Why MSFS is not an approved FTD

[Guest]

Rich,>However, MSFS is not realistic in a lot of >areas Can you be more specific ?

[Guest captbulldog]

Weather is the most prominent one.

[Guest]

Here's a few of many:1) It is terrible at simulating winds: crosswind takeoffs/landings, taxiing, etc.2) I mentioned it simulates VOR's/NDB's way too easily. In real life VOR/NDB do not operate as smoothly as in fs2002.3) Weather simulation is horrible. Turbulence modeled not realistically.4) Most flight dynamics are wrong (737 acting like an F-16).5) Traffic modeling at GA airports.etc etcDon't get me wrong, I think it is a wonderful product. However, most people who fly MSFS2002 regularly (at least the ones who post) think they can then land a real airplane are way out of touch. In real life there is also the added dimension of knowing if you screw up you can' "reset" it.

[Guest]

MSFS could be approved, if you have a bit of cash to spare. In fact someone out in Australia got his homebuilt sim certified, running on an earlier version of FS, I think it was FS98.Its the 'whole' package that gets approved, not just the software, hence why PC-ATDs are so expensive. The software is the cheap part, its the hardware that is expensive.Remember that simulation is very subjective and all depends on the individual, hence why we sometimes see very heated discussions on these forums. You can get similar comments from people who use commercial full flight sims, that are certified upto Level D. Darren

[Guest JonP01]

Even if I had access to an MSFS FAA approved simulation setup, I would steer clear of it and log my hours in a real aircraft (and cough up the extra dollars). I personally don't feel that a simulation, no matter how good, has any part to play in initial flight training - when one of the most important aspects of this phase of training is to get used to the physical feel for flying an aircraft. Certainly for refresher training and instrument training they have a place, but they should still only be used VERY sparingly, and purely for theoretical instruction rather than the actual logging of actual flight hours.I think a major drawback regarding MSFS is the speed and smoothness with which the aircraft gauges update. X-plane is far, far superior in this respect and closely mimicks real-world gauge responses. I, for one, would not wish to log serious time in any contraption where the gauges don't respond like they do in real life. I know that recent 3rd Party developments have gone a way to improving this shortcoming, but the problem has only lessened rather than resolved itself. Microsoft's own SDK documentation states there are limits to the maximum speed at which any gauge can refresh, and this limit is not fast enough for serious flight training where the simulator's control panel has to react in the same way as that of a real aircraft.

[LAdamson 240]

>Even if I had access to an MSFS FAA approved simulation >setup, I would steer clear of it and log my hours in a real >aircraft (and cough up the extra dollars). I personally >don't feel that a simulation, no matter how good, has any >part to play in initial flight training Feel anyway you want :), but I could make a good guess, that those who have become proficient in the use of navigation systems within the bounds of MSFS have a "leg up" on others who start flight training from scratch. There really isn't much time between learning to manipulate the aircraft & all the rest being crammed down your throat.And yes, I certainly agree about X-Planes fluid gauges. Too bad the navigation and airport data-bases arn't up to those of MSFS. I'd like the gauges to be smoother, but I really don't have much problem using them for IFR navigation. As to logging sim time............ I could care less..L.Adamson

[Guest JonP01]

Larry,Your judgement takes into account the fact that you are a real pilot. As such, your mind can "get around" the stark differences between flying for real and using a simulator. In my case, with motorsport simulations, I can do the same, because I drive in real life and drive on my computer. They aren't anything like the same thing, but my brain can make up for those differences. A beginning PPL student can't because they are new to flying an aircraft. I stick by my comment that simulators are not a good idea for private flight training except for theoretical instrument and / or navigation instruction and as a brief, general introduction to the types of gauges found on a typical GA aircraft and their respective functions.I've got nothing against people logging sim time at all. I just believe it is critical that the relevant authorities continue to realise that using a simulator is not actually the same thing as flying.I certainly believe that for people who fly all the time, MSFS (or x-plane) does become a great tool if the user wishes to use it that way. But I say that because, as I said before, their brains can readily get around the differences between the two activities.