|
A heading is where you point the nose. A course is a track over the ground. A heading is not corrected for wind. If you select a given heading and the wind pushes you from the side, your heading will remain the same but your course over the ground will not. If you select a course to fly, the autopilot will automatically adjust your heading to account for wind so that your track over the ground remains constant along the desired path. In a no-wind situation, your course and your heading would be the same. Both are displayed in degrees in reference to magnetic north.
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 18:56 |
|
|
The Ferret King posted:A heading is where you point the nose. Eloquent motherfucker, right here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:This is probably a pretty simple question, but what's the difference between the 'course' and 'heading' selectors on an autopilot? When I started playing FSX years ago, 'heading' was the only setting that would turn a plane in a particular direction and keep it there, so I just never messed with 'course' or bothered to learn what it was for. Continuing from that Ferret said, in regards to navigation and how it's done, "course" is used to set a radial to track off a navaid whether it be a VOR, ILS/localizer, or GPS fix over the ground. Without a navaid, you cannot fly a course, the airplane has no way of knowing where you want to go without relating it to something. A localizer and GPS are a bit different than a VOR though. VORs are easy. There are 360 radials you can track (to or from) the station and if you want to track one of them, say the 180 radial inbound and you're approaching it from the south, you just put "180" on your course selector and follow the OBS with a "TO" indication and keep the needle centered. There's quite a bit more to it than that but there's a very basic and general summary of VOR tracking. With a localizer, you can only track one radial so, if you have its frequency tuned into a nav radio, no matter where that course selector is pointing to, you're going to see where you are in relation to it on the OBS (within so many degrees or else it will deflect full-scale). I'm still pretty new to GPS stuff but from what I gather, when you go "direct to" a fix, the DTK indicator automatically tracks that "radial" again regardless of what your course is set to on the OBS. That's how it works with the GNS530 and the OBS we have in the plane I fly, anyway. With GPS and localizers, setting your course has everything to do with situational awareness and nothing to do with functional navigation in terms of tracking. e: now that I think about it, you actually can "track" a heading without a navaid but it does require some special equipment like a GPS or INS or something. I know most commercial jets have a function on the autopilot that allows you to change from HDG to TRK. When switched over, it will actually "track" a heading and compensate for wind. Usually, you see it on a DP or STAR though where after the last fix, it tells you to "Track XXX " and expect radar vectors to final.  
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
In English: Heading > Compass direction Course > GPS/FMC
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
It's not that simple flying a course can also be done with an NDB or VOR or by planning your route on the ground including plotting a course by taking in to account winds aloft from weather reports and then verifying your course on the fly by observing the course you're flying and adjusting accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
I had an eventful flight into PDX on Saturday on stream. Queued up to the interesting bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8mgCQFuhlk&t=5950s Keith (ATC) remote pushed an engine failure a few seconds before I decided to go around due to traffic on the runway (which he didn't anticipate). It being my first GA in the Flightfactor 757, I assumed it was a flight model bug and didn't fight it too hard. Analysis and re-creation ensues.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
That was really interesting to see live. I'm kinda curious about the controller saying you didn't need to go around even though the previous guy hadn't vacated, are you as the pilot expected to know he's far enough down, or do you just assume the controller is on the ball and would wave you off if you don't have enough space?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
It's called Reduced Runway Separation. Depending on the aircraft, the field and the conditions there can sometimes be more than one aircraft allowed on a runway at the same time. In Canada the absoloute minimum for landing is 600m between light single engine, 1500m for larger single engine and small twins and 2400m for everything else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
Torraque posted:I'm kinda curious about the controller saying you didn't need to go around even though the previous guy hadn't vacated, are you as the pilot expected to know he's far enough down, or do you just assume the controller is on the ball and would wave you off if you don't have enough space? So, ATC sees the scope, which shows the plane as a single little icon located where the cockpit of the plane is. Without a visual view of the field, he can't see the positioning of the aircraft's tail. Now, even if he could see it, the runway separation rules would allow for him to clear me to land (and for me to likely be able to land safely); however, with extremely wet braking action, in a 757 which I'm very much still learning how to fly, I thought there was a pretty good chance I would not come to a stop before reaching that aircraft's position on A3. Which probably would've been fine as long as he kept moving, but if he had any sort of issue that made him stop (or just had different scenery that made him clear of "his" runway but not of "mine"), then I'd be in a pickle. Plus, I thought a go around would make for more interesting streaming. I didn't expect just how interesting it would get  We had a pair of posts recently about same runway separation, for those curious to read more about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
Last bit of stream nonsense then I'll give it a break for a while: on Saturday, Feb 11 I'll be doing an all-day stream as I try to complete the Day in the Life Challenge in real time (real weather etc as well). Got a bunch of flight sim companies to donate stuff for giveaways so come by and say hello, keep me company, and light a candle for the patron saint of flight sim stability.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
That's pretty neat, I'll try to stop by in time for the inevitable remote failure that leads to complete loss of life.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
aunt jemima posted:Last bit of stream nonsense then I'll give it a break for a while: on Saturday, Feb 11 I'll be doing an all-day stream as I try to complete the Day in the Life Challenge in real time (real weather etc as well). Got a bunch of flight sim companies to donate stuff for giveaways so come by and say hello, keep me company, and light a candle for the patron saint of flight sim stability. I'll come by but only if you have epaulettes and a hat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
I already tried that Also when you cold/dark the aircraft as required just reload the sim?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
sellouts posted:Also when you cold/dark the aircraft as required just reload the sim? Yep definitely the plan. I might end up reloading after every leg. It doesn't take that long to cold boot the 757 and my X-Plane load times are not terrible. Definitely will if I run into any FMC state issues. Like tonight I streamed and was trying to divert after an approach into KASE was laughably impossible and it sorta wigged out on me until I could get it to settle down and accept a new destination. Kept throwing low fuel warnings even though I landed at DEN with ~5000 lbs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 08:28
|
|
|
So is the general consensus not to buy anything and stop playing FSX Steam? I've been on the fence about getting REX and Orbx for it, but wasn't sure if something else was better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
Wait until XP11 is fully released. There's no sense throwing so much money at an old as poo poo platform at this point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
Unless you love a bunch of the aircraft on fsx that are light years ahead of the poo poo on xplane. Xplane has a few great aircraft but fsx has many more. Xplanes night flying owns tho.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Also I really want to like the offerings on X-Plane but with the exception of Felis' Tupolev every single goddamned one has issues or is incomplete.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:Wait until XP11 is fully released. There's no sense throwing so much money at an old as poo poo platform at this point. No need to wait, buy XP11 right now and you get full scenery for the beta, full access to XP11 final, and full access to XP10 final now too. You can't afford not to! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
I bought XP10 on a Steam sale and hated it because it's the Linux of flight sims. Technically superior but with such a lovely user interface community and third party support that I didn't find it worth it beyond firing it up to tinker. When XP11 comes out I might buy it once it goes on super steam sale a few years from now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
I dunno anything about 11 but the XP10 third party stuff has gotten a ton better over the past couple of years
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Just my opinion and honestly not trying to fan the flames of a sim war but "X-plane has lovely third party support" is some seriously old meme. There are great aircraft, free ortho tiles for anywhere in the world, good free scenery for most airports, great weather addon options (and pretty decent defaults, especially in XP11). Yes it would be nice to have PMDG and OrbX. No I'm not going back to a laughably out of date engine, constantly dodging 32 bit memory limits in tyool 2017, and lovely flight modeling to get it, especially when there's so many great planes and I haven't spent a dime on scenery and my sim looks and runs great. Not even going to get into the community part, no idea what that is even referring to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
aunt jemima posted:No I'm not going back to a laughably out of date engine, constantly dodging 32 bit memory limits in tyool 2017 This 100% but I have literally spent 1000s of dollars on scenery, weather engines, planes, etc. I can't just up and leave even though I really want to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Eh maybe I just had a bad experience but when I was trying to sort out the fact that native TrackIR support is super terrible I got some lip on some forum and it pissed me off. I did end up with a third party plugin to give me not terrible TrackIR functionality so yay.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
AlbertFlasher posted:This 100% but I have literally spent 1000s of dollars on scenery, weather engines, planes, etc. I can't just up and leave even though I really want to. Sunken cost fallacy? I mean I'm with you, but lately I haven't been simming at all, and I'm thinking when I get back to it, I may as well start fresh. My best planes are all FSX-only, not even Prepar3d, so even if they release a 64-bit version, I have to rebuy a ton of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
I'm just going to wait before buying anything new Except there's still a chance Aerosoft's A330 will come out this year and I love their Airbusses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:Sunken cost fallacy? After not playing Fight Sims much since right after high school and around when FSX was released and XP10 was still brand new, XP11 is light years beyond what FSX or XP10 offered out of the box in terms of stability, performance, and UI.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
Peronsally I just want to fly a really good Cessna in prep for IRL flight school.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
InevitableCheese posted:Peronsally I just want to fly a really good Cessna in prep for IRL flight school. A2A is probably your best bet. They are anal as hell about making their stuff go by the actual observed performance and behaviours.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
Carth Dookie posted:A2A is probably your best bet. They are anal as hell about making their stuff go by the actual observed performance and behaviours. Except for Cherokee glide performance the A2A one is bullshit real ones definitely aren't as good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
So I've currently got a Thrustmaster T-Flight HOTAS X. I mostly use it for Strike Fighters 2, the occasional DCS, and probably Elite Dangerous if it ever has a big enough sale. It wasn't bad for an entry HOTAS, but I find it feels a bit loose and cheap. The new T.16000M FCS looks pretty rad. Is it enough of an upgrade to be worth it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
InevitableCheese posted:Peronsally I just want to fly a really good Cessna in prep for IRL flight school. Carth Dookie posted:A2A is probably your best bet. They are anal as hell about making their stuff go by the actual observed performance and behaviours. If you do decide to go to X-Plane, I hear the Airfoillabs makes a good 172. This guy likes it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7_owAl2KH0&t=1422s
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
InevitableCheese posted:Peronsally I just want to fly a really good Cessna in prep for IRL flight school. XP11 default C172 is quite good, like "people would have paid addon money for this". Must admit I haven't compared it to the Airfoil though. Need some of the r/w PPLs ITT to take it for a spin and weigh in. *eyes simble*
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
I've flown the xp11 one. I fly a 172sp 90% of the time when I fly IRL. It's pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
Yeah, I'd love to hear from a real pilot regarding the Airfoillabs one. I'm very close to buying it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
YAY only 6 hours left to go for downloading.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
As far as flying skill goes, a desktop simulator will not help you much. Our common desktop controls simply cannot accurately reproduce the stick feeling by which an airplane is flown. I had been playing around with simulators for years before starting flight training. It didn't help me much, as far as stick & rudder skills were concerned. What you can learn from a simulator is some of the theory: The role of the different controls, the function of the flight and navigation instruments, basic engine management. But even the default FSX 172 is fine for this. I haven't tried the Airfoillabs or A2A 172. But given the limitations mentioned above, the XP11 default 172 is OK. From my approx. 50 hours on type (172P & 172R), the biggest things I noticed concern ground effect and taxiing: Ground effect seems to weak, and the tires have less grip than on the real thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 10:55
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:Sunken cost fallacy? Ya you are probably right. But at least most of the planes and scenery are for P3D so it's not like I am still on FS9.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 12:29
|
|
|
food-rf posted:What you can learn from a simulator is some of the theory: The role of the different controls, the function of the flight and navigation instruments, basic engine management. But even the default FSX 172 is fine for this. This is basically all I'm looking for. I want to be able to get in day one being like, "Yeah, I've seen all this before."
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 18:56 |
|
|
InevitableCheese posted:This is basically all I'm looking for. I want to be able to get in day one being like, "Yeah, I've seen all this before." If you haven't already: Get a copy of the operating handbook (POH) for the type of aircraft and a cockpit poster (the POH should also have a drawing of the cockpit layout). Also get ground school material, the FAA Airplane Flying Handbook and Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge are available as free downloads. You will have to learn this material anyways. food-rf fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Feb 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 14:24
|
|