Flight Simulator

Everyone General Training
21

Assuming you only have your OS of choice and a few programs (Office, Web Browser, and flight sim) then 128GB should be plenty, however if you start running low an extra HDD is only £30 - 40.

Not quite sure what you mean by background disks?

With regards to this I would probably go with Xplane, due to multiplayer working “out of the box”, although you could install steam on every computer and buy FSX: Steam Edition for £20 which I assume has working multiplayer.

yep Win7 would be best, plus free upgrade to Win10 when it comes out :slight_smile:

It is very true that “original” FSX is rather old and outdated, but it does have by far the biggest following.
The best option I can see is to go with FSX: Steam Edition which is being developed by dovetail games.

Hope this all helps.

22

I can recommend X-Plane.
I have version 9 here that I play with now and then. I’ve not got the space to build a sim at the Sqn but when we were planning one (expecting to acquire an additional building) I was dead set on using X-Plane.

It’s very scalable. For our purposes the ability to split tasks over the network was very advantageous. One more basic system can run the flight engine, another one or two high-power systems with good graphics to run the visuals, a third basic system to run the motion base, and we could also add a fourth as a dedicated instructor console.

The flight models seem to be more accurate in X-Plane than they were in FS (I’ve not used FSX but the older versions of X-Plane beat the same era FS releases hands down for me).
Trying to fly a helicopter in FSX was much like playing a game. In X-Plane it was much more like playing with the Thales Lynx simulators at Middle Wallop.

My experiences suggested that if you are just planning to put together a ‘flight trainer’ with joystick and pedals, a couple of screens, and maybe one of those generic control consoles it probably doesn’t make a lot of difference which software you choose.
Though, if you’re planning to build something immersive X-Plane will really open up the possibility of future expansion.

23

Thanks for the comprehensive replies.

The “brief” at the moment is to have 4 separate “flight trainers” each with their own joystick/throttle + rudder pedals. There should be the ability to connect the flight trainers together to allow enhanced options,

However, planning ahead, it would be sensible to be able to utilise some/all of the resources if we wanted to invest more & upgrade to a more sophisticated simulator option (or significantly enhance the flight trainer capability).

For that reason, i was leaning slightly towards X-Plane.

That was my thought when questioned by the PC company! I just fly around in the real world, all this simulation technology is very confusing! :wink:

24

Is there anybody in cadet world using the Prepar3d simulator? I’m pretty sure we’d fall under its non-entertainment licence requirements and it is by all accounts a good bit of kit.

On the general concept of 4 linked PCs, Isolate them if you can (rather than sitting them in a row on a bench) consider having a 5th station to serve as ATC and get some sort of comms headset for each.

25

I haven’t heard of anyone using it but due to it being effectively FSX I would have thought its a good option, particularly as LM has probably upgraded the physics engine and is pushing it as a professional training simulator rather than a game. Yeah I would assume we’d come under the academic license.

I’m hoping to do a similar thing. 4 aircraft stations with 2 screens each (24" wide on top, smaller on bottom) and a single screen ATC station.

26

Considering “future-proofing,” the company has suggested the following:

RL Modula 104 Desktop PC Base Unit (about £100 more than the 102)

Radeon R9 270X 2GB Graphics Card - seems to have a good review. £102.

Very little discount unfortunately, waiting for Saitek to come back about the ancillaries.

27

I think that THIS option is a bit too far gone - emails by 29 Jan if you are interested!

Anyone from 2214 got any more information? :wink:

28

[quote=“MikeJenvey” post=23113]Considering “future-proofing,” the company has suggested the following:
RL Modula 104 Desktop PC Base Unit (about £100 more than the 102)[/quote]
Given the XPlane “recommended specifications”

[quote]Recommended System Specifications
For the best experience, we recommend the following system specs:
a 3+ GHz, multi-core CPU (or multiple processors),
8-16 GB of RAM,
a DVD-ROM, and
a high-performance, DirectX 11-capable video card with 2-4 GB of on-board, dedicated VRAM.[/quote]

I suspect that either would be capable of preforming well, the 102 only needs the extra 4GB of RAM.
Yeah if you’ve got the money then the 104 would be better. But both do indeed need a graphics card.

Looking around its also recommended for single screen XPlane sims (here)

I’m not surprised that they won’t discount, wonder what it’d be like if we bulk ordered 20 between a few squadrons lol.

29

Well, it would make commercial sense & help greatly for increasing “ACC knowledge” for how to get the maximum benefits, best add-ons, etc, etc.

Is there any one at HQAC who is the “flight trainer/simulator” best point of contact??

30

Is there a Corps Level Aerospace officer?

31

I’m thinking OC2FTS may be the closest, or whoever was his aerospace lackey at North region.

32

I’m guessing the closest would be the regional aerospace officers, slightly less complexity if each region organised a bulk buy.

33

Even if there were some sort of bulk discount, my advice is always that if you’ve got someone who’s technically handy and has the time to build controls, panels, &c you’ll get a far better simulator for your money than you will by buying off the shelf.

Take instrument panels for example… There are numerous ways to go. At the top end you’ve got the option of building servo/stepper motor controlled instruments and gauges.
At the other end one of the cheapest, and still very effective, methods is to build a panel with cut outs that sits over an LCD monitor.

Off the shelf you can buy exactly that:

but it’ll cost you £1,195 for the privilege.

Here is one man’s very nice home made example of a Bell 206 panel using just that technique.

Cost involved? One LCD monitor (I just bought myself another 19" widescreen for £10), some masonite board, some screws, and a couple of switches.

You can make your sim as complex or as simple as you wish, and customise it to your specifications rather than being stuck with generic options.

A google search will show you the variety of home build solutions, from the cheap and basic to the more advanced.

I’ve always been inspired by this Bell 206 sim.
Granted, much of this is toward the higher end (he machines a lot of his own parts from aluminium, and obviously he’s installed it into an actual 206 airframe) but it really does show the kind of thing you can create with a little ingenuity.

If you love a project then a home build might be the way to go.
Personally, for the same money, I’d always choose to go for something custom and far superior to a basic, over-priced joystick, pedals, and panels set up.
Not least because most of the joysticks on the market today look stupid.

34

@ wdimagineer2b - that is a very high-tech, top quality, helicopter sim (& for sale too!), built by someone who is very skilful in metal-workiing, lathe machining, woodworking, electronics & software aspects!

Agreed, that would be the perfect world, but the complexity & time involved, even for a much simpler project would be problematical.

The “in-between” simpler solutions such as the wooden screen over a basic LCD monitor could well be something we look at at in the fullness of time, but we hope to start with base-line trainers (easy to purchase & quick to get “operational”) & then perhaps move onwards & upwards in the future…

35

Yes, what I was really trying to show were things like the custom panel and custom cyclic control.

I bought 6 of the old Thrustmaster Top Gun joysticks for £20 on ebay a few years ago.

My intention was to fit them onto custom control columns. Potentiometers or linear position sensors attached and wired into a USB controller.
More work, but for me personally far more satisfying that something like this sat on a desk:

36

Wdimagineer2b, yes if you want to go aong the lines of the most immersive flying experience possible then I would take a similar route, however as a training tool for cadets, I think 6 sims with a wide screen for window and a smaller screen for instrument panel, all networked together for multiplayer, is much more effective than one big shiny, all bells and whistles, sim.

37

Hmmm, in a perfect world, would like to have both! Start off on the linked “flight trainers” then progress to bigger things…

Some of our cadets went on a recent visit to a local, privately-run, B373 simulator (sponsored by a parent, weren’t they lucky!).

Whilst it was a steep learning curve, by the end, they had had to master hand/eye coordination in a BIG way, principles of flight, FMS inputs, navigation, radios, teamwork (that was harder for some of them) & consider situational awareness.

Normally when I go in one of those devices, it is a 6-monthly torture session, with everything going wrong - by accident or design! :wink: But, for the cadets, it was a very valuable experience.

38

This looks it might become the way ahead - a form of flight simulator, but operating a Reaper:

https://www.raf.mod.uk/recruitment/roles/aircrew/remotely-piloted-aircraft-system-rpas-pilot/

39

There is no reason why you can’t hook up a flight simulator to a remote control aircraft with front facing cameras on it. . . . well apart from the CAA . . .

40

Looking to build a flight sim at my AEF. So just jumping in for reference.