answered Vector update

[maxhades]

Very simple and stupid question! When does vector updated?

 

Greets

Max

[Bermuda425]

Right, there's lots of new content announced. Must be at the time soon?

[evro]

I'd like to know this as well. bought vector to help me along in training to learn to navigate by landmarks and waterways. One major, but pretty simple discrepancy in my area is really bugging me.

[spud]

Really, your using basically a "game", although a very realistic one, to train for real life flying?  I do hope you have a will!

 

[FalconAF]

1 hour ago, spud said:

Really, your using basically a "game", although a very realistic one, to train for real life flying?  I do hope you have a will!

 

 

It's not that unrealistic.  In the early 1970's while training for my real-world Instrument rating, I was able to be "locked up" in a Link Trainer on the ground to learn some aspects of IFR flying procedures.  And that training time was FAA approved.  More recently (since the '70s), the FAA has actually endorsed the use of home computer quality flight simulators in a commercial training environment, and recognized "logged training time" on them as meeting SOME of the requirements for the certificate the pilot is training for.

 

As Evro said, he bought the ORBX products "to help me along in training to learn...".  Whether the help and learning they are giving him is certified by the FAA or any other governing entity isn't relevant to what he said.  I'm sure he isn't using them as his SOLE source of any real-world flight training curriculum, or he would never meet the requirements for any certification he is seeking.

 

Heck, I use my home flight simulator to "become familiar with" and "learn" real world IFR approach procedures for airports I've never flown into before.  I don't need a Will, or need to improve the Will I already have, because of that.  But I need to recognize that if I'm not using the equivalent of the CURRENT real-world charts in that learning experience (like the ones I use from my Navigraph subscription that keeps the charts updated in my flight simulator), when I do the real-world flight, I better be using the CURRENT real-world charts at that time. 

 

[evro]

1 hour ago, spud said:

Really, your using basically a "game", although a very realistic one, to train for real life flying?  I do hope you have a will!

 

 

4 minutes ago, FalconAF said:

 

It's not that unrealistic.  In the early 1970's while training for my real-world Instrument rating, I was able to be "locked up" in a Link Trainer on the ground to learn some aspects of IFR flying procedures.  And that training time was FAA approved.  More recently (since the '70s), the FAA has actually endorsed the use of home computer quality flight simulators in a commercial training environment, and recognized "logged training time" on them as meeting SOME of the requirements for the certificate the pilot is training for.

 

As Evro said, he bought the ORBX products "to help me along in training".  Whether the help they are giving him is certified by the FAA or any other governing entity isn't relevant to what he said.  And I'm sure he isn't using them entirely as his sole source of any flight training curriculum, or he would never meet the requirements for any certification he is seeking.

 

Heck, I use my home flight simulator to "become familiar with" and "learn" real world IFR approach procedures for airports I've never flown into before.  I don't need a will, or need to improve the will I already have, because of that.  

Falcon basically said it all, but

I'd also like to point out that some simulators are not only FAA approved, but I'm currently using one to do about 90% of my training for my instrument rating, and by comparison in several aspects it performs WORSE than fsx. I don't consider fsx to be a "game" in the least. Had it not been for fsx, my private pilot certificate would have been a lot more expensive.

 

now that we've answered your question about my use of a product that I personally own and paid for...shall we get back on topic? 

[spud]

The difference everyone is citing is that the simulator they used is FAA approved for the purpose.  FSX/ORBX is a good simulation of the world it uses but nothing, I repeat, nothing equals real in the air practice of procedures and regulations.  I know I'm an old school retired Naval aviator/flight instructor with a few thousand hours flight time but in the cockpit and simulation are two entirely different animals even with type specific simulators.

 

[FalconAF]

I agree with everything you said.  But simulators also allow training and initial/recurrent certification for things that would never be "taught" using a real airplane.  Commercial airline pilots get recurrent simulator time approximately every 6 months for both normal and emergency procedures.  It's a whole lot better to simulate an engine fire in a simulator to measure how the pilot responds to it than lighting a real engine on fire during a real flight.  

 

And again, evro never said his purchase of any ORBX product was intended for credited training.  So however he uses it that benefits his learning and understanding of his actual credited training is most likely going to be beneficial.