Climb), it stays there for as long as needed (the majority of the flight). This can be hundreds and hundreds of miles on long trips like Transatlantic Flights. Eventually, the airplane reaches a point where it must descend (Top of Descent), so that it can eventually land at the destination airport.
...Must Come Down
After the aircraft reaches the Top of Descent, it descends from the cruise altitude and lands at the destination airport thus, completing its journey.
This arc-model flights follow has a formal name: Vertical Profile.
A vertical profile is simply a snap-snot of all of the altitudes the plane climbs and descends during the flight. Vertical profiles are very important because this is what the FMGC (Flight Management Guidance Computer) uses as its basic model to calculate the appropriate altitudes and thrust ratings (speed) the plane needs to be at to achieve and maintain those altitudes. It also takes into account the distance between the origin and destination (the way points in between) and factors this into its planning of the vertical profile to make sure it the plane is making the most efficicent use of fuel as well.
The Difference Between Real World Flight and FSX
Now that you know the basic model managed flight follows, we need to discuss how you can apply this when flying in FSX... And how real world flight operations differ from the model FSX uses.
1) Flying with ATC (Air Traffic Control)
FSX air traffic control aims to simulate the interaction real pilots and air traffic controllers would have during a managed flight. Meaning, even if you have a full route of way points in your FMC, you will somtimes be requested by ATC to deviate from your set course just as real planes are often required to do. This is because there might be incoming traffic where you need to go, and/or because they are trying to keep a safe distance between you and other aircraft in the vicinity, etc.
For example, one reason ATC might have you deviate from your flight plan is because the flight plan itself requires ATC to give you specific instructions at certain points. Those instructions might depend entirely on what is happening at that moment e.g. how much traffic is present, weather conditions, unforeseen events, etc. The most common of all reasons for ATC interaction is for final approach vectors when nearing airports to land.
After you are familiar with FSX and operating the aircraft of your choice... You will quickly find the simulated ATC has a lot to be desired, unfortunately. In fact, it is down right unusable in its current form.
The bulk of the problems come from the fact that a lot of times ATC will have you deviate too far from your original flight plan, for no apparent reason at all. Not only that, but the ATC in FSX is programmed to not give virtual pilots enough time to perform the requested maneuvers. It will keep asking you do what it instructed over and over until you do it even if there is no physical way to perform the maneuver any faster (like transtition to a specified altitude).
The major bug in the ATC that makes it unsable for commercial flight is it doesn't know how to properly line aircraft up (vector) for IFR approaches. VRF approaches are usually "on the money", but for whatever reason, IFR approaches are completely useless, or non-functioning.
The other major problem with ATC in FSX is it is very limited in its overall interaction with virtual pilots. For example, you can't declare in-flight emergencies and follow real world procedures for emergency landings and diversions to alternate airports. This lack of interaction is a problem common to all MSFS titles and it is yet to be seen if FS11 will properly address this when it is released.
Therefore, because of all these ATC problems and limitations this leaves virtual pilots with only one option...
2) Flying the Flight Plan and Vertical Profile Solo
This is the only real option virtual pilots can use in FSX, if not online. Meaning, they can simply ignore ATC (don't activate it) and fly their own vertical profiles based on the specific operating procedures certain aircraft use to climb, cruise and then descend. As stated, realistic payware aircraft have simulated FMCs that use the vertical profile to fly the plane from point A to point B, so all they have to worry about is following the instructions and procedures the FMC gives.
For instance, if you know how to operate the Boeing 747-400, you can takeoff, climb, engage the VNAV and LNAV, cruise and descend to your destination as long as you know all the procedures required to complete the flight on your own.
However, this then becomes the major difference between real world flight operations and FSX flight operations and lessens the "simulation" aspects. The absence of ATC is obviously not very realistic, but given the limitations of the default ATC that ships with FSX, not using it might become your chosen method of flight simply because of its massive shortcomings mentioned above.
I usually fly without ATC simply because I would rather learn the aircraft itself vs. how to follow ATC orders while in the air. The two things go hand in hand, but if you are learning a complex aircraft like the A320, I strongly recommend not using ATC until you know the A320 inside and out. Then, you can add the multi-tasking of not just operating the plane properly, but also following ATC instructions if you so choose.
So, I hope this entry has proven informational and interesting. Whether or not you fly with ATC, or by yourself should be secondary to acknowledging what Vertical Profiles are and their importance in the world of avation in general across all types of aircrafts and varied flight operations.
The Shortest Distance Between Two Points Is...
We should start our discussion with the basics: The shortest distance between two points on the ground is a straight line. However, the Earth is not flat. Therefore, when flying between two points the shortest distance is an arc. An arc is a semi-circle with a radius of 180 degrees (1/2 of 360 degrees). An arc also just happens to be the basic model that managed flights are based upon. It is a physical representation of the actual climb, cruise and descent the aircraft does while performing the flight. This should come as no surprise because...
What Goes Up...
The aircraft starts out on the ground at the departure airport (the point of origin), it takes off and climbs toward the cruise altitude. Once it reaches cruise altitude (Top of Climb), it stays there for as long as needed (the majority of the flight). This can be hundreds and hundreds of miles on long trips like Transatlantic Flights. Eventually, the airplane reaches a point where it must descend (Top of Descent), so that it can eventually land at the destination airport.
...Must Come Down
After the aircraft reaches the Top of Descent, it descends from the cruise altitude and lands at the destination airport thus, completing its journey.
This arc-model flights follow has a formal name: Vertical Profile.
A vertical profile is simply a snap-snot of all of the altitudes the plane climbs and descends during the flight. Vertical profiles are very important because this is what the FMGC (Flight Management Guidance Computer) uses as its basic model to calculate the appropriate altitudes and thrust ratings (speed) the plane needs to be at to achieve and maintain those altitudes. It also takes into account the distance between the origin and destination (the way points in between) and factors this into its planning of the vertical profile to make sure it the plane is making the most efficicent use of fuel as well.
The Difference Between Real World Flight and FSX
Now that you know the basic model managed flight follows, we need to discuss how you can apply this when flying in FSX... And how real world flight operations differ from the model FSX uses.
1) Flying with ATC (Air Traffic Control)
FSX air traffic control aims to simulate the interaction real pilots and air traffic controllers would have during a managed flight. Meaning, even if you have a full route of way points in your FMC, you will somtimes be requested by ATC to deviate from your set course just as real planes are often required to do. This is because there might be incoming traffic where you need to go, and/or because they are trying to keep a safe distance between you and other aircraft in the vicinity, etc.
For example, one reason ATC might have you deviate from your flight plan is because the flight plan itself requires ATC to give you specific instructions at certain points. Those instructions might depend entirely on what is happening at that moment e.g. how much traffic is present, weather conditions, unforeseen events, etc. The most common of all reasons for ATC interaction is for final approach vectors when nearing airports to land.
After you are familiar with FSX and operating the aircraft of your choice... You will quickly find the simulated ATC has a lot to be desired, unfortunately. In fact, it is down right unusable in its current form.
The bulk of the problems come from the fact that a lot of times ATC will have you deviate too far from your original flight plan, for no apparent reason at all. Not only that, but the ATC in FSX is programmed to not give virtual pilots enough time to perform the requested maneuvers. It will keep asking you do what it instructed over and over until you do it even if there is no physical way to perform the maneuver any faster (like transtition to a specified altitude).
The major bug in the ATC that makes it unsable for commercial flight is it doesn't know how to properly line aircraft up (vector) for IFR approaches. VRF approaches are usually "on the money", but for whatever reason, IFR approaches are completely useless, or non-functioning.
The other major problem with ATC in FSX is it is very limited in its overall interaction with virtual pilots. For example, you can't declare in-flight emergencies and follow real world procedures for emergency landings and diversions to alternate airports. This lack of interaction is a problem common to all MSFS titles and it is yet to be seen if FS11 will properly address this when it is released.
Therefore, because of all these ATC problems and limitations this leaves virtual pilots with only one option...
2) Flying the Flight Plan and Vertical Profile Solo
This is the only real option virtual pilots can use in FSX, if not online. Meaning, they can simply ignore ATC (don't activate it) and fly their own vertical profiles based on the specific operating procedures certain aircraft use to climb, cruise and then descend. As stated, realistic payware aircraft have simulated FMCs that use the vertical profile to fly the plane from point A to point B, so all they have to worry about is following the instructions and procedures the FMC gives.
For instance, if you know how to operate the Boeing 747-400, you can takeoff, climb, engage the VNAV and LNAV, cruise and descend to your destination as long as you know all the procedures required to complete the flight on your own.
However, this then becomes the major difference between real world flight operations and FSX flight operations and lessens the "simulation" aspects. The absence of ATC is obviously not very realistic, but given the limitations of the default ATC that ships with FSX, not using it might become your chosen method of flight simply because of its massive shortcomings mentioned above.
I usually fly without ATC simply because I would rather learn the aircraft itself vs. how to follow ATC orders while in the air. The two things go hand in hand, but if you are learning a complex aircraft like the A320, I strongly recommend not using ATC until you know the A320 inside and out. Then, you can add the multi-tasking of not just operating the plane properly, but also following ATC instructions if you so choose.
So, I hope this entry has proven informational and interesting. Whether or not you fly with ATC, or by yourself should be secondary to acknowledging what Vertical Profiles are and their importance in the world of avation in general across all types of aircrafts and varied flight operations.
The Paradigm of Payware Addons: Part II
(CONTINUED FROM PART I)
C) Starting the Engines
This is the third step in the overall paradigm of most payware addons. Again, the details of how to start the engines on a specific aircraft will be different, but the fact virtual pilots always do this after the FMC has been programmed and they have been pushed back is universal across all realistic addons because this is the proper sequence of events in real life departures.
D) Taxiing to the Runway / Performing Last Minute Procedures
This includes setting proper flap positions, strength of the engines (N1; TO/GA), setting the MCP (Autopilot, ALT, SPD settings, etc).
E) Takeoff
The most common event associated with aviation. It includes charging up the engines, barreling down the runway, lifting off, putting the gears up and climbing to cruise altitude. It can also encompass things like setting the autopilot and monitoring the plane as it continues climbs, turn, etc.
F) Cruise Altitude (En Route)
For modern airliners this means the virtual pilot can either sit back and enjoy the view as the autopilot does the work, or they might have to be more engaged like with jets who do not have autothrottle controls, so the pilot must make sure the plane doesn't overspeed (go to fast), or stall (not enough speed) at certain altitudes and angles.
G) Descent and Landing
Self-Explanatory... But just as important as the other phases of flight. Not only do landing procedures differ from aircraft to aircraft, but it also depends on the type of landing. For instance, a ILS Category III landing is a fully automated landing vs. a regular ILS approach where the pilot takes control of the aircraft around 500 AGL and brings the plane in for the final touch down themselves.
H) Taxiing to Gate and Shutdown
The very end of the flight. The pilot has arrived safely at their destination with all passengers and aircraft intact. Now, they just have to roll up to the gate and shut the plane down to a Cold & Dark state (if they want).
Now, the whole process might seem overwhelming to the uninitiated, but if you look at it the way I have broken it down... You will see not only is it very simple at its core, but it is also the base model almost every single realistic addons is built around. This is because these addons are supposed to simulate the proper sequence of events real life pilots and aircraft go through in normal operations.
In other words, instead of focusing on the minute details that can drive a beginning virtual pilot crazy like the differences between how to program various FMCs, they should take a step back and look at the big picture and realize what looks overwhelming is in fact very simple when put into the context of a universal work flow common to the more realistic payware addons that try and replicate a real world work flow as their main goal.
In closing, I hope virtual pilots take the time to realize that what might seem daunting and "just not fun" at first isn't really that hard once they realize there is a certain way to approach the more realistic addons because of how they are designed to simulate real life.
C) Starting the Engines
This is the third step in the overall paradigm of most payware addons. Again, the details of how to start the engines on a specific aircraft will be different, but the fact virtual pilots always do this after the FMC has been programmed and they have been pushed back is universal across all realistic addons because this is the proper sequence of events in real life departures.
D) Taxiing to the Runway / Performing Last Minute Procedures
This includes setting proper flap positions, strength of the engines (N1; TO/GA), setting the MCP (Autopilot, ALT, SPD settings, etc).
E) Takeoff
The most common event associated with aviation. It includes charging up the engines, barreling down the runway, lifting off, putting the gears up and climbing to cruise altitude. It can also encompass things like setting the autopilot and monitoring the plane as it continues climbs, turn, etc.
F) Cruise Altitude (En Route)
For modern airliners this means the virtual pilot can either sit back and enjoy the view as the autopilot does the work, or they might have to be more engaged like with jets who do not have autothrottle controls, so the pilot must make sure the plane doesn't overspeed (go to fast), or stall (not enough speed) at certain altitudes and angles.
G) Descent and Landing
Self-Explanatory... But just as important as the other phases of flight. Not only do landing procedures differ from aircraft to aircraft, but it also depends on the type of landing. For instance, a ILS Category III landing is a fully automated landing vs. a regular ILS approach where the pilot takes control of the aircraft around 500 AGL and brings the plane in for the final touch down themselves.
H) Taxiing to Gate and Shutdown
The very end of the flight. The pilot has arrived safely at their destination with all passengers and aircraft intact. Now, they just have to roll up to the gate and shut the plane down to a Cold & Dark state (if they want).
Now, the whole process might seem overwhelming to the uninitiated, but if you look at it the way I have broken it down... You will see not only is it very simple at its core, but it is also the base model almost every single realistic addons is built around. This is because these addons are supposed to simulate the proper sequence of events real life pilots and aircraft go through in normal operations.
In other words, instead of focusing on the minute details that can drive a beginning virtual pilot crazy like the differences between how to program various FMCs, they should take a step back and look at the big picture and realize what looks overwhelming is in fact very simple when put into the context of a universal work flow common to the more realistic payware addons that try and replicate a real world work flow as their main goal.
In closing, I hope virtual pilots take the time to realize that what might seem daunting and "just not fun" at first isn't really that hard once they realize there is a certain way to approach the more realistic addons because of how they are designed to simulate real life.
The Paradigm of Payware Addons
...A.K.A. How To Fly Those Realistic Planes!
I know I stated this blog would not feature "how to" tutorials on specific aircraft addons... And the following entry doesn't violate this rule per se... But I think one of the things that can make some of the realistic addons (Wilcopub; PMDG) a lot easier to understand is if we examine how they all seem to be designed around a specific work flow model that appears to be universal across a majority of payware addons developed by different parties.
The basic universal work flow model most payware addons seem to be built around is the following:
1) Start the aircraft from a "Cold & Dark" state.
2) Program the FMC (Flight Management Computer).
3) Start the engines.
4) Takeoff, Fly, Land
5) Shutdown to a Cold & Dark state again.
Let's go through each stage in-depth, so virtual pilots have a good place to start.
Start from a "Cold & Dark" state - The term "Cold & Dark" means all the systems are turned off and the cockpit is physically dark because of no electronic activity. This is most evident in aircraft that use what are called "glass cockpits". Glass cockpits consist of CRT or LCD screens that display flight data and that have taken the place of traditional radial gauges (sometimes called "steam gauges" because of the days of locomotive steam engine gauges) . Cold & Dark can apply to any aircraft or system that is completely powered down and needs starting up in order to operate.
Normally the first thing that needs to be turned on is the main battery and any standby power (airport ground power) that might be present.
The next step is to charge up the APU (Auxiliary Power Unit). This unit provides more power than ground power, so more demanding systems can be turned on like air conditioning packs, fuel pumps and other systems that require more power than the airport ground power can provide.
Once APU power is flowing, the further initialization of the other systems can commence. This is where it will be different from aircraft to aircraft, but overall, there is a universal work flow present in each aircraft that makes the process that much easier (for flight simmers and real world pilots).
Most overhead panels in modern aircraft are designed with a specific work flow in mind. For example, the Boeing family has a work flow that goes left to right, top to bottom. This makes it standard for pilots who might have to be cross trained and rated on various aircraft types within the same family and helps them familiarize themselves with the newer plane that much faster than if there was no work flow standard at all.
Jets in the Airbus and Embraer families group specific systems together in one area of the overhead panel to make accessing them more centralized.
For example, all of the fuel controls are grouped together in a separate section of the overhead panel as are other systems like electrical, exterior lighting, passenger cabin climate controls, etc.
Realizing the above is the "secret" to mastering a panel full of daunting switches, dials and buttons. Once virtual pilots realize how most panels are set up, learning them should be much more manageable because it turns out there apparently is a method to the madness after all.
Programming the FMC - This is the major difference between General Aviation and commercial aviation. The FMC (Flight Management Computer) is an advanced autopilot that manages the more complicated functions of flight and helps take the physical work load of flying a large jet off of the pilot and crew. It calculates vital elements like climb and descent angles to maximize fuel usage, and can even land the plane in certian circumstances.
The actual details of programming the FMC vary from aircraft to aircraft, but in general, they all require certain universal variables be input like ZFW (Zero Fuel Weight) and cruise altitude.
I won't go into detail about FMC programming because it differs from plane to plane, but the overall method is the pilot programs the FMC with the route they want to fly and the FMC helps them with the work load by managing the VNAV and LNAV discussed in earlier blog entries.
This is precisely why I emphasized the default FSX jets are a good training tool virtual pilots should master before they move onto more realistic addons. The core concepts used to fly commercial jets are the same across all commercial aircraft, regardless of what other systems are, or are not modeled.
(CONTINUED IN PART II)
I know I stated this blog would not feature "how to" tutorials on specific aircraft addons... And the following entry doesn't violate this rule per se... But I think one of the things that can make some of the realistic addons (Wilcopub; PMDG) a lot easier to understand is if we examine how they all seem to be designed around a specific work flow model that appears to be universal across a majority of payware addons developed by different parties.
The basic universal work flow model most payware addons seem to be built around is the following:
1) Start the aircraft from a "Cold & Dark" state.
2) Program the FMC (Flight Management Computer).
3) Start the engines.
4) Takeoff, Fly, Land
5) Shutdown to a Cold & Dark state again.
Let's go through each stage in-depth, so virtual pilots have a good place to start.
Start from a "Cold & Dark" state - The term "Cold & Dark" means all the systems are turned off and the cockpit is physically dark because of no electronic activity. This is most evident in aircraft that use what are called "glass cockpits". Glass cockpits consist of CRT or LCD screens that display flight data and that have taken the place of traditional radial gauges (sometimes called "steam gauges" because of the days of locomotive steam engine gauges) . Cold & Dark can apply to any aircraft or system that is completely powered down and needs starting up in order to operate.
Normally the first thing that needs to be turned on is the main battery and any standby power (airport ground power) that might be present.
The next step is to charge up the APU (Auxiliary Power Unit). This unit provides more power than ground power, so more demanding systems can be turned on like air conditioning packs, fuel pumps and other systems that require more power than the airport ground power can provide.
Once APU power is flowing, the further initialization of the other systems can commence. This is where it will be different from aircraft to aircraft, but overall, there is a universal work flow present in each aircraft that makes the process that much easier (for flight simmers and real world pilots).
Most overhead panels in modern aircraft are designed with a specific work flow in mind. For example, the Boeing family has a work flow that goes left to right, top to bottom. This makes it standard for pilots who might have to be cross trained and rated on various aircraft types within the same family and helps them familiarize themselves with the newer plane that much faster than if there was no work flow standard at all.
Jets in the Airbus and Embraer families group specific systems together in one area of the overhead panel to make accessing them more centralized.
For example, all of the fuel controls are grouped together in a separate section of the overhead panel as are other systems like electrical, exterior lighting, passenger cabin climate controls, etc.
Realizing the above is the "secret" to mastering a panel full of daunting switches, dials and buttons. Once virtual pilots realize how most panels are set up, learning them should be much more manageable because it turns out there apparently is a method to the madness after all.
Programming the FMC - This is the major difference between General Aviation and commercial aviation. The FMC (Flight Management Computer) is an advanced autopilot that manages the more complicated functions of flight and helps take the physical work load of flying a large jet off of the pilot and crew. It calculates vital elements like climb and descent angles to maximize fuel usage, and can even land the plane in certian circumstances.
The actual details of programming the FMC vary from aircraft to aircraft, but in general, they all require certain universal variables be input like ZFW (Zero Fuel Weight) and cruise altitude.
I won't go into detail about FMC programming because it differs from plane to plane, but the overall method is the pilot programs the FMC with the route they want to fly and the FMC helps them with the work load by managing the VNAV and LNAV discussed in earlier blog entries.
This is precisely why I emphasized the default FSX jets are a good training tool virtual pilots should master before they move onto more realistic addons. The core concepts used to fly commercial jets are the same across all commercial aircraft, regardless of what other systems are, or are not modeled.
(CONTINUED IN PART II)
Moving From The Default Aircraft to Advanced Addons
This next entry is going to jump forward a few months, possibly a few years with regard to a FSX pilot's skill progression from the default aircraft to wanting to purchase and fly more realistic third-party payware addons. I am going to focus on commercial jets (vs. General Aviation, or Helicopters) because this is what is considered the "meat & potatoes" of Flight Simulator by a majority of the Flight Simulator communities at large.
To begin, here are some of what I consider the most important aspects all Flight Simulator Pilots should consider before purchasing a realistic payware addon... But especially for those planning to use FSX for advanced simming:
1) Most payware addons require a lot more processing power than the default FSX jets.
This reason should be obvious: Realistic payware addons simulate a lot of systems found on modern aircraft such as TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidence System), weather radar, hydraulics, pneumatics, APU (Auxillary Power Unit), FMC/CDU units, emergency fire suppression systems, ILS CatIII systems (full autoland) and various other components the default FSX jets do not. As a result, this means these addons require a lot more processing power to simulate these additional systems and features.
Flight Simulator pilots should take this into consideration above all else when deciding whether or not to buy this type of addon by not only looking at the system requirements on the box (or website) for the addon, but also comparing those requirements to their current PC specs *AND* what kind of performance they are currently getting in Flight Simulator, right now.
This is particularly important for FSX pilots because of the already taxing hardware requirements FSX already demands by itself. A general rule of thumb is if you and other virtual pilots are barely able to render 30 FPS with the default jets and GA aircraft... Chances are you should not purchase a more realistic addon because of the additional processing power required you probably just do not have at the moment. This applies to all kinds of addons and not just aircraft.
For example, there are countless AI Traffic addons users can purchase to enhance the realism of the skies and airports in FSX. However, once again, they must consider how much additional processing power a traffic addon like this requires and make their decision accordingly.
As a point of fact, the above reasons are why a majority of flight simmers have decided to stay with FS2004, until FS11 is released. As previously stated in earlier blog entires, FS9 does not require that much processing power given today's modern gaming hardware. This means more processing power can go to additional processing routines realistic payware addons require.
This is why I suggested early on if it looks like the majority of your flight simming is going to be IFR, commercial jet simulation, you should purchase (or stay with) FS2004, and install it along side FSX, and use FSX primarily for increased VFR realism.
2) More Realistic Addons Require More Time and Patience to Learn
This is a crucial factor for virtual pilots to consider because in the end it comes down to how much free time and patience you have (or not) to devote to learning the more realistic procedures and systems simulated by these types of addons.
If a virtual pilot is does not have the time, or desire to commit to learning the more realistic addons and just wants to fly instead of "hitting the books" (manuals) then they would probably not enjoy the more realistic addons and should stick to the less demanding ones (as listed in a previous entry) aimed specifically at their level of interest... And/or just save the money they would have spent and fly the default jets included with FSX.
I hope this entry has given virtual pilots some important points to consider as they decide whether or not they are suited to more realistic addons. I also hope I presented a realistic picture of what it takes to get the most out of these kinds of third-party payware addons as far as investments in both hardware, personal commitment and time.
To begin, here are some of what I consider the most important aspects all Flight Simulator Pilots should consider before purchasing a realistic payware addon... But especially for those planning to use FSX for advanced simming:
1) Most payware addons require a lot more processing power than the default FSX jets.
This reason should be obvious: Realistic payware addons simulate a lot of systems found on modern aircraft such as TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidence System), weather radar, hydraulics, pneumatics, APU (Auxillary Power Unit), FMC/CDU units, emergency fire suppression systems, ILS CatIII systems (full autoland) and various other components the default FSX jets do not. As a result, this means these addons require a lot more processing power to simulate these additional systems and features.
Flight Simulator pilots should take this into consideration above all else when deciding whether or not to buy this type of addon by not only looking at the system requirements on the box (or website) for the addon, but also comparing those requirements to their current PC specs *AND* what kind of performance they are currently getting in Flight Simulator, right now.
This is particularly important for FSX pilots because of the already taxing hardware requirements FSX already demands by itself. A general rule of thumb is if you and other virtual pilots are barely able to render 30 FPS with the default jets and GA aircraft... Chances are you should not purchase a more realistic addon because of the additional processing power required you probably just do not have at the moment. This applies to all kinds of addons and not just aircraft.
For example, there are countless AI Traffic addons users can purchase to enhance the realism of the skies and airports in FSX. However, once again, they must consider how much additional processing power a traffic addon like this requires and make their decision accordingly.
As a point of fact, the above reasons are why a majority of flight simmers have decided to stay with FS2004, until FS11 is released. As previously stated in earlier blog entires, FS9 does not require that much processing power given today's modern gaming hardware. This means more processing power can go to additional processing routines realistic payware addons require.
This is why I suggested early on if it looks like the majority of your flight simming is going to be IFR, commercial jet simulation, you should purchase (or stay with) FS2004, and install it along side FSX, and use FSX primarily for increased VFR realism.
2) More Realistic Addons Require More Time and Patience to Learn
This is a crucial factor for virtual pilots to consider because in the end it comes down to how much free time and patience you have (or not) to devote to learning the more realistic procedures and systems simulated by these types of addons.
If a virtual pilot is does not have the time, or desire to commit to learning the more realistic addons and just wants to fly instead of "hitting the books" (manuals) then they would probably not enjoy the more realistic addons and should stick to the less demanding ones (as listed in a previous entry) aimed specifically at their level of interest... And/or just save the money they would have spent and fly the default jets included with FSX.
I hope this entry has given virtual pilots some important points to consider as they decide whether or not they are suited to more realistic addons. I also hope I presented a realistic picture of what it takes to get the most out of these kinds of third-party payware addons as far as investments in both hardware, personal commitment and time.
FSX - The Value of the Default Aircraft
(CONTINUED FROM THE ENTRY "WHY THE SUDDEN INTEREST IN FLIGHT SIMULATION?")
First, while the default jets in FSX are simplified versions of their real world counter-parts, they serve a specific purpose. Not just to entertain the casual simmer who likes to fly, but they also introduce the beginning virtual pilot to some key concepts they should master before they progress to more realistic addons like Wilcopublishing/Pilot in Command, PMDG, etc.
Some of the key concepts are as follows:
-What the MCP (Mode Control Panel) is and how to use it.
-What an autopilot really is, its functions and limitations (VNAV & LNAV).
-How an FMC (Flight Management Computer) works even though it is absent in the default FSX airliners.
Let's examine some of these in-depth:
The default Boeing 737 and 747 both have an MCP (Mode Control Panel) common to all Boeing aircraft. The purpose of the MCP is to allow the pilot to fly the plane without physically touching the yoke, or pedals. It is an interface between the pilot and the autopilot and serves a crucial role in monitoring and adjusting the autopilot while en route.
The key concepts beginning FSX pilots need to mater using the MCP are simple ones like maintaining level flight (altitude), consistent cruise speed (Mach/IAS), heading (direction), and if the plane moves up, or down and how fast (vertical movement & speed).
For example, using the MCP the pilot can control where the aircraft points (direction) using the Heading Select Knob. This is referred to as Lateral Navigation (LNAV), or Horizontal Navigation. The pilot can also control if the plane climbs or descends and how fast using the Vertical Speed knob. This is called Vertical Navigation (VNAV). The pilot can also tell the plane how fast or slow to go using the Speed Select Knob.
These are very simple concepts, but they become important for virtual pilots to be aware of in payware addons where more complex features are present, but that are still based on these very basic concepts. As a point of fact, the MCP on the default planes is almost identical to the more realistic ones you find in expensive payware addons. This is why it is so important for beginning FS pilots to become proficient with the MCP in the default planes before they advance to more realistic addons.
Most important of all it is paramount they understand what is going on behind-the-scenes with regard to what the autopilot (FMC) is doing *for* them to help with the virtual work load when flying the plane.
The best analogy I can think of is when we were all learning basic math in grade school. We all know 10/2=5... But think back to when we were four, or five and learning why this is so. We would have 10 Popsicle sticks and our teacher would say divide them into two groups consisting of five sticks each. He/she then might have said, count each stick one by one and make sure the total was 10.
This same methodology can be applied to knowing what an autopilot is doing for the pilot while flying. Where this becomes very important is in case something goes wrong (MSFS malfunction; addon bug). If the pilot has a firm understanding of what the autopilot *should* be doing for them and is aware there is an error, this also means they have the knowledge of how to correct the error and salvage the flight. It's like knowing 5+5=10, but your malfunctioning calculator keeps displaying 5+5=100. You know know this is wrong, but more importantly you know *why* it is wrong, too.
This is a prime example of how the default jets serve as a platform for virtual pilots to master fundamental skills that will serve them long after they have moved on from the default planes.
On a personal note, whenever I learn a new route (city pair), I like to use the default planes and do what amounts to a dry run using the basic autopilot (GPS) and MCP. Once I successfully take off and land at both cities (reversing the route), I then load up an expensive addon like the Wilcopub Airbus Series... And it makes the flight experience with those addons much smoother becuase not only am I more familar with the physical aspects of the route like the terrain, but I can also adjust things on the expensive payware addons in the FMC I am now aware of when I was in complete control in the default planes. Things like approach speeds and other nuances that make flying an art and not an exact science in many respects.
First, while the default jets in FSX are simplified versions of their real world counter-parts, they serve a specific purpose. Not just to entertain the casual simmer who likes to fly, but they also introduce the beginning virtual pilot to some key concepts they should master before they progress to more realistic addons like Wilcopublishing/Pilot in Command, PMDG, etc.
Some of the key concepts are as follows:
-What the MCP (Mode Control Panel) is and how to use it.
-What an autopilot really is, its functions and limitations (VNAV & LNAV).
-How an FMC (Flight Management Computer) works even though it is absent in the default FSX airliners.
Let's examine some of these in-depth:
The default Boeing 737 and 747 both have an MCP (Mode Control Panel) common to all Boeing aircraft. The purpose of the MCP is to allow the pilot to fly the plane without physically touching the yoke, or pedals. It is an interface between the pilot and the autopilot and serves a crucial role in monitoring and adjusting the autopilot while en route.
The key concepts beginning FSX pilots need to mater using the MCP are simple ones like maintaining level flight (altitude), consistent cruise speed (Mach/IAS), heading (direction), and if the plane moves up, or down and how fast (vertical movement & speed).
For example, using the MCP the pilot can control where the aircraft points (direction) using the Heading Select Knob. This is referred to as Lateral Navigation (LNAV), or Horizontal Navigation. The pilot can also control if the plane climbs or descends and how fast using the Vertical Speed knob. This is called Vertical Navigation (VNAV). The pilot can also tell the plane how fast or slow to go using the Speed Select Knob.
These are very simple concepts, but they become important for virtual pilots to be aware of in payware addons where more complex features are present, but that are still based on these very basic concepts. As a point of fact, the MCP on the default planes is almost identical to the more realistic ones you find in expensive payware addons. This is why it is so important for beginning FS pilots to become proficient with the MCP in the default planes before they advance to more realistic addons.
Most important of all it is paramount they understand what is going on behind-the-scenes with regard to what the autopilot (FMC) is doing *for* them to help with the virtual work load when flying the plane.
The best analogy I can think of is when we were all learning basic math in grade school. We all know 10/2=5... But think back to when we were four, or five and learning why this is so. We would have 10 Popsicle sticks and our teacher would say divide them into two groups consisting of five sticks each. He/she then might have said, count each stick one by one and make sure the total was 10.
This same methodology can be applied to knowing what an autopilot is doing for the pilot while flying. Where this becomes very important is in case something goes wrong (MSFS malfunction; addon bug). If the pilot has a firm understanding of what the autopilot *should* be doing for them and is aware there is an error, this also means they have the knowledge of how to correct the error and salvage the flight. It's like knowing 5+5=10, but your malfunctioning calculator keeps displaying 5+5=100. You know know this is wrong, but more importantly you know *why* it is wrong, too.
This is a prime example of how the default jets serve as a platform for virtual pilots to master fundamental skills that will serve them long after they have moved on from the default planes.
On a personal note, whenever I learn a new route (city pair), I like to use the default planes and do what amounts to a dry run using the basic autopilot (GPS) and MCP. Once I successfully take off and land at both cities (reversing the route), I then load up an expensive addon like the Wilcopub Airbus Series... And it makes the flight experience with those addons much smoother becuase not only am I more familar with the physical aspects of the route like the terrain, but I can also adjust things on the expensive payware addons in the FMC I am now aware of when I was in complete control in the default planes. Things like approach speeds and other nuances that make flying an art and not an exact science in many respects.
Why the Sudden Interest in Flight Simulation?
At this point, I assume you have FSX installed and running at acceptable levels... And/or you also have FS2004 installed and are using that if FSX just isn't giving you the performance you desire?
Either way, this next entry might seem like it should be (have been) toward the beginning and been part of the forward, but I feel it fits nicely with how I am going to structure the rest of this blog... And this will focus more on intermediate and advanced simmers, but always with the beginning, or casual simmer in mind as well.
So, without further aideu...
From my experience and from talking with many in the flight sim community the most obvious reason people become interested in flight simulation and Microsoft Flight Simulator is their general interest in and love of aviation. Some are just born with the desire to fly and this is what they hope their adult life will consist of.
However, this isn't always the number one reason why people become interested in MSFS, and flight simulators in general. There reasons why people become interested in flight simulation are too varied and numerous to go into here, but I will be so bold as to state the one thing we all have in common is a shared love of what I call "endless possibilities". This might sound corny, but I think at the core, Flight Simulator represents a world of unlimited possibilties on various levels and this is why the appeal of this genre is so strong even if flight sim users aren't consciously aware of it.
Now, speaking from my personal experience as an avid video game player, I was looking for something more challenging than the typical "shoot anything that moves" kind of games that dominate the market on both the console, or PC. Don't get me wrong. I love a good action game like "Tomb Raider", or arcade racing games like "Race Driver: GRID" to name a few. But I always felt there was something missing. That something turned out to be the need for a real challenge and in-depth game play experience that went beyond just having twitch reflexes, or using exploits to beat the game because of inherent design flaws by developers. It also turned out to be wanting something with infinite replay value and a truly open-ended world that is becoming more rare these days since most games are linear stories (interactive-movies) with scripted setpieces and events that happen at the exact same place and time whenever you play the game through more than once.
Also, I am in my mid-30s. So, having played pretty much every game under the sun dating all the way back to the days of the Apple II, and Atari 2600, the appeal of very simplistic games with no real challenge, or long-lasting replay value was what I was craving the most when I decided to give the flight simulation genre a try.
As I was first becoming interested in the flight simulation genre, the first thing I did was what most people who are trying something new do: I did a ton of research. I read as much as I could. I would have talked to as many people as I could, but as with most niche genres, not many I know are into flight simulation. I downloaded demos of various flight simulator programs like X-Plane, and Flight Gear, and generally immersed myself in the basics of what this genre has to offer. I settled on Microsoft Flight Simulator because I feel it is the most user-friendly and has the most support from both its creator and the community at large. What also swayed me was MSFS has over 25-years of experience with this particular genre and this is probably is why it is more user-friendly and polished than a lot of the other flight sim programs currently available.
After deciding on MSFS... FS2004: A Century of Flight to be exact... I began to take my first steps into a much larger world (don't sue me, George Lucas!). However, that wonder was quickly tempered with the feeling of "What have I got myself into?" when I realized just how much I *didn't* know about aviation once I started reading some of the flying lessons by Ron Machado and others.
I think it is safe for me to state my initial reaction is probably typical for those new to MSFS, but especially for gamers making the transition from less complex games to the more reality-based simulations like MSFS. For the first time, I realized why so many kept referring to MSFS not as a game, but as a simulation (after having been at it for a number of years I discovered the *real* reason a lot of flight sim users claim it is a simulation is because of mostly egotism and elitism, but I won't go into that right now)... And I think this is what actually kept me going and *wanting* to learn more instead of just giving up, or only scratching the bare surface of what flight simulation can offer and being content with that.
What is only scratching the surface of what flight simulation can offer?
I consider just scratching the surface just flying the default aircraft MSFS ships with. Now, in all fairness the default aircraft have seen a lot of improvement from FS2004 to FSX, but they are still "video game" aircraft that are designed for casual and beginning virtual pilots and not intermediate or advanced simmers who want more realistic depictions of real world flight systems, operations and procedures. This doesn't make them all bad, however.
(CONTINUED IN NEXT BLOG ENTRY)
Either way, this next entry might seem like it should be (have been) toward the beginning and been part of the forward, but I feel it fits nicely with how I am going to structure the rest of this blog... And this will focus more on intermediate and advanced simmers, but always with the beginning, or casual simmer in mind as well.
So, without further aideu...
From my experience and from talking with many in the flight sim community the most obvious reason people become interested in flight simulation and Microsoft Flight Simulator is their general interest in and love of aviation. Some are just born with the desire to fly and this is what they hope their adult life will consist of.
However, this isn't always the number one reason why people become interested in MSFS, and flight simulators in general. There reasons why people become interested in flight simulation are too varied and numerous to go into here, but I will be so bold as to state the one thing we all have in common is a shared love of what I call "endless possibilities". This might sound corny, but I think at the core, Flight Simulator represents a world of unlimited possibilties on various levels and this is why the appeal of this genre is so strong even if flight sim users aren't consciously aware of it.
Now, speaking from my personal experience as an avid video game player, I was looking for something more challenging than the typical "shoot anything that moves" kind of games that dominate the market on both the console, or PC. Don't get me wrong. I love a good action game like "Tomb Raider", or arcade racing games like "Race Driver: GRID" to name a few. But I always felt there was something missing. That something turned out to be the need for a real challenge and in-depth game play experience that went beyond just having twitch reflexes, or using exploits to beat the game because of inherent design flaws by developers. It also turned out to be wanting something with infinite replay value and a truly open-ended world that is becoming more rare these days since most games are linear stories (interactive-movies) with scripted setpieces and events that happen at the exact same place and time whenever you play the game through more than once.
Also, I am in my mid-30s. So, having played pretty much every game under the sun dating all the way back to the days of the Apple II, and Atari 2600, the appeal of very simplistic games with no real challenge, or long-lasting replay value was what I was craving the most when I decided to give the flight simulation genre a try.
As I was first becoming interested in the flight simulation genre, the first thing I did was what most people who are trying something new do: I did a ton of research. I read as much as I could. I would have talked to as many people as I could, but as with most niche genres, not many I know are into flight simulation. I downloaded demos of various flight simulator programs like X-Plane, and Flight Gear, and generally immersed myself in the basics of what this genre has to offer. I settled on Microsoft Flight Simulator because I feel it is the most user-friendly and has the most support from both its creator and the community at large. What also swayed me was MSFS has over 25-years of experience with this particular genre and this is probably is why it is more user-friendly and polished than a lot of the other flight sim programs currently available.
After deciding on MSFS... FS2004: A Century of Flight to be exact... I began to take my first steps into a much larger world (don't sue me, George Lucas!). However, that wonder was quickly tempered with the feeling of "What have I got myself into?" when I realized just how much I *didn't* know about aviation once I started reading some of the flying lessons by Ron Machado and others.
I think it is safe for me to state my initial reaction is probably typical for those new to MSFS, but especially for gamers making the transition from less complex games to the more reality-based simulations like MSFS. For the first time, I realized why so many kept referring to MSFS not as a game, but as a simulation (after having been at it for a number of years I discovered the *real* reason a lot of flight sim users claim it is a simulation is because of mostly egotism and elitism, but I won't go into that right now)... And I think this is what actually kept me going and *wanting* to learn more instead of just giving up, or only scratching the bare surface of what flight simulation can offer and being content with that.
What is only scratching the surface of what flight simulation can offer?
I consider just scratching the surface just flying the default aircraft MSFS ships with. Now, in all fairness the default aircraft have seen a lot of improvement from FS2004 to FSX, but they are still "video game" aircraft that are designed for casual and beginning virtual pilots and not intermediate or advanced simmers who want more realistic depictions of real world flight systems, operations and procedures. This doesn't make them all bad, however.
(CONTINUED IN NEXT BLOG ENTRY)
Flight Simulator X Addons: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
Hopefully by now you have fine tuned FSX for the best balance between visuals and performance and spent some time flying the default aircraft. Perhaps you have even completed all of the missions? So, the big question is what do you do now?
The general answer to this question is... Anything you want.
FSX is one of the very few games still built on the "sandbox" model of granting the user unlimited freedom to do what he/she wants. The formal definition of "sandbox" means the developers give the gamer a set of tools and it is up to them (the gamer) to create their own game play. Part of creating your own game play comes in the form of user content called addons (add-ons).
An addon can be anything from a simple airline livery (aircraft paint scheme) to scenery enhancements like new airports, better looking terrain, more realistic sky, improved weather effects, etc. The most obvious addons are of course, aircraft that can be flown in Flight Simulator along side the default aircraft. All of these addons fall into either one of two general categories:
Freeware - These are addons made strictly by flight sim enthusiasts like yourself. They can be downloaded at any number of flight sim sites and are completely free. The makers of freeware addons make them simply because they want to improve flight simulator experience for themselves and share that improved experience with the flight simulation community at large.
As with most things of this nature, the quality of freeware addons varies greatly. Some freeware addons are very amateurish (by default) and not done very well. Other freeware addons are very professional and rivial even the more expensive payware addons made by professional developers. This leads me to...
Payware - These addons are produced and published by third-party developers who market them to the flight sim community and its members. Some famous developers and publisher names you will quickly become familiar with are PMDG (Percision Manuals Design Group), Abacus, Commercial Level Simulatons, and FeelThere/Wilcopublishing just to name a few.
So, you are probably asking yourself which ones are the best?
Even though this is an entirely subjective discussion, I feel there still has to be a way for flight sim enthusiasts to evaluate and make purchasing decisions for payware addons considering payware addons are where you can obviously lose money if you are not careful. Because of the risk payware addons inherently bring I have decided break down the kinds of addons that are available into three general categories to hopefully give FSX users a starting point for their evaluations.
ADDON CATEGORIES:
A) Expert and Advanced
This type of addon is aimed at the virtual pilot who might as well be a real pilot and wants things "as real as it gets". They want as many of the complex systems on a aircraft modeled in detail and these addons deliver. This type of addon requires advanced knowledge of in-depth aircraft procedures and systems such as starting the APU (Auxilary Power Unit) in a "Cold & Dark" configuration, programming the MCU/CDU with waypoint data, knowing how to read and use SIDS and STARS information, calculate V speeds and other advanced operating procedures pilots in the real world use.
The following addons fall into this category:
-PMDG
-FeelThere/Wilcopublishing* (Pilot in Command)
-Captain Sim
-Level D
B) Intermediate
This type of addon is geared toward the beginning to intermediate flight simmer who has more advanced skills and knowledge than the default aircraft in FSX offer, but who also might not enjoy going through every single procedure, or subsystem to get them in their air like advanced simmers enjoy. This type of addon is designed to focus on a few key systems and often simulates those specific systems with limited functionality.
For example, unlike the default FSX aircraft, this type of addon might include a FMC (Flight Management Computer) and require the pilot to know how this kind of device works (program it themselves). However, it won't be as powerful as a more advanced FMC and lack a lot of major functions a real FMC might have.
Some addons that fall into this category are:
-Commercial Level Simulations
-Carenado
-Flight One (certain planes)
-FeelThere/Wilcopublishing* (Modern Airliner Series)
C) Amateur and Casual
This last type of addon is for the casual flight simmer who likes to fly. Period. They have no real desire to learn how and why systems on an aircraft work. They just like "the view outside the window at 30,000 FT". The easier it is to get them into the air the better. These types of addons are basically modified versions of the default aircraft found in FSX. They model very few systems and the emphasis is on getting the pilot off the ground with minimal work. All these addons require are a basic knowledge of flight, aircraft control (flaps, throttle, pitch), rudimentary navigational aids (GPS; compass) and takeoff and landing procedures like ILS approaches.
Some addons that fall into this category are:
-Abacus
-Aerosim
-Simmer's Sky (Overland)
*The reason I have listed FeelThere/Wilcopublishing in two different categories is because they market a number of different products that fall into multiple categories. There is also an ongoing debate about the quality of the products FeelThere/Wlicopublishing produces that further complicates where to definitively place them as well.
My personal opinion on FeelThere/Wilcopublishig is similar to a majority in the flight sim community: After they release a product it is best to wait for a few patches, so the initial bugs are worked out and the experience is a much better one by default. If you are going to pay for quality at least, wait until that quality is there.
I hope this guide helps future Flight Simulator pilots when the time comes to buy addons, or even look for freeware ones. This should be particularly useful for parents of children/teens/young adults who might be asking for FSX addons by helping them determine the various kinds of addons that might be more suited to them given their present age, skill level and overall interest in aviation.
The general answer to this question is... Anything you want.
FSX is one of the very few games still built on the "sandbox" model of granting the user unlimited freedom to do what he/she wants. The formal definition of "sandbox" means the developers give the gamer a set of tools and it is up to them (the gamer) to create their own game play. Part of creating your own game play comes in the form of user content called addons (add-ons).
An addon can be anything from a simple airline livery (aircraft paint scheme) to scenery enhancements like new airports, better looking terrain, more realistic sky, improved weather effects, etc. The most obvious addons are of course, aircraft that can be flown in Flight Simulator along side the default aircraft. All of these addons fall into either one of two general categories:
Freeware - These are addons made strictly by flight sim enthusiasts like yourself. They can be downloaded at any number of flight sim sites and are completely free. The makers of freeware addons make them simply because they want to improve flight simulator experience for themselves and share that improved experience with the flight simulation community at large.
As with most things of this nature, the quality of freeware addons varies greatly. Some freeware addons are very amateurish (by default) and not done very well. Other freeware addons are very professional and rivial even the more expensive payware addons made by professional developers. This leads me to...
Payware - These addons are produced and published by third-party developers who market them to the flight sim community and its members. Some famous developers and publisher names you will quickly become familiar with are PMDG (Percision Manuals Design Group), Abacus, Commercial Level Simulatons, and FeelThere/Wilcopublishing just to name a few.
So, you are probably asking yourself which ones are the best?
Even though this is an entirely subjective discussion, I feel there still has to be a way for flight sim enthusiasts to evaluate and make purchasing decisions for payware addons considering payware addons are where you can obviously lose money if you are not careful. Because of the risk payware addons inherently bring I have decided break down the kinds of addons that are available into three general categories to hopefully give FSX users a starting point for their evaluations.
ADDON CATEGORIES:
A) Expert and Advanced
This type of addon is aimed at the virtual pilot who might as well be a real pilot and wants things "as real as it gets". They want as many of the complex systems on a aircraft modeled in detail and these addons deliver. This type of addon requires advanced knowledge of in-depth aircraft procedures and systems such as starting the APU (Auxilary Power Unit) in a "Cold & Dark" configuration, programming the MCU/CDU with waypoint data, knowing how to read and use SIDS and STARS information, calculate V speeds and other advanced operating procedures pilots in the real world use.
The following addons fall into this category:
-PMDG
-FeelThere/Wilcopublishing* (Pilot in Command)
-Captain Sim
-Level D
B) Intermediate
This type of addon is geared toward the beginning to intermediate flight simmer who has more advanced skills and knowledge than the default aircraft in FSX offer, but who also might not enjoy going through every single procedure, or subsystem to get them in their air like advanced simmers enjoy. This type of addon is designed to focus on a few key systems and often simulates those specific systems with limited functionality.
For example, unlike the default FSX aircraft, this type of addon might include a FMC (Flight Management Computer) and require the pilot to know how this kind of device works (program it themselves). However, it won't be as powerful as a more advanced FMC and lack a lot of major functions a real FMC might have.
Some addons that fall into this category are:
-Commercial Level Simulations
-Carenado
-Flight One (certain planes)
-FeelThere/Wilcopublishing* (Modern Airliner Series)
C) Amateur and Casual
This last type of addon is for the casual flight simmer who likes to fly. Period. They have no real desire to learn how and why systems on an aircraft work. They just like "the view outside the window at 30,000 FT". The easier it is to get them into the air the better. These types of addons are basically modified versions of the default aircraft found in FSX. They model very few systems and the emphasis is on getting the pilot off the ground with minimal work. All these addons require are a basic knowledge of flight, aircraft control (flaps, throttle, pitch), rudimentary navigational aids (GPS; compass) and takeoff and landing procedures like ILS approaches.
Some addons that fall into this category are:
-Abacus
-Aerosim
-Simmer's Sky (Overland)
*The reason I have listed FeelThere/Wilcopublishing in two different categories is because they market a number of different products that fall into multiple categories. There is also an ongoing debate about the quality of the products FeelThere/Wlicopublishing produces that further complicates where to definitively place them as well.
My personal opinion on FeelThere/Wilcopublishig is similar to a majority in the flight sim community: After they release a product it is best to wait for a few patches, so the initial bugs are worked out and the experience is a much better one by default. If you are going to pay for quality at least, wait until that quality is there.
I hope this guide helps future Flight Simulator pilots when the time comes to buy addons, or even look for freeware ones. This should be particularly useful for parents of children/teens/young adults who might be asking for FSX addons by helping them determine the various kinds of addons that might be more suited to them given their present age, skill level and overall interest in aviation.
How to Get The Best Out of FSX
Welcome back.
Now that you have made the appropriate hardware upgrades and (I assume) have FSX fully installed...
FINE TUNE FSX FOR YOUR SYSTEM
Each and every PC system varies and it is your computer's combination of hardware and software that will determine what features (sliders) you are able to select, and at what level (high, low, off). FSX is a title where you will more than likely have to make sacrifices in one area, or the other due to current hardware limitations.
You also have to consider what you define as an acceptable number of frames per second for both a smooth moving image and responsive control.
I consider the bare minimum frames per second equal to film (24 FPS), or full-motion video (30 FPS) to be the lowest acceptable number of frames per second that produces a smooth and responsive flight simulation experience for myself and my hardware. This preference will vary from person to person, system to system, and it is up to you to determine your own balance between visuals and performance & response.
DETERMINE YOUR BASE LINE PERFORMANCE
In my opinion, the best way to tune FSX for the best performance is to first determine a baseline level of performance. To do this, set all of the sliders to low, or off (all to the left), select your MONITOR'S NATIVE RESOLUTION, select "Unlimited" as your frame rate, and load the default flight in the Cessna 172SP. Once you are in the game, hit "SHIFT + Z" twice to bring up a frames per second counter in the upper left hand corner of your screen once you are airborne.
This will give you a baseline level of performance that should run very well on most systems. It won't be visually stunning, but that's the point. This first test is just to give you a general idea of how FSX performs and should be mostly CPU limited depending on what resolution you run this first test at.
Choose a geographic area that has every kind of terrain FSX can render. This includes water, mountains and urban cities with a few skyscrapers. This will represent a good sampling of the kind of performance you should expect overall.
The San Francisco Bay Area, CA, is a good area to test because it contains every single kind of terrain FSX can render within a very short distance of one another. Seattle, WA, is also another one along with Victoria, B.C. There are countless other areas around the world, but the main thing the area should have is a variety of different terrains, dense cities and bodies of water.
Now, take note of the average number of frames per second on the ground and in the air. It will fluctuate, but it should more or less hover around a certain number on average. This number is your average baseline frames per second and it should be fairly high (40s, 50s, maybe even 60s) given the very low settings at this point.
After you have discovered your baseline frames per second you can then use this number as a reference point to compare performance against as you add and increase more features like higher textures, more detailed terrain, AI Air Traffic, etc.
TAKE TIME TO TEST AND SMOOTH OUT YOUR FRAME RATE
After you have established your average frames per second, you then need to lock your frame rate to this number. Locking your frame rate forces FSX to only render that many frames per second and frees up CPU cycles for other things like aircraft systems simulation, aerodynamic calculations, etc.
It should be noted some users have reported better performance keeping their frames set to "Unlimited" instead of locking them. This is a personal preference and you will have to see what kind of performance you get with your frames locked, or unlocked and act accordingly.
Once you lock your average frames per second, you can start to increase the various sliders and see how they impact your average (locked?) frames per second. As stated, FSX will fluctuate, but your goal is to minimize drastic fluctuations.
For example, if your average frames per second is locked 35, you don't want the game dropping to 12, then going back up to 35, then back down to 20, every other second. You want to keep the fluctuations as close to your average frames per second as possible. An acceptable range is within four, or five frames of the average. Keeping fluctuations low helps maintain the smoothness of your game. Keeping a smooth flying experience is will also help FSX be responsive to your control input as well.
A general rule of thumb that applies to all video games is while your main goal a high number of frames per second, you should be striving for a more consistent number of frames per second even if it is low.
Now, the following is a more in-depth explanation and discussion about some of the different features you can use to fine tune your FSX experience. I only covered what I consider are the most important ones and those that seem to have the biggest impact on frames per second compared to the other settings you can change in FSX.
SETTINGS THAT GREATLY EFFECT FSX PERFORMANCE
Autogen (Autogenerated objects) - Autogen is randomly generated houses, buildings, trees and other objects that appear on the terrain as you fly above it to give it a more three dimensional appearance.
ACES Studio redesigned FSX's autogen to be more robust than previous versions of Flight Simulator. This is precisely why it has such negative impact on FPS. The performance hit comes from FSX being forced to render hundreds and hundreds of three dimensional objects (buildings and trees). For comparison, FS2004 rendered a maximum of 600 trees and 300 buildings per cell at maximum settings. FSX can render 45000 trees and 13000 buildings per cell at normal settings. As you can see, Autogen is a prime example where FSX users will have to make the choice between a more detailed world, or higher frames per second.
One way to reduce the number of autogen objects is to delete, or rename the "default.xml" file in the Autogen subfolder of the main FSX root directory.
I would advise new users simply RENAME this file from "default.xml" to "default.backup". This way, if they (or an addon) needs it, they can simply rename it to its original form. Like all things Flight Simulator related, users have reported various increases in performance by renaming, or deleting this file while others reported no improvement at all.
To help determine what you should set Autogen to you should consider what kind of flying you plan to do the most.
If you are a General Aviation pilot (Cessna; prop planes) and like to fly low to the ground, you are a VFR (Visual Flight Rules) pilot. If VFR is your flight method of choice, I recommend keeping the Autogen fairly high because it will increase the realism and visuals you see gazing out your cockpit windows.
If, however, on the other hand you are into the "heavies" (commercial jets), I recommend you turn Autogen to "sparse", or completely off. This is because you don't care about how many houses, or trees you can see from 35,000FT. The trade-off in performance will be worth it because the CPU cycles that used to be render the autogen are shifted to simulating the more complex systems found on modern airliners.
AI Traffic (Ground and Air) - These are computer controlled planes that takeoff and land at airports to simulate real world operations that are conducted on a daily basis. New to FSX, this also includes cars driving on the major highways and also ships and ferries near cities with large bodies of water.
All of these additional AI routines reduce the overall FPS because it adds yet another layer of information that must be processed by the CPU along with FSX's other core processes.
Turning all AI Traffic off can give a large boost in frames per second... But it can also reduce the world to a very lonely and empty place with no aircraft at airports, no cars on the roads, and no ships in major water ways. This is a personal decision you will have to make and you should always experiment with different settings such as no cars and ships, but maybe 35% aircraft, ,etc, etc.
Water Effects - The reflective sheen and animated wave effects.
One of the major areas FSX has dramatically improved over previous versions of Flight Simulator is water is now rendered more realistically than ever. It uses DirectX shaders for the improved visuals, and also includes animated surface movements like tac (wind) swells and surf. Beware, these two new features also are a hit to the frames per second as well.
So, for optimal frame rates I recommend keeping water set to around medium high ("Low 2.x") and have Special Effects set to low (all the way left). This way, you still get the new shader effects, but with a minimal FPS hit because the wave movement isn't being simulated any more (or at very low levels that have minimal impact).
Mesh Complexity - This is how detailed the geography is.
This includes mountains, hills, valleys and other natural occurrences. Truth be told, I don't believe there is much of a performance hit having it set to maximum (100), or not. Again, this depends on other settings, your average frames per second and where exactly you are flying.
For example, if you are island hopping in the Pacific, you can probably have mesh complexity set to 100 because 90% of the scenery is going to be flat ocean.
If on the other hand, you are flying through the Alps in a heavy snow storm practicing IFR (Instrument Flight Rules), you may have to adjust your mesh complexity because of the amount of peaks, hills, and mountains needed to simulate that particular environment. So, generally speaking this setting depends more on individual preference than anything else.
Scenery Complexity - This determines how many land marks and buildings are displayed.
One important area to note is for major cities like New York to be rendered with its recognizable Manhattan skyline... You must set the Scenery Complexity slider to 100.
This applies to every major city worldwide (Paris, London, Rome, etc.). This is because anything less than 100 means FSX will leave out major buildings and land marks to increase performance.
Service Packs - Patches to the game that improve performance and fix bugs.
Microsoft and ACES Studio have released two service packs (SP) for FSX. The first adds multicore CPU support and claims to greatly improve performance on dual and quad core systems. Users on various flight sim forums have reported great increases in frame rates while others have reported no increase at all. I recommend all FSX pilots install SP1 at the very least because of the reported performance increase from the default installation.
Service Pack 2 was more of a unifying Service Pack to make owners and non-owners of the Acceleration Expansion compatible in multiplayer. SP2 also includes a few more enhancements/bug fixes and also a DX10 preview mode for Windows Vista users. I would recommend installing the stand-alone SP2 and not the Acceleration Expansion (that contains SP2 and additional aircraft and scenery) unless of course, you want the added aircraft and new scenery.
FSX users should be aware that ACES made certain changes that are not compatible with (pre-)SP1 aircraft and addons in both SP2/Acceleration. As an example, some of the Carenado payware planes will not render properly with SP2/Acceleration installed. This is because a lot of the addons like this are ports from FS2004, and SP2 more or less did away with backwards compatibility. So, I would check to see if your favorite addons are SP2/Acceleration compatible before installing it. You can always un-install SP2/Acceleration, but you should always try and avoid this kind of maintenance for programs whenever you can.
I hope this entry provides some useful information you and other users can use to improve your FSX performance. In the end, it will come down to combination of hardware limitations and personal preference... But at the very least, this guide should give you a solid starting point on how and where to make start making adjustments to suit those preferences.
Now that you have made the appropriate hardware upgrades and (I assume) have FSX fully installed...
FINE TUNE FSX FOR YOUR SYSTEM
Each and every PC system varies and it is your computer's combination of hardware and software that will determine what features (sliders) you are able to select, and at what level (high, low, off). FSX is a title where you will more than likely have to make sacrifices in one area, or the other due to current hardware limitations.
You also have to consider what you define as an acceptable number of frames per second for both a smooth moving image and responsive control.
I consider the bare minimum frames per second equal to film (24 FPS), or full-motion video (30 FPS) to be the lowest acceptable number of frames per second that produces a smooth and responsive flight simulation experience for myself and my hardware. This preference will vary from person to person, system to system, and it is up to you to determine your own balance between visuals and performance & response.
DETERMINE YOUR BASE LINE PERFORMANCE
In my opinion, the best way to tune FSX for the best performance is to first determine a baseline level of performance. To do this, set all of the sliders to low, or off (all to the left), select your MONITOR'S NATIVE RESOLUTION, select "Unlimited" as your frame rate, and load the default flight in the Cessna 172SP. Once you are in the game, hit "SHIFT + Z" twice to bring up a frames per second counter in the upper left hand corner of your screen once you are airborne.
This will give you a baseline level of performance that should run very well on most systems. It won't be visually stunning, but that's the point. This first test is just to give you a general idea of how FSX performs and should be mostly CPU limited depending on what resolution you run this first test at.
Choose a geographic area that has every kind of terrain FSX can render. This includes water, mountains and urban cities with a few skyscrapers. This will represent a good sampling of the kind of performance you should expect overall.
The San Francisco Bay Area, CA, is a good area to test because it contains every single kind of terrain FSX can render within a very short distance of one another. Seattle, WA, is also another one along with Victoria, B.C. There are countless other areas around the world, but the main thing the area should have is a variety of different terrains, dense cities and bodies of water.
Now, take note of the average number of frames per second on the ground and in the air. It will fluctuate, but it should more or less hover around a certain number on average. This number is your average baseline frames per second and it should be fairly high (40s, 50s, maybe even 60s) given the very low settings at this point.
After you have discovered your baseline frames per second you can then use this number as a reference point to compare performance against as you add and increase more features like higher textures, more detailed terrain, AI Air Traffic, etc.
TAKE TIME TO TEST AND SMOOTH OUT YOUR FRAME RATE
After you have established your average frames per second, you then need to lock your frame rate to this number. Locking your frame rate forces FSX to only render that many frames per second and frees up CPU cycles for other things like aircraft systems simulation, aerodynamic calculations, etc.
It should be noted some users have reported better performance keeping their frames set to "Unlimited" instead of locking them. This is a personal preference and you will have to see what kind of performance you get with your frames locked, or unlocked and act accordingly.
Once you lock your average frames per second, you can start to increase the various sliders and see how they impact your average (locked?) frames per second. As stated, FSX will fluctuate, but your goal is to minimize drastic fluctuations.
For example, if your average frames per second is locked 35, you don't want the game dropping to 12, then going back up to 35, then back down to 20, every other second. You want to keep the fluctuations as close to your average frames per second as possible. An acceptable range is within four, or five frames of the average. Keeping fluctuations low helps maintain the smoothness of your game. Keeping a smooth flying experience is will also help FSX be responsive to your control input as well.
A general rule of thumb that applies to all video games is while your main goal a high number of frames per second, you should be striving for a more consistent number of frames per second even if it is low.
Now, the following is a more in-depth explanation and discussion about some of the different features you can use to fine tune your FSX experience. I only covered what I consider are the most important ones and those that seem to have the biggest impact on frames per second compared to the other settings you can change in FSX.
SETTINGS THAT GREATLY EFFECT FSX PERFORMANCE
Autogen (Autogenerated objects) - Autogen is randomly generated houses, buildings, trees and other objects that appear on the terrain as you fly above it to give it a more three dimensional appearance.
ACES Studio redesigned FSX's autogen to be more robust than previous versions of Flight Simulator. This is precisely why it has such negative impact on FPS. The performance hit comes from FSX being forced to render hundreds and hundreds of three dimensional objects (buildings and trees). For comparison, FS2004 rendered a maximum of 600 trees and 300 buildings per cell at maximum settings. FSX can render 45000 trees and 13000 buildings per cell at normal settings. As you can see, Autogen is a prime example where FSX users will have to make the choice between a more detailed world, or higher frames per second.
One way to reduce the number of autogen objects is to delete, or rename the "default.xml" file in the Autogen subfolder of the main FSX root directory.
I would advise new users simply RENAME this file from "default.xml" to "default.backup". This way, if they (or an addon) needs it, they can simply rename it to its original form. Like all things Flight Simulator related, users have reported various increases in performance by renaming, or deleting this file while others reported no improvement at all.
To help determine what you should set Autogen to you should consider what kind of flying you plan to do the most.
If you are a General Aviation pilot (Cessna; prop planes) and like to fly low to the ground, you are a VFR (Visual Flight Rules) pilot. If VFR is your flight method of choice, I recommend keeping the Autogen fairly high because it will increase the realism and visuals you see gazing out your cockpit windows.
If, however, on the other hand you are into the "heavies" (commercial jets), I recommend you turn Autogen to "sparse", or completely off. This is because you don't care about how many houses, or trees you can see from 35,000FT. The trade-off in performance will be worth it because the CPU cycles that used to be render the autogen are shifted to simulating the more complex systems found on modern airliners.
AI Traffic (Ground and Air) - These are computer controlled planes that takeoff and land at airports to simulate real world operations that are conducted on a daily basis. New to FSX, this also includes cars driving on the major highways and also ships and ferries near cities with large bodies of water.
All of these additional AI routines reduce the overall FPS because it adds yet another layer of information that must be processed by the CPU along with FSX's other core processes.
Turning all AI Traffic off can give a large boost in frames per second... But it can also reduce the world to a very lonely and empty place with no aircraft at airports, no cars on the roads, and no ships in major water ways. This is a personal decision you will have to make and you should always experiment with different settings such as no cars and ships, but maybe 35% aircraft, ,etc, etc.
Water Effects - The reflective sheen and animated wave effects.
One of the major areas FSX has dramatically improved over previous versions of Flight Simulator is water is now rendered more realistically than ever. It uses DirectX shaders for the improved visuals, and also includes animated surface movements like tac (wind) swells and surf. Beware, these two new features also are a hit to the frames per second as well.
So, for optimal frame rates I recommend keeping water set to around medium high ("Low 2.x") and have Special Effects set to low (all the way left). This way, you still get the new shader effects, but with a minimal FPS hit because the wave movement isn't being simulated any more (or at very low levels that have minimal impact).
Mesh Complexity - This is how detailed the geography is.
This includes mountains, hills, valleys and other natural occurrences. Truth be told, I don't believe there is much of a performance hit having it set to maximum (100), or not. Again, this depends on other settings, your average frames per second and where exactly you are flying.
For example, if you are island hopping in the Pacific, you can probably have mesh complexity set to 100 because 90% of the scenery is going to be flat ocean.
If on the other hand, you are flying through the Alps in a heavy snow storm practicing IFR (Instrument Flight Rules), you may have to adjust your mesh complexity because of the amount of peaks, hills, and mountains needed to simulate that particular environment. So, generally speaking this setting depends more on individual preference than anything else.
Scenery Complexity - This determines how many land marks and buildings are displayed.
One important area to note is for major cities like New York to be rendered with its recognizable Manhattan skyline... You must set the Scenery Complexity slider to 100.
This applies to every major city worldwide (Paris, London, Rome, etc.). This is because anything less than 100 means FSX will leave out major buildings and land marks to increase performance.
Service Packs - Patches to the game that improve performance and fix bugs.
Microsoft and ACES Studio have released two service packs (SP) for FSX. The first adds multicore CPU support and claims to greatly improve performance on dual and quad core systems. Users on various flight sim forums have reported great increases in frame rates while others have reported no increase at all. I recommend all FSX pilots install SP1 at the very least because of the reported performance increase from the default installation.
Service Pack 2 was more of a unifying Service Pack to make owners and non-owners of the Acceleration Expansion compatible in multiplayer. SP2 also includes a few more enhancements/bug fixes and also a DX10 preview mode for Windows Vista users. I would recommend installing the stand-alone SP2 and not the Acceleration Expansion (that contains SP2 and additional aircraft and scenery) unless of course, you want the added aircraft and new scenery.
FSX users should be aware that ACES made certain changes that are not compatible with (pre-)SP1 aircraft and addons in both SP2/Acceleration. As an example, some of the Carenado payware planes will not render properly with SP2/Acceleration installed. This is because a lot of the addons like this are ports from FS2004, and SP2 more or less did away with backwards compatibility. So, I would check to see if your favorite addons are SP2/Acceleration compatible before installing it. You can always un-install SP2/Acceleration, but you should always try and avoid this kind of maintenance for programs whenever you can.
I hope this entry provides some useful information you and other users can use to improve your FSX performance. In the end, it will come down to combination of hardware limitations and personal preference... But at the very least, this guide should give you a solid starting point on how and where to make start making adjustments to suit those preferences.
For Your Consideration: Flight Simulator X
I hope the previous entry helped you decide on which version of Microsoft Flight Simulator is best suited to your PC and your piloting style. However, for the remainder of this blog, I am going to focus primarily on Flight Simulator X (10) because not only is this the latest version of FS, but it is also the version I have installed on my hard drive at the moment :)
WELCOME TO FLIGHT SIMULATOR X
I will state up front there is no consumer computer hardware currently available at stock speeds that can run FSX with every single feature set at maximum.
The reason is ACES Studio, when developing FSX, wanted the program to be future proof until the next version of Flight Simulator (FS11) is released. The problem is they based their development of FSX around what future hardware development road maps looked like in 2006. ACES erroneously predicted there would be an increase in the overall speed, Gigahertz (GHz), of future desktop processors. This did not happen. Instead, the processor industry gradually introduced multicore chips, dual, triple and quad cores, but at much lower speeds than ACES had forecast. As a result, FSX requires processors with speeds in excess of 4 GHz, to be able to run the game smoothly and with all visual settings at very high levels. There are currently no consumer processors with a stock frequency this high and there probably will not be any in the immediate future, unfortunately.
This doesn't mean FSX is unusable, obviously. What this does mean, however, is virtual pilots who are choosing FSX as their primary simulation platform must be prepared for possible hardware upgrades, but more importantly approach FSX with tempered expectations given the technical limitations of how FSX was developed and how it currently performs on a number of PC configurations.
THE RECOMMENDED SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS:
Processor: 3.6 GHz CPU
RAM: 2048 MB
Video Memory: 512 MB
Hard Drive Space: 14000 MB
These hardware specifications are from the official Microsoft product page for Flight Simulator X. They are accurate if you want to run FSX with most of the detail sliders set to "High", or "Ultra High". Even though these recommended specs were listed when the game was released in 2006, they still hold true today because (as stated) there is currently no high-end processor, dual, triple or quad core, from either Intel or AMD that ship with a stock speed above of 3.3 GHz at the current time.
So, what hardware can virtual pilots run FSX on? What level of performance should they expect?
Processor (CPU): If you are looking to build a system to run FSX, I recommend a Intel Processor. Either a dual, or quad core because they are currently the leaders in terms of both raw speed (GHz) and amount of data that can be cached & processed. AMD is a viable option for those on a budget, but for FSX, I highly recommend the Intel Core 2 Duo, or Core 2 Quad line of processors to make sure FSX has enough processing power to run well. FSX performance depends more on the speed of the CPU than rendering of the GPU (video card). It is a "processor bound" game because of the amount of calculations it must do to simulate things like aerodynamic flight, changing weather conditions, AI Air Traffic routines, etc.
A general rule of thumb to adhere to when purchasing current PC hardware is to be aware most applications and games are not optimized for multicore processors. Therefore, having a faster single core (in a dual core setup) will benefit a user greater than having four cores (quad core setup) at lower clock speeds. Thus, for FSX, I recommend the fastest dual core chip you can afford (the current top-of-the-line Intel Core2Duo is the E8600 Wolfdale @ 3.3 GHz). However, users on various flight sim forums have reported better performance with an Intel Quad (Q6600 @ 2.4 GHz x4) core while others have reported decreased performance with a Quad Core just the same. So, who to believe? And what kind of processor should you purchase for FSX?
I still stand by the accepted rule of thumb I stated earlier and that is a processor with a faster clock speed and fewer cores is still the better purchase until more applications make proper use of more of than one core.
As of this entry, the new Intel i7 chips have officially been released. Various reports from flight sim forums and communities have stated the main benefit these new chips have on FSX is they smooth out the overall frames per second versus increasing frames per second overall.
Now would also be a good time to emphasize that non-combat/civilian flight simulations like FSX do not require a high rate of frames per second (FPS) like most action games and first person shooters. However, like any game, FSX still needs a fluid and consistent rate of frames per second to maintain the illusion of movement and responsive feedback. Anything in the range of 25 to 45 FPS or more is considered a good target rate that provides smooth (non-stuttering) movement and responsive control.
RAM: The two main factors that effect FSX performance the most are the amount (how much) and speed (bandwidth) of RAM. The amount of RAM determines how much data can be stored and the speed of the RAM determines how fast that data can be processed through the CPU and then rendered by the GPU (Video Card).
At the present time two gigabytes of RAM are sufficient for FSX. FSX is a 32-bit application and this means if you are on a 32-bit OS (Windows XP, Vista) FSX cannot use more than two gigabytes of addresses space (RAM). Therefore, a good RAM configuration for a 32-bit OS would be two sticks of 1 GB (1 GB x 2 sticks = 2 GB) RAM, plus two sticks of 512 MB (512 MB x 2 = 1 GB) RAM if your motherboard has enough (four or more) slots. The total would then be three gigabytes ((1 GB x 2 sticks = 2 GB) + (512 MB x 2 = 1 GB) = 3 GB) without sacrificing Dual Channel capabilities.
However, if you use a 64-bit OS (Windows XP, Vista), then four gigabytes of RAM (in a dual channel configuration) would be ideal because a 64-bit OS allows programs to use more than two gigabytes of address space depending on the application itself. FSX users should know SP2/Acceleration, adds a Large Address Aware (LAA) flag to the main executable. This means if you use FSX on a 64-bit OS it can theoretically use four gigabytes of RAM. Again, more RAM equals better game performance because of less loading time and faster processing.
As stated, the speed of RAM is also important. FSX performs better using higher bandwidth RAM. Currently, the most affordable high-end DDR2 RAM is 1066 (533 MHz). DDR3 RAM is on the market, but it is very expensive for the average consumer and requires specific motherboards to use. This is why I recommend investing in DDR2 1066 RAM if your motherboard and CPU supports it. FSX performs well on standard DDR2 800 (400 MHz) RAM, but if you are building a PC specifically for FSX, plan your CPU and motherboard purchase around DDR2 1066 RAM if possible. The extra 533 MHz of bandwidth should improve FSX performance and other applications as well.
Operating System: What OS should you use with FSX? XP or Vista? 32-bit or 64-bit?
I recommend using a 32-bit version either Windows XP, or Vista. There are very few applications written for a 64-bit environment right now. This includes FSX. Conversely, your OS should also help determine how much RAM you purchase taking into consideration the information above on how much RAM you/can want to use, I.E.There is no reason to buy four gigabytes of RAM if your OS can't use it all.
On a personal note, I have no problems running any version of Windows (XP or Vista; 32 or 64-bit) on my current system (specs below), but I prefer XP 32-bit because it is a rock solid OS with over seven years of driver support with apparently no end in sight. Also, as previously stated, FSX is a native 32-bit application and was designed for Windows XP. In addition, the numerous addons made by third-party developers are also natively coded for XP as well.
If you prefer Vista and/or a 64-bit OS, I strongly recommend Vista Business 64-bit. It is the equivalent to Windows XP Professional, but has a lot of the bloat stripped out that Vista Ultimate ships with. Namely, the Media Center that takes up a lot of hard drive space and is of no use to a flight simmer... Unless, of course, you also use your flight sim PC as a HTPC, or streaming media center?
Standalone Video Card: Nvidia or ATI?
This depends on personal preference. Any mid-to-high end graphics card starting with the Nvidia Geforce 8000 up to the recent 290 series, or ATI 3800 to the new 4800 series and up will render FSX with full depth and clarity. Be sure to plan your GPU purchase with additional factors in mind such as what resolution you plan to play FSX at because this will help determine if you get a higher-end version of the cards like a Dual Slot solution (4870x2), or SLI or Crossfire pair of cards.
Also, from a strictly unbiased technical stand point Nvidia does a faster job of decompressing DDS files than ATI. A majority of the textures in FSX are stored in a Nvidia proprietary format known as DDS. This is the main reason why FSX seems to be "Optimized for Nvidia", and should be taken into consideration.
Conversely, this is one reason why Flight Simulator 2004 can be run with full settings on a variety of current and low-end hardware compared to FSX. Most of FS9's textures are low resolution bitmaps that don't have to be decompressed. This means more data can be decoded and rendered at a faster rate, regardless of hardware brand.
VRAM (Video RAM): How much VRAM the card you purchase should also be determined by the same factors above like what resolution you plan to play at in addition to how many textures (and at what size) the VRAM can hold.
These are important factors for FSX and Flight Simulator in general because the VRAM has to be able to manage not only the increased frame buffers for higher resolutions (1280x1024+) with Antialiasing (AA) and Aniostropic (AS) filtering active, but also the size of the textures you choose to run FSX with. FSX allows users to choose the size of the textures from as low as 64x64 all the way up to 1024x1024. The larger size means a larger amount of data has to be stored in the VRAM. Thus, if users want to run FSX with large resolution textures they should consider a video card with at least 512 MBs of VRAM, or more. There are cards available with 768 MB up to One Gigabyte of VRAM and I highly recommend these cards for FSX if users want optimial visuals and smoother in-game performance.
Hopefully, these recommendations will give prospective FSX pilots at least, a sound starting point where they can do further research and comparisions to arrive at a system they cannot only afford, but one that will run FSX at acceptable levels both visually and at a consistent frame rate.
For comparison here is the current PC specs I run FSX on:
AMD Phenom X4 9600 @ 2.4 GHz (9850 Speed)
2048 MBs of DDR2 800 RAM
ATI HD 4850 512MB DDR3
KDS 22" LCD Widescreen Monitor (1680x1050 native resolution)
I can average around 45 FPS in the default aircraft that do not simulate very many systems. For GA aircraft like the Cessna 172 it can go as high as 60 FPS. For more complicated payware addons like Wilco/FeelThere and PMDG, my frames drop to as low as 7 FPS in some situations.
I am going to "upgrade" to an Intel E5200 Wolfdale (stock 2.5 GHz). This is obviously not a top of the line Core2Duo chip, but coupled with a Gigabyte G-31 motherboard it is apparently *the* processor to get because it can supposedly be overclocked to 3.6 GHz on stock cooling with very little voltage increase. I intend to use the overclocked E5200 as a stop gap until I can afford a E8600, or Core2Quad. I am not expecting miracles with an overclocked E5200, but possibly more consistent FPS than I am currently getting with my Phenom.
I will post updates on this new processor once I have it setup and running with FSX. I hope the results are positive for not just myself, but for FSX pilots on a budget who want Core2Duo performance, but don't want to pay Core2Duo prices.
WELCOME TO FLIGHT SIMULATOR X
I will state up front there is no consumer computer hardware currently available at stock speeds that can run FSX with every single feature set at maximum.
The reason is ACES Studio, when developing FSX, wanted the program to be future proof until the next version of Flight Simulator (FS11) is released. The problem is they based their development of FSX around what future hardware development road maps looked like in 2006. ACES erroneously predicted there would be an increase in the overall speed, Gigahertz (GHz), of future desktop processors. This did not happen. Instead, the processor industry gradually introduced multicore chips, dual, triple and quad cores, but at much lower speeds than ACES had forecast. As a result, FSX requires processors with speeds in excess of 4 GHz, to be able to run the game smoothly and with all visual settings at very high levels. There are currently no consumer processors with a stock frequency this high and there probably will not be any in the immediate future, unfortunately.
This doesn't mean FSX is unusable, obviously. What this does mean, however, is virtual pilots who are choosing FSX as their primary simulation platform must be prepared for possible hardware upgrades, but more importantly approach FSX with tempered expectations given the technical limitations of how FSX was developed and how it currently performs on a number of PC configurations.
THE RECOMMENDED SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS:
Processor: 3.6 GHz CPU
RAM: 2048 MB
Video Memory: 512 MB
Hard Drive Space: 14000 MB
These hardware specifications are from the official Microsoft product page for Flight Simulator X. They are accurate if you want to run FSX with most of the detail sliders set to "High", or "Ultra High". Even though these recommended specs were listed when the game was released in 2006, they still hold true today because (as stated) there is currently no high-end processor, dual, triple or quad core, from either Intel or AMD that ship with a stock speed above of 3.3 GHz at the current time.
So, what hardware can virtual pilots run FSX on? What level of performance should they expect?
Processor (CPU): If you are looking to build a system to run FSX, I recommend a Intel Processor. Either a dual, or quad core because they are currently the leaders in terms of both raw speed (GHz) and amount of data that can be cached & processed. AMD is a viable option for those on a budget, but for FSX, I highly recommend the Intel Core 2 Duo, or Core 2 Quad line of processors to make sure FSX has enough processing power to run well. FSX performance depends more on the speed of the CPU than rendering of the GPU (video card). It is a "processor bound" game because of the amount of calculations it must do to simulate things like aerodynamic flight, changing weather conditions, AI Air Traffic routines, etc.
A general rule of thumb to adhere to when purchasing current PC hardware is to be aware most applications and games are not optimized for multicore processors. Therefore, having a faster single core (in a dual core setup) will benefit a user greater than having four cores (quad core setup) at lower clock speeds. Thus, for FSX, I recommend the fastest dual core chip you can afford (the current top-of-the-line Intel Core2Duo is the E8600 Wolfdale @ 3.3 GHz). However, users on various flight sim forums have reported better performance with an Intel Quad (Q6600 @ 2.4 GHz x4) core while others have reported decreased performance with a Quad Core just the same. So, who to believe? And what kind of processor should you purchase for FSX?
I still stand by the accepted rule of thumb I stated earlier and that is a processor with a faster clock speed and fewer cores is still the better purchase until more applications make proper use of more of than one core.
As of this entry, the new Intel i7 chips have officially been released. Various reports from flight sim forums and communities have stated the main benefit these new chips have on FSX is they smooth out the overall frames per second versus increasing frames per second overall.
Now would also be a good time to emphasize that non-combat/civilian flight simulations like FSX do not require a high rate of frames per second (FPS) like most action games and first person shooters. However, like any game, FSX still needs a fluid and consistent rate of frames per second to maintain the illusion of movement and responsive feedback. Anything in the range of 25 to 45 FPS or more is considered a good target rate that provides smooth (non-stuttering) movement and responsive control.
RAM: The two main factors that effect FSX performance the most are the amount (how much) and speed (bandwidth) of RAM. The amount of RAM determines how much data can be stored and the speed of the RAM determines how fast that data can be processed through the CPU and then rendered by the GPU (Video Card).
At the present time two gigabytes of RAM are sufficient for FSX. FSX is a 32-bit application and this means if you are on a 32-bit OS (Windows XP, Vista) FSX cannot use more than two gigabytes of addresses space (RAM). Therefore, a good RAM configuration for a 32-bit OS would be two sticks of 1 GB (1 GB x 2 sticks = 2 GB) RAM, plus two sticks of 512 MB (512 MB x 2 = 1 GB) RAM if your motherboard has enough (four or more) slots. The total would then be three gigabytes ((1 GB x 2 sticks = 2 GB) + (512 MB x 2 = 1 GB) = 3 GB) without sacrificing Dual Channel capabilities.
However, if you use a 64-bit OS (Windows XP, Vista), then four gigabytes of RAM (in a dual channel configuration) would be ideal because a 64-bit OS allows programs to use more than two gigabytes of address space depending on the application itself. FSX users should know SP2/Acceleration, adds a Large Address Aware (LAA) flag to the main executable. This means if you use FSX on a 64-bit OS it can theoretically use four gigabytes of RAM. Again, more RAM equals better game performance because of less loading time and faster processing.
As stated, the speed of RAM is also important. FSX performs better using higher bandwidth RAM. Currently, the most affordable high-end DDR2 RAM is 1066 (533 MHz). DDR3 RAM is on the market, but it is very expensive for the average consumer and requires specific motherboards to use. This is why I recommend investing in DDR2 1066 RAM if your motherboard and CPU supports it. FSX performs well on standard DDR2 800 (400 MHz) RAM, but if you are building a PC specifically for FSX, plan your CPU and motherboard purchase around DDR2 1066 RAM if possible. The extra 533 MHz of bandwidth should improve FSX performance and other applications as well.
Operating System: What OS should you use with FSX? XP or Vista? 32-bit or 64-bit?
I recommend using a 32-bit version either Windows XP, or Vista. There are very few applications written for a 64-bit environment right now. This includes FSX. Conversely, your OS should also help determine how much RAM you purchase taking into consideration the information above on how much RAM you/can want to use, I.E.There is no reason to buy four gigabytes of RAM if your OS can't use it all.
On a personal note, I have no problems running any version of Windows (XP or Vista; 32 or 64-bit) on my current system (specs below), but I prefer XP 32-bit because it is a rock solid OS with over seven years of driver support with apparently no end in sight. Also, as previously stated, FSX is a native 32-bit application and was designed for Windows XP. In addition, the numerous addons made by third-party developers are also natively coded for XP as well.
If you prefer Vista and/or a 64-bit OS, I strongly recommend Vista Business 64-bit. It is the equivalent to Windows XP Professional, but has a lot of the bloat stripped out that Vista Ultimate ships with. Namely, the Media Center that takes up a lot of hard drive space and is of no use to a flight simmer... Unless, of course, you also use your flight sim PC as a HTPC, or streaming media center?
Standalone Video Card: Nvidia or ATI?
This depends on personal preference. Any mid-to-high end graphics card starting with the Nvidia Geforce 8000 up to the recent 290 series, or ATI 3800 to the new 4800 series and up will render FSX with full depth and clarity. Be sure to plan your GPU purchase with additional factors in mind such as what resolution you plan to play FSX at because this will help determine if you get a higher-end version of the cards like a Dual Slot solution (4870x2), or SLI or Crossfire pair of cards.
Also, from a strictly unbiased technical stand point Nvidia does a faster job of decompressing DDS files than ATI. A majority of the textures in FSX are stored in a Nvidia proprietary format known as DDS. This is the main reason why FSX seems to be "Optimized for Nvidia", and should be taken into consideration.
Conversely, this is one reason why Flight Simulator 2004 can be run with full settings on a variety of current and low-end hardware compared to FSX. Most of FS9's textures are low resolution bitmaps that don't have to be decompressed. This means more data can be decoded and rendered at a faster rate, regardless of hardware brand.
VRAM (Video RAM): How much VRAM the card you purchase should also be determined by the same factors above like what resolution you plan to play at in addition to how many textures (and at what size) the VRAM can hold.
These are important factors for FSX and Flight Simulator in general because the VRAM has to be able to manage not only the increased frame buffers for higher resolutions (1280x1024+) with Antialiasing (AA) and Aniostropic (AS) filtering active, but also the size of the textures you choose to run FSX with. FSX allows users to choose the size of the textures from as low as 64x64 all the way up to 1024x1024. The larger size means a larger amount of data has to be stored in the VRAM. Thus, if users want to run FSX with large resolution textures they should consider a video card with at least 512 MBs of VRAM, or more. There are cards available with 768 MB up to One Gigabyte of VRAM and I highly recommend these cards for FSX if users want optimial visuals and smoother in-game performance.
Hopefully, these recommendations will give prospective FSX pilots at least, a sound starting point where they can do further research and comparisions to arrive at a system they cannot only afford, but one that will run FSX at acceptable levels both visually and at a consistent frame rate.
For comparison here is the current PC specs I run FSX on:
AMD Phenom X4 9600 @ 2.4 GHz (9850 Speed)
2048 MBs of DDR2 800 RAM
ATI HD 4850 512MB DDR3
KDS 22" LCD Widescreen Monitor (1680x1050 native resolution)
I can average around 45 FPS in the default aircraft that do not simulate very many systems. For GA aircraft like the Cessna 172 it can go as high as 60 FPS. For more complicated payware addons like Wilco/FeelThere and PMDG, my frames drop to as low as 7 FPS in some situations.
I am going to "upgrade" to an Intel E5200 Wolfdale (stock 2.5 GHz). This is obviously not a top of the line Core2Duo chip, but coupled with a Gigabyte G-31 motherboard it is apparently *the* processor to get because it can supposedly be overclocked to 3.6 GHz on stock cooling with very little voltage increase. I intend to use the overclocked E5200 as a stop gap until I can afford a E8600, or Core2Quad. I am not expecting miracles with an overclocked E5200, but possibly more consistent FPS than I am currently getting with my Phenom.
I will post updates on this new processor once I have it setup and running with FSX. I hope the results are positive for not just myself, but for FSX pilots on a budget who want Core2Duo performance, but don't want to pay Core2Duo prices.
FS2004 (FS9) or FSX (FS10)?
It's the number one burning question of our time. No, really. It is.
If you are a flight simulator enthusiast who is already using FS2004, and are considering upgrading to FSX... Or, if you are about to embark on your maiden journey into the wonderful world of flight simulation, both sets of virtual pilots must take into consideration the following factors that will help determine what version of Flight Simulator is best suited to their personal flying style and current, or future hardware requirements.
FLIGHT SIMULATOR 2004: A Century of Flight (FS9)
Pros:
-Requires modest hardware to run with high FPS and settings at max
-Only takes 3 to 4 gigabytes of hard drive space
-Has a vast library (thousands) of payware and freeware addons
-Backwards compatible with a lot of addons from Flight Simulator 2002
-Requires only one update that is still backwards compatible with previous addons
Cons:
-Graphically dated (2003). Low resolution textures, scenery, etc.
-User Interface not as polished or appealing as FSX
-Certain controls (default and custom) not as refined as FSX
The number one thing FS2004 has in its favor, even though it is listed as a con, is its dated graphics. Dated graphics do not require ultra high-end hardware to run fluidly with all visual and Air Traffic features at maximum. Users with mid-to-high end gaming computers should have no problems running FS2004 at maximum settings. This aspect is very important to flight simmers on a budget who want to fly, but can't afford the latest and greatest hardware.
For example, there are virtual pilots who can run FS2004 at maximum settings on an AMD 64 3200+ (2.0 GHz) single core processor with a ATI X1950 Pro 256MB AGP card. This is modest to low-end hardware circa 2005, 2006 in comparison to what is currently on the market now.
Directly related to FS2004's low hardware requirements is the full game does not take up very much space on the hard drive once installed. FS2004's small footprint is good because it means less time will be spent spooling data from the hard drive to the RAM. Also, the obvious benefit is more space available on the hard drive for other applications and programs as well.
These two factors are why a lot of users have not switched to FSX.
Also, since FS2004 does not require high end hardware to run at high levels this makes it ideal for payware addons that require more CPU cycles to simulate the complex systems found on modern commercial jets like the Boeing 747, or Airbus 320. Payware aircraft addons from PMDG, and Wilco/FeelThere products will perform much better on FS2004 because of the increased processing overhead available compared to FSX that uses more CPU cycles for just rendering the virtual world alone.
So, if you are the kind of pilot who mostly wants to fly the "heavy iron" like the Boeing, Airbus, or Embraer commercial jets, I strongly suggest you either stay with FS2004, or purchase FS2004 along with FSX, and install it alongside FSX, for precisely this reason. In my experience, you will be much happier with the performance in the more realistic payware addons in FS2004 than you will be in FSX.
FLIGHT SIMULATOR X (FS10)
Pros:
-Graphically improved world with photo realistic rendering features
-Improved FDE for majority of aircraft (default and third-party)
-Improved control configuration (default and custom)
-Improved User Interface
-The most airports to choose from than previous versions of FS
-Structured missions for beginners and goal-oriented pilots
-DirectX 10 Preview mode for Windows Vista users
Cons:
-Requires high-end hardware to run at max, and even modest levels
-Large hard drive space requirement of 13 to 15 gigabytes
-Two Service Packs (SP) required; SP2 breaks backward compatibility with many addons made prior to SP2
-Smaller addon library compared to FS2004
The primary improvement FSX has over FS2004 is the photo realistic virtual world. Not only is it photo realistic, but it is more "alive" with moving cars on major highways, animals and even ferries and ships that run on real world routes and time tables. The visuals alone are worth the upgrade to FSX from FS2004... But they come at a very steep price (literally and figuratively) because of the hardware required to run the game at acceptable levels.
Virtual pilots already using FS2004, and those thinking about jumping into Flight Simulator for the first time should be forewarned FSX requires almost top-of-the-line hardware to run decently at high resolutions (1280x1024+)... And even this is not a guarantee because unlike FS2004, the performance of FSX varies drastically from system to system as I will discuss in later entries of this blog.
It should also be noted FSX is primarily designed for VFR (Visual Flight Rules) flight compared to FS2004. The improved terrain and water effects can only be appreciated at 10,000FT and below. This makes it ideal for pilots who like to fly GA (General Aviation) aircraft like Cessna, and other propeller planes close to the ground. Those thinking about upgrading to FSX from FS2004, and pilots new to flight simulator in general should consider what kind of pilot they are, or intend to be before they purchase FSX (and the Acceleration expansion), and purchase accordingly.
If they are completely new to MS Flight Simulator and flight simulation in general then FSX is probably the more visually appealing way to learn GA, but when they move to more complex aircraft (and this does not include the default jets in FSX) like those made by PMDG, or Wilco, then they might also want to have FS2004 installed along with FSX, for the reasons I discussed earlier about the complex addons performing much better in FS2004 due to its modest requirements.
I used to have both FS2004, and FSX installed simultaneously, but just recently decided to fly FSX exclusively. I came to terms with the fact I want the improved visual experience at the expense of lower frames per second.
The one major thing I do not like about FSX is SP2/Acceleration expansion breaks compatibility with some of my favorite third-party addons and renders them unusable. There is nothing I can do other than hope the manufacturer comes out with a patch to fix some of the issues SP2 caused. The good news is more and more manufacturers are finally addressing problems caused by SP2, and are slowly releasing fixes that make their products usable under SP2 again.
One of the other "pros" I want to discuss that is exclusive to FSX is FSX is the first version of Flight Simulator to have structured misisons as a primary focus. This is (was) a highly controversial subject in the flight simulation world because many flight simmers consider(ed) the missions a way for ACES Studios, and MS to "dumb down" the simulation aspects of the game, so it appeals more to the casual gamers and casual flight simmers.
I am indifferent to the missions. I completed most of them and while I do not love them, I don't hate them, either.
I think there is positive value for a beginner who is completely new to flight simulation in general because a majority of the missions (at the beginner level) are tutorials on the basics of how to fly. In this respect, I think they are long overdue because they take a pro-active approach to what used to be a "learn it yourself" method flight simulator always used prior to FSX. These tutorials give new pilots a solid foundation of how to properly taxi, takeoff, fly and land safely in a number of aircraft. The way they are structured is very logical as well. They start in very basic aircraft like a ultralight and then progress to commercial jets and beyond. Each mission/lesson builds upon the skills learned in the previous one and the final ones are like Checkrides that combine everything the virtual pilot should know up to that point.
The more advanced level missions (Intermediate and Expert Level) are more for entertainment purposes than anything else. They present interesting scenarios... Some with a wicked sense of humor like the "Area 51" shuttle mission... But veteran Flight Simulator pilots will probably do one or two out of curiosity, but then stick mostly with the Free Flight mode where they can plan their own routes, what aircraft they want to fly, weather conditions, time of day and year, etc.
So, to recap:
FS2004 does not require high end hardware to run a maximum levels. Therefore, this makes it ideal for flight simmers on a budget, and for virtual pilots who fly more realistic addons that simulate the more complex systems found on commercial jets (IFR) that require increased CPU cycles.
FSX is aimed at the VFR pilot. The improved virtual world can be photo realistic, but the improved visuals come at a steep price. High end (expensive) hardware is required and performance in more complex addons might suffer as a result of the added CPU overhead they require on top of the increased rendering cycles already being used for the improved visuals.
As suggested, there is no rule stating you can't have both FS2004, and FSX installed on the same computer. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, and I hope this brief guide has helped make your decision on which version to use more informed and possibly easier than it was before.
If you are a flight simulator enthusiast who is already using FS2004, and are considering upgrading to FSX... Or, if you are about to embark on your maiden journey into the wonderful world of flight simulation, both sets of virtual pilots must take into consideration the following factors that will help determine what version of Flight Simulator is best suited to their personal flying style and current, or future hardware requirements.
FLIGHT SIMULATOR 2004: A Century of Flight (FS9)
Pros:
-Requires modest hardware to run with high FPS and settings at max
-Only takes 3 to 4 gigabytes of hard drive space
-Has a vast library (thousands) of payware and freeware addons
-Backwards compatible with a lot of addons from Flight Simulator 2002
-Requires only one update that is still backwards compatible with previous addons
Cons:
-Graphically dated (2003). Low resolution textures, scenery, etc.
-User Interface not as polished or appealing as FSX
-Certain controls (default and custom) not as refined as FSX
The number one thing FS2004 has in its favor, even though it is listed as a con, is its dated graphics. Dated graphics do not require ultra high-end hardware to run fluidly with all visual and Air Traffic features at maximum. Users with mid-to-high end gaming computers should have no problems running FS2004 at maximum settings. This aspect is very important to flight simmers on a budget who want to fly, but can't afford the latest and greatest hardware.
For example, there are virtual pilots who can run FS2004 at maximum settings on an AMD 64 3200+ (2.0 GHz) single core processor with a ATI X1950 Pro 256MB AGP card. This is modest to low-end hardware circa 2005, 2006 in comparison to what is currently on the market now.
Directly related to FS2004's low hardware requirements is the full game does not take up very much space on the hard drive once installed. FS2004's small footprint is good because it means less time will be spent spooling data from the hard drive to the RAM. Also, the obvious benefit is more space available on the hard drive for other applications and programs as well.
These two factors are why a lot of users have not switched to FSX.
Also, since FS2004 does not require high end hardware to run at high levels this makes it ideal for payware addons that require more CPU cycles to simulate the complex systems found on modern commercial jets like the Boeing 747, or Airbus 320. Payware aircraft addons from PMDG, and Wilco/FeelThere products will perform much better on FS2004 because of the increased processing overhead available compared to FSX that uses more CPU cycles for just rendering the virtual world alone.
So, if you are the kind of pilot who mostly wants to fly the "heavy iron" like the Boeing, Airbus, or Embraer commercial jets, I strongly suggest you either stay with FS2004, or purchase FS2004 along with FSX, and install it alongside FSX, for precisely this reason. In my experience, you will be much happier with the performance in the more realistic payware addons in FS2004 than you will be in FSX.
FLIGHT SIMULATOR X (FS10)
Pros:
-Graphically improved world with photo realistic rendering features
-Improved FDE for majority of aircraft (default and third-party)
-Improved control configuration (default and custom)
-Improved User Interface
-The most airports to choose from than previous versions of FS
-Structured missions for beginners and goal-oriented pilots
-DirectX 10 Preview mode for Windows Vista users
Cons:
-Requires high-end hardware to run at max, and even modest levels
-Large hard drive space requirement of 13 to 15 gigabytes
-Two Service Packs (SP) required; SP2 breaks backward compatibility with many addons made prior to SP2
-Smaller addon library compared to FS2004
The primary improvement FSX has over FS2004 is the photo realistic virtual world. Not only is it photo realistic, but it is more "alive" with moving cars on major highways, animals and even ferries and ships that run on real world routes and time tables. The visuals alone are worth the upgrade to FSX from FS2004... But they come at a very steep price (literally and figuratively) because of the hardware required to run the game at acceptable levels.
Virtual pilots already using FS2004, and those thinking about jumping into Flight Simulator for the first time should be forewarned FSX requires almost top-of-the-line hardware to run decently at high resolutions (1280x1024+)... And even this is not a guarantee because unlike FS2004, the performance of FSX varies drastically from system to system as I will discuss in later entries of this blog.
It should also be noted FSX is primarily designed for VFR (Visual Flight Rules) flight compared to FS2004. The improved terrain and water effects can only be appreciated at 10,000FT and below. This makes it ideal for pilots who like to fly GA (General Aviation) aircraft like Cessna, and other propeller planes close to the ground. Those thinking about upgrading to FSX from FS2004, and pilots new to flight simulator in general should consider what kind of pilot they are, or intend to be before they purchase FSX (and the Acceleration expansion), and purchase accordingly.
If they are completely new to MS Flight Simulator and flight simulation in general then FSX is probably the more visually appealing way to learn GA, but when they move to more complex aircraft (and this does not include the default jets in FSX) like those made by PMDG, or Wilco, then they might also want to have FS2004 installed along with FSX, for the reasons I discussed earlier about the complex addons performing much better in FS2004 due to its modest requirements.
I used to have both FS2004, and FSX installed simultaneously, but just recently decided to fly FSX exclusively. I came to terms with the fact I want the improved visual experience at the expense of lower frames per second.
The one major thing I do not like about FSX is SP2/Acceleration expansion breaks compatibility with some of my favorite third-party addons and renders them unusable. There is nothing I can do other than hope the manufacturer comes out with a patch to fix some of the issues SP2 caused. The good news is more and more manufacturers are finally addressing problems caused by SP2, and are slowly releasing fixes that make their products usable under SP2 again.
One of the other "pros" I want to discuss that is exclusive to FSX is FSX is the first version of Flight Simulator to have structured misisons as a primary focus. This is (was) a highly controversial subject in the flight simulation world because many flight simmers consider(ed) the missions a way for ACES Studios, and MS to "dumb down" the simulation aspects of the game, so it appeals more to the casual gamers and casual flight simmers.
I am indifferent to the missions. I completed most of them and while I do not love them, I don't hate them, either.
I think there is positive value for a beginner who is completely new to flight simulation in general because a majority of the missions (at the beginner level) are tutorials on the basics of how to fly. In this respect, I think they are long overdue because they take a pro-active approach to what used to be a "learn it yourself" method flight simulator always used prior to FSX. These tutorials give new pilots a solid foundation of how to properly taxi, takeoff, fly and land safely in a number of aircraft. The way they are structured is very logical as well. They start in very basic aircraft like a ultralight and then progress to commercial jets and beyond. Each mission/lesson builds upon the skills learned in the previous one and the final ones are like Checkrides that combine everything the virtual pilot should know up to that point.
The more advanced level missions (Intermediate and Expert Level) are more for entertainment purposes than anything else. They present interesting scenarios... Some with a wicked sense of humor like the "Area 51" shuttle mission... But veteran Flight Simulator pilots will probably do one or two out of curiosity, but then stick mostly with the Free Flight mode where they can plan their own routes, what aircraft they want to fly, weather conditions, time of day and year, etc.
So, to recap:
FS2004 does not require high end hardware to run a maximum levels. Therefore, this makes it ideal for flight simmers on a budget, and for virtual pilots who fly more realistic addons that simulate the more complex systems found on commercial jets (IFR) that require increased CPU cycles.
FSX is aimed at the VFR pilot. The improved virtual world can be photo realistic, but the improved visuals come at a steep price. High end (expensive) hardware is required and performance in more complex addons might suffer as a result of the added CPU overhead they require on top of the increased rendering cycles already being used for the improved visuals.
As suggested, there is no rule stating you can't have both FS2004, and FSX installed on the same computer. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, and I hope this brief guide has helped make your decision on which version to use more informed and possibly easier than it was before.
We Don't Need Another Hero...
I know what you're thinking. Not another F-'ing blog about Microsoft Flight Simulator! How many of these self-indulgent and pompously boring online "diaries" must we endure?!
Well, I hope you can bear with just one more because the goal of this particular self-indulgent and pompously boring online diary is going to be to hopefully provide flight simulation enthusiasts (flight simmers) of all levels some practical, real world advice they can apply to Microsoft Flight Simulator to increase their enjoyment of the software as it was intended.
I am going to cover basic areas like what kind of hardware someone thinking about getting into MS Flight Simulator (FS2004/FSX) should consider if they want a smooth and visually pleasing flying experience along with not so basic areas like how to maximize your flying time when time is limited due to real world constraints.
Lastly, if it isn't blatantly obvious by now, I am going to focus on Microsoft Flight Simulator as opposed to X-Plane, or other flight simulation titles. The main reason is not only do I prefer MS Flight Simulator, but I am (obviously) more familiar with it as well. However, this does not mean I think MS Flight Simulator is superior to other flight simulation software. All flight simulation software has its strengths and weaknesses just like any other desktop application. I just feel the Microsoft Flight Simulator Series are the most user friendly and provide a very enjoyable flying experience compared to other titles I have tried over the years.
What This Blog Is Not
This blog will not consist of "how to" tutorials for specific aviation procedures, or specific aircraft operating techniques. There are countless tutorial blogs and videos (YouTube) online that cover in-depth "training" such as this and they do a much better job than I ever could.
This blog will not be a continuously updated news site for news about the flight sim world.
This blog will also not not be a review site for third-party addons released for Microsoft Flight Simulator. There are far more knowledgeable sites for those kinds of in-depth reviews.
In closing, I just want to thank whomever might be reading for sticking with this blog, however long or short its lifespan may be. I am not a professional pilot by any stretch of the imagination, nor will I ever claim to be. I am simply a MS Flight Simulator enthusiast who wants to share what I consider is in-depth knowledge about this wonderful piece of software, so other flight simmers can get the most out of it, too.
Well, I hope you can bear with just one more because the goal of this particular self-indulgent and pompously boring online diary is going to be to hopefully provide flight simulation enthusiasts (flight simmers) of all levels some practical, real world advice they can apply to Microsoft Flight Simulator to increase their enjoyment of the software as it was intended.
I am going to cover basic areas like what kind of hardware someone thinking about getting into MS Flight Simulator (FS2004/FSX) should consider if they want a smooth and visually pleasing flying experience along with not so basic areas like how to maximize your flying time when time is limited due to real world constraints.
Lastly, if it isn't blatantly obvious by now, I am going to focus on Microsoft Flight Simulator as opposed to X-Plane, or other flight simulation titles. The main reason is not only do I prefer MS Flight Simulator, but I am (obviously) more familiar with it as well. However, this does not mean I think MS Flight Simulator is superior to other flight simulation software. All flight simulation software has its strengths and weaknesses just like any other desktop application. I just feel the Microsoft Flight Simulator Series are the most user friendly and provide a very enjoyable flying experience compared to other titles I have tried over the years.
What This Blog Is Not
This blog will not consist of "how to" tutorials for specific aviation procedures, or specific aircraft operating techniques. There are countless tutorial blogs and videos (YouTube) online that cover in-depth "training" such as this and they do a much better job than I ever could.
This blog will not be a continuously updated news site for news about the flight sim world.
This blog will also not not be a review site for third-party addons released for Microsoft Flight Simulator. There are far more knowledgeable sites for those kinds of in-depth reviews.
In closing, I just want to thank whomever might be reading for sticking with this blog, however long or short its lifespan may be. I am not a professional pilot by any stretch of the imagination, nor will I ever claim to be. I am simply a MS Flight Simulator enthusiast who wants to share what I consider is in-depth knowledge about this wonderful piece of software, so other flight simmers can get the most out of it, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)