X Plane11 Cirrus SR22T

True thank you!

Is the Noble Cirrus yoke comfortable to hand fly?

Yep, starts up no problem midair.

Cool!

No disagreement, but Chuck are you able to trim an XPlane SR22 with the Noble yoke for hands off straight and level? I think there is a fundamental problem with XPlane’s pitch trim up and down commands as they apply much more trim than they should. It is far worse than in a real Cirrus.

The trim wheel on the Honeycomb Bravo throttle quadrant is much better as (I think) it uses a progressive trim command that is much more precise. I have one, and I am thinking of ditching the Noble yoke for that, but the Honeycomb throttle quadrant really doesn’t really fit with the PFD/MFD and Noble throttle quadrant.

As for Noble perfectly replicating POH flight performance data, I don’t see how that is particularly useful to be honest. Maybe glide distance for engine out? I wish they spent that time working on VNAV and unpublished holds, which they have been promising for some time, and fixing obvious bugs like the COM/NAV/CRS knob also controlling the FMS knob, which they said they were were too busy (replicating POH numbers? :thinking:) to do because they were building stuff for CPPP.

I don’t mean to be negative about Noble, but after spending something like $7k on my set up I feel there are still a lot of unresolved problems between Torquesim, XPlane and Noble that really take the fun out of it every time I want to do some training.

1 Like

I agree. The TorqueSim SR22 is really good.

2 Likes

Hello
Please remember Torquesim model is TN not T.

About trim: i strongly sugest to use force feedback yoke, i bought Brunner yoke and modified it to fit Cirrus sidestick. It work perfect and you can “feel” trimming excactly as on the plane.

About XPlane: i really miss holding functions in G1000 .
Br
BogdanS

Short answer, Yes. I’ve been able to trim for hands off in highly tuned X Plane sims where the simulator engineers (NOT XPLANE) took the time to get the aerodynamic flight model correct. I’m certain you have not seen the latest from Noble. It is my understanding that they will roll out their latest at this weeks Las Vegas CPPP.

Alex, please don’t put words in my mouth. That is total supposition on your part based on a statement by me. The Noble team brought in a simulation engineer who is an expert on the behind the scenes knowledge it takes to create an airplane model in X Plane that matches the POH for performance. Frankly, I’ve not talked to Tyler Noble recently. I don’t know what they’ve been working on. I’m close to the sim engineer which how I know what I do.

People confuse Avionics trainers and simulators all the time. The first test any sim engineer will do when testing a simulator is to land it. And do that with book numbers. That is the acid test for the flight model. At least at our level. Cirrus pilots nor glass panel pilots are crashing airplanes because they couldn’t tune a NAV/COM frequency, fly an unpublished hold or couldn’t get down because their VNAV wasn’t working.

What you’re griping about is the avionics. Alex, what you, like most most home sim users are doing is very likely something you could have easily done with the $49 Perspective + PC Trainer from Garmin.

If you were to tour the Vision training Center in Knoxville you’d find rooms full of Avionics trainers that Cirrus calls ‘Hot Benches’. They’re running - BTW - the same software as the $49 PC trainer. Their sole purpose in life is to teach and practice anything the avionics can do within the limits of a device that cannot move. Read; was not intended to be a flight simulator. And let me remind you that your home system is a FTD not a simulator. For a simulator you must dig far deeper than $7K

Sir, give Noble time. Work with them. This business is far more complex than it seems from the outside looking in. They’re trying. And while we’re bitching, what of Garmin and Cirrus? How have they helped you get better?

Garmin and Cirrus - for all their good deeds around training - have failed miserably in this arena. Shame on them for not offering companies FlyThisSim, Redbird, Real Sim Gear and Noble the opportunity to affordably license their software so YOU could get the real deal. That is on Garmin, not Noble. Or any makers of FTDs.

I agree sim training is fun. Apparently I get a kick at being able to get 85% power from a SR22T when I set 30.5" of manifold pressure, and 18.3 gallons per hour. I like being able to trim for Vref at power settings I would see in the airplane and doing a great landing overcoming the shortfalls of a 32" monitor. The same goes for the knobs that don’t perform and functions that are yet to be programmed. I just think through the problem and find another way. That’s what pilots do and frankly, is the greatest gift of the FTD. Forcing pilots to think.

It was only just this year that Cirrus upgraded their 14 year $500K SR22 Frasca AATD to something more current. That old FTD was running the original Perspective .09 software. It was obsolete within two years. Moreover, in 2017 when P + rolled out the sim was completely obsoleted. Yet we factory instructors made good use of if for EPT.

I’ve not had the chance to fly their new FTD but I know this. Cirrus had a specific mission for the sim and I’d guess, it does that well.

In General Aviation, the simulation world is always behind, to some extent, the real world.

All good points, especially about Cirrus/Garmin making it easier for sim manufacturers to build accurate models. That seems like an obvious win/win.

I will say that I derive 90% of the value in my home sim (“avionics trainer”) from dragging the airplane to some random spot and shooting approaches, etc. I personally do not care that the model doesn’t exactly match the POH numbers, since I don’t think my serial exactly matches yours or the POH either.

And I don’t mean to discount your point that a full-blown aircraft simulator should match the book numbers, just emphasizing the value of less-than-full-blown simulation at home.

4 Likes

Agree and would say that value is in the eye of the beholder. I also admit I’m a simulator evangelist who considers that the future of GA may well hinge on the use of high fidelity simulators over how we’ve been doing it for 118 years.

3 Likes

It looks like Laminar will include a SR22 in X-Plane 12.

Looks like Perspective+ equipped.

There is some verbiage by the start switch of altitude of 25,000 ft, but the engine page doesn’t show TIT.


1 Like

Very cool, didn’t realize XP12 was coming. In a perfect world we’d have the flight dynamics/avionics from XP and the graphics from FS2020! I value the former more than the latter, but the graphics in FS2020 really are mind-blowing.

2 Likes

X-Plane 11 is $60, a joystick ~$100, Torquesim add-on $60, I already have a good home computer. Not sure what a full-blown aircraft simulator cost… :slight_smile:

1 Like

I think that it’s been said several ways and to me comes down to this. The X-plane Cirrus has the capability to play a role in a pilot’s overall strategy to maintain proficiency and may even have a role in learning a new specific skill. The overall proficiency strategy may include some of all of: LMS, simulator practice, hood work with a safety pilot, a flight with a CSIP, or a solo flight to practice VFR maneuvers or IFR procedures.

An earlier comment is spot on. The low level sim can shine in practicing the mental aspects of decision making which leads to “what do I need the airplane to do” followed by “how do I get the technology to get it done” ending with “did I get what I asked for”. Rinse and repeat.

This defining of the best role of the sim is similar to the arc the airlines have gone through over the years from pilot trainers in jets (expensive and several accidents) to an obsession with “everything” in increasingly expensive Level D simulators (full motion, wraparound visuals, certified sound packages). While good training the model is refining as training device technology improves to a strategy which better matches the training tool to the specific training need/desire in the form of a combination of tablet-based training, flat panel trainers, simulators with no motion and then the full flight simulator. Much of the training in this approach also supports self-paced training meaning the lower level tools allow the pilot to determine the scenario, the number of repetitions, replay performance etc.

Great discussion and thanks for letting me share my two cents. (1st post)

4 Likes

Welcome!

1 Like

Welcome Don.

2 Likes