I'm currently trying out the demo version in FS9 but I have a few concerns that I haven't decided whether or not they are show-stoppers to me:

Firstly, having completed a few flights I decided to try out circuits out of KMKW (Gen. Mitchell Intl.) but I can't seem to get a score. I started with the ILS active but the glideslop doesn't quite match the flight instructor's expectations of 500' AGL when turning onto final so I decided continue doing circuits with the ILS receiver off. This made Mr. Smith stop complaining about the glideslope of course but now I receive critic for the following "reasons" in my landing (from the log):

"Landing included the following problems:
* No glideslope information was available on visual approach.
* No runway alignment information was available on visual approach.
* No glideslope - could not compare flare to glideslope.
Definite room for improvement..."

Do I need to create a non-ILS file for KMKE? If so, is there info somewhere on how to do that (didn't find anything in the manual)? The stock files seems to be empty so I guess the product is only using the information in the file name, right?

Secondly, I seem to get a zero circuit score even though I get an "ok" landing score (> 50 points). Is that as it should? It seems the log doesn't separate the "good" from the "not so good" pointers for circuits, is there a good reason for this?

Finally, the following "flight" score seems strange to me:

"Flight Score:94.61

Flight commended in the following areas:
* Smooth turns.
* Nice banking.
* Correct matching of flaps to speeds.
* Gear deployment at safe speed.
* Comfortable G forces.
* Smooth pitch control.
* Flown within aircraft's maximum speed limit.
* Gentle taxi turns.
* Good take off steering.
* Rotation was not late.
* Appropriate position of flaps during taxi.
* Safe taxi speed.
* Smooth braking during taxi.
* Smooth climb during takeoff.
* Wings level near ground.
* Well coordinated turns.
* No stalls.
* No flying dangerously close to stall speed.
* Smooth comfortable descent rate.
* Pitch not too high.
* Pitch not too low.
* Flaps down on time.
* Approach speed not too fast.
* Good clearance of obstacles.
  
Flight included the following problems:
* Excessive speed at low altitude - several complaints have been filed.
Definite room for improvement..."

How to interpret these pointers:

"* Safe taxi speed.
* Smooth braking during taxi.
* Gentle taxi turns.".

I wasn't doing any taxiing at all when I set up the circuit training so why did I get this? Did it interpret the few seconds on the RWY before I pressed Ctrl+Shift+Space as "taxi"?

"* Excessive speed at low altitude - several complaints have been filed."

I flew RealAir's SF260 and never exceeded 135kts. How should I interpret this critique?

I understand you consider this release your "core technonology" and that you intend to tune and improve it but I do get a feeling there's "definite room for improvement..." for FSFlyingSchool too, isn't there? 

I haven't flown with a real instructor since the mid 90's, when I got my PPL so I'll probably buy the thing anyway because it really is great fun getting the "being watched feeling" back. 

Cheers

/Jonas

Thanks for the kind words.

>> I'm currently trying out the demo version in FS9 but I have a few concerns that I haven't decided whether or not they are show-stoppers to me:
Firstly, having completed a few flights I decided to try out circuits out of KMKW (Gen. Mitchell Intl.) but I can't seem to get a score. I started with the ILS active but the glideslop doesn't quite match the flight instructor's expectations of 500' AGL when turning onto final so I decided continue doing circuits with the ILS receiver off. This made Mr. Smith stop complaining about the glideslope of course but now I receive critic for the following "reasons" in my landing (from the log):
"Landing included the following problems:
* No glideslope information was available on visual approach.
* No runway alignment information was available on visual approach.
* No glideslope - could not compare flare to glideslope.
Definite room for improvement..."
Do I need to create a non-ILS file for KMKE? If so, is there info somewhere on how to do that (didn't find anything in the manual)? The stock files seems to be empty so I guess the product is only using the information in the file name, right?

If the pilot is receiving no ILS signal then the runway must have an associated nonILS file and the pilot must have loaded a flight plan to that runway into FSFS.
Otherwise, scoring will be awful and you'll get the messages you got about landing problems with runways and glideslopes. FSFS can only give you a proper evaluation of your landing if it is either ILS or set up as described here.
To create the files, please see the Visual Approaches section of the manual (page number varies with version).

>> Secondly, I seem to get a zero circuit score even though I get an "ok" landing score (> 50 points). Is that as it should? It seems the log doesn't separate the "good" from the "not so good" pointers for circuits, is there a good reason for this?

Can you send us some examples so we can look at the data you're getting? Just email or submit to this forum the   .htm   files from your
C:\Program Files\FSFlyingSchool\PilotRoster
which match the pilot(s) who are flying the circuits.

>> Finally, the following "flight" score seems strange to me:
"Flight Score:94.61
Flight commended in the following areas:
* Smooth turns.
* Nice banking.
* Correct matching of flaps to speeds.
* Gear deployment at safe speed.
* Comfortable G forces.
* Smooth pitch control.
* Flown within aircraft's maximum speed limit.
* Gentle taxi turns.
* Good take off steering.
* Rotation was not late.
* Appropriate position of flaps during taxi.
* Safe taxi speed.
* Smooth braking during taxi.
* Smooth climb during takeoff.
* Wings level near ground.
* Well coordinated turns.
* No stalls.
* No flying dangerously close to stall speed.
* Smooth comfortable descent rate.
* Pitch not too high.
* Pitch not too low.
* Flaps down on time.
* Approach speed not too fast.
* Good clearance of obstacles.  
Flight included the following problems:
* Excessive speed at low altitude - several complaints have been filed.
Definite room for improvement..."
How to interpret these pointers:
"* Safe taxi speed.
* Smooth braking during taxi.
* Gentle taxi turns.".
I wasn't doing any taxiing at all when I set up the circuit training so why did I get this? Did it interpret the few seconds on the RWY before I pressed Ctrl+Shift+Space as "taxi"?

FSFS classifies all time spent on the ground prior to Ctrl+Shift+Z (or Ctrl+Shift+1), which itself represents "OK Mr Smith - I am lined up and ready to take off", as taxiing. Sure the comments in the flight evaluation are general - we don't actually keep track of whether the pilot actually did any smooth braking for example. What the evaluation is saying is that there was no bad taxiiing behaviour of that type.

>> "* Excessive speed at low altitude - several complaints have been filed."
I flew RealAir's SF260 and never exceeded 135kts. How should I interpret this critique?

Flying low and considerably above takeoff or landing speeds triggers this item. The general idea is that the pilot flew at a speed which was inappropriate (too fast) for an approach, or flew a very low approach (whilst slowing down), or took off and held the aircraft low as speed built up, instead of climbing normally.

>> I understand you consider this release your "core technonology" and that you intend to tune and improve it but I do get a feeling there's "definite room for improvement..." for FSFlyingSchool too, isn't there?

Well... we've improved FSFlyingSchool since its release in Dec 2006 with 8 free revisions, including the addition of support for FSX.
This has been very well received in the international FS press as you can see:
http://www.avsim.com/pages/1207/FlightSchool/FlightSchool.htm
http://www.flightsimx.co.uk/reviews/fsflyingschool-review
http://www.simnewz.com/Product_Reviews/SIMnewz_FSFlyingSchool_review.pdf
http://www.fsflyingschool.com/forum/Topic946-5-1.aspx
http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/review/school/school.htm
http://www.fsflyingschool.com/images/PC Pilot review - FS Flying School.pdf



>> I haven't flown with a real instructor since the mid 90's, when I got my PPL so I'll probably buy the thing anyway because it really is great fun getting the "being watched feeling" back.

Excellent! Thanks again for the kind words. We think the fact that FSFS adds a certain degree of, it has to be said, stress  to the situation, adds a degree of realism too. We fully acknowledge that many simmers will not want this, but there's nothing like the immersion of getting that "Oh darn!" feeling when you know you lowered the flaps too fast or that "YES!" feeling when you fly a great flight and land as pretty as a picture. 

You can also feel that warm sense of satisfaction as you slowly     squeeeeeze     the mouse button to submit that top score to the web site...

Jeff Preston ('Squadron Leader') - FSFlyingSchool Publisher & Lead Developer


FSFlyingSchool 2023 for Microsoft Flight Simulator
FSFlyingSchool 2023 for X-Plane 12 & 11
FS Instant Approach 2023 for X-Plane 12 & 11 (Windows)
FSFlyingSchool PRO 2020 Prepar3D v 5
FSFlyingSchool PRO 2019 FSX, FSX-SE, FS2004
FSFlyingSchool USA for Microsoft Flight Simulator
FS Instant Approach 2019 for X-Plane 11 (Mac)
FS Instant Approach for Microsoft Flight Simulator
FS Instant Help for FSX, FS2004


Winner of 5 consecutive PC Pilot Magazine 'Classic Product' Awards

Fly like the Pros with X-Plane, Flight Simulator and Prepar3D!

If you wish to unsubscribe simply reply to email with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the SUBJECT line.