The other day I flew with a fanatic simmer who -- after I asked him whether he knows the 182 -- responded that he can also fly the 747 and 777. He did a real time flight in the sim with a 747 from London to Sidney and he had thousands of hours of experience in his "logbook". He considered himself to be very proficient.
The guy was completely hopeless, worse than anyone without experience I've taken up so far. Maybe FS X and a fancy joystick is not the right thing after all...
I found the FNPT II to be very good, much better than the real plane. I knew how to fly a plane but I knew nothing about IFR. The freeze button and the high productivity provided the learning effect. The device was expensive, it had a real GNS430, contained all the controls and avionics and it was certified. The instructor was top notch (although former military and thus awkward at times).
I am all for CBM but I didn't have that experience and found the FNPT to be great. FS X / X-Plane wasn't for me.
The guy was completely hopeless
He would be, without training by somebody who knows about flying for real.
My view is that you could teach somebody the procedures just as well in a simple and (crucially) unapproved sim.
Or one could create quite a fancy FSX or X-Plane based sim, with multiple screens, which would still be unapproved but would be a lot cheaper to run.
Especially if training for the way the IR is done in Europe which is a really basic kind of IFR flying, and with (in the UK, anyway) the majority of the training requirement being created by the need to train NDB procedures. That in turn complicates things because most of the PC sims don't do the "ADF dip".
If one was training advanced GPS usage (various GPS-specific approach procedures, autopilot interaction, etc) then I can see a need to stick a real GPS in there. But I don't see that kind of training ever being supported by the FTOs, because it would be too specific, and irrelevant to the ATPL cadet customer base which will almost never fly IFR for real until they start on their jet type rating. And there are far too few private pilots doing the IR.
I'm doing my IR training at the moment, and I just did around 10 hours in an FNPT2 last weekend. Yes, it's more expensive than doing it in the TB20, but in some ways it's better value (especially when you factor in the extortionate approach fees at Bournemouth). Besides, the TB20 was u/s with a seized fuel pump so not an option, and I needed to get some hours in ;)
Here's why I think it was good value. The instructor was really excellent (ex airline pilot with lost medical) and taught me
a) the value of a "system" by which to perform every procedure
b) highly accurate power/attitude flying
c) loads of practical tricks to reduce mental load.
(OK, so the accurate flying is a stretching it a bit, given the dissimilarities of a sim twin vs a real TB20, but at least I now have some of the tools, even if the edges need sharpening.)
The experience of those 10 hours sim time is far more condensed than it could possibly be in an equivalent flight. There's no way I could do 6 ILS approaches in an hour, nor 5 varied hold joins in a similar length session. Also, as achimha mentions, it's really useful to be able to freeze the sim and talk through a specific issue, rather than blundering on and getting hopelessly confused.
Despite originally planning to do all the hours in the TB, I think the sim was well worth the slightly extra money spent. I'm now planning to do 4 or 5 more hours sim time, to preserve currency while the a/c is in for its annual mid-way through the training.
I did the sim hours on a Frasca 121, which in the late 70's might have been state of the art, but nowadays hopelessly outdated. It plots the flown track with a pen on a copy of a map. The instructor changes the aircraft position by moving the plotter pen :-) I doubt if there is any digital technique involved in this sim. The "force feedback" in the controls is done by some clever system using weights, which I could see moving when "flying". Nevertheless, the flying characteristics were quite accurate...
It's a certified sim and the hours where cheap. I paid around 2300EUR for 20 hours + briefings, which is much cheaper then actual flying with a FI. This 20 hours where very good value for money. The trainer had a military background and I liked his straight-forward way of teaching. I came in as a no-no, and went out with all the basic stuff I needed to know.
Flying real-world in IMC is a total different experience. I did the training in autumn/winter and while my fellow club flyers didn't fly for weeks, I had only two occasions when my lesson was cancelled because of weather!
It took me a lot of time to get used to flying in IMC. One is so used to use visual references, that once they are gone, you feel lost... I can now fly on instruments in IMC and having a conversation. But it took me like 30 hours to get to that point.
I have tried using FSX and Xplane at home. But I gave up on it as I was spending too much time playing with video settings, keyboard mappings, figuring out why the Autopilot was not working as expected, etc. I then ordered a copy of Rant XL, which offered me exactly what I needed; a procedure trainer rather then a flight simulator.
I also used Tim's Air Navigation Simulator to practice VOR / NDB intercepts.
I also did 20 hours on this Frasca. It may be terribly outdated but it will teach you to fly proper attitude, pitch and power and to be very sensitive and gentle on your controls.
It also allows you to reposition to anywhere in a second, so it is much more efficient than training in an aircraft (allthough you should definitely do that as well).
I paid € 55,- per hour for it + my instructorsfee. It is in Alphen.
I did some sim flying and was a long term MS FS user prior to training. I think sims are good for teaching you to scan and learn how to read and interpret things like ADFs and do other procedural tasks. I think they are useless for aircraft handling, pitch etc.
