There was a time when calling Microsoft Flight Simulator a "Game" would have drawn the ire of the entire forum. There was a time when developers were introducing increased systems functionality in their models which culminated in such epic aircraft simulations as the 767 Pilot-In-Command that changed the landscape and complexity of this hobby. With each release from development houses such as LDS and PMDG the bar was increasingly raised the the level of realism was challenged. The envelope of what was possible was pushed and glass ceilings broken. When one sat at the controls of one of these complex aircraft for the first time the feeling of intimidation was palpable. Over the subsequent weeks the "virtual pilot" came to learn his new aircraft until he or she knew her every reaction, every knob, every EICAS reading. The elation and satisfaction of that first complete flight from cold and dark cockpit to shutdown at a far off destination made one wonder if it would be possible to fly the real thing...for in fact, for intents and purposes, one just did!Those glory days are fast coming to an end as we enter a new era of the "dumb simulation." Maybe its a reflection of society that no longer wants to take the time required to master a skill. Maybe its a reflection of a sore lack of development talent able to produce high fidelity aircraft. Maybe its just the fact that a fast buck is more important than a quality product. I don't presume to know the answer, but for what ever reason the level of fidelity of the vast majority of new aircraft is abysmal. The new "catch-phrase" is "lite" and "medium". The advertising speaks to the developers making simulation "easy" by removing "annoying" systems that we shouldn't really be worried about. We hear things about not having the time to learn systems and the annoyances of having to read extensive manuals. But we also see $40 and $50 for aircraft of less fidelity than was available in FREEWARE aircraft of a decade past such as the 767PIC, iFly 747 and ERJ 145! Think of a gourmet meal in a fine restaurant. When you order an expensive dinner, first it is presented before you in a way that inspires your visual senses. You look at the plate before you and it is, in itself, a work of art. If looking good on a plate was all that was required of a gourmet meal then the chef would have indeed done his job and justified the $100 a plate price tag. But it is not. The true test of the meal is in its taste, mixture of texture, and how it invites and pleases the senses. No matter how great the meal looks, if the taste is bland or run-of-the-mill the chef has failed. Only in the pleasure of BOTH sight and taste has the chef done his job and is therefore worthy of accolade. The difference between a chef and a cook is in the artistry and originality of one's craft. A cook and a chef can both produce a hamburger however the chef can invoke a hamburger that elevates one's senses to the height of culinary spirituality whereas the chef just plops a hamburger on your plate in the drive-through. Unfortunately the chefs of the Flight Simulation world are dishing up pretty plates of food that have very little taste or substance and at the end of the meal the diner is left wanting more for their money. It would appear that we have plenty of "cooks" but only a precious few "chefs". Unfortunately the cooks are charging almost the same price as the chefs for their meals! (okay I've beaten the culinary analogy to death). Let's be clear, an Airbus is not a Boeing. The difference and beauty of each aircraft is in their systems not just in the way they are shaped. The beauty of an airbus is in its technology that has revolutionized the way pilots fly and the safety of the aircraft. The beauty of a Boeing is in the manual skill still required by its crews and the immense amount of knowledge required to transition between aircraft vs the Airbus "singular" flight-decks that make transition easier. Boeing pilots find their aircraft beautiful because THEY are the computers that must manage every system. Airbus pilots find their aircraft beautiful in the technology that is infused into a singular technological work of art. And then there are the subtle curves of their aircraft. From the refined nose to the curves of the tail. A pilot knows his airplane from the nose gear to the fan blades, to the strobe light at the very tip of the tail. The ability to "virtualize" this onto our computers is what makes (made) this a hobby and a simulation.Hobbies take time and effort. Simulations strive to mimic real life down to the last detail. Hobbies require patience and dedication as do the mastery of simulations. On the other hand, games require nothing more than the ability to perform an action. Shoot at that guy. Throw a grenade at that building. Pull back on the joystick and fly. Even "games" such as World of Warcraft become a hobby because the best "players" take great pains and dedication to learn the intricacies of their "toons". Depth is the differentiator between a game and a simulation.As of late there seems to be only one developer interested in actively producing aircraft simulations (and I speak strictly from an airliner point of view since that is all I fly) and that is PMDG (LDS hasn't produced a new aircraft in a decade). All of the other development houses are producing "games" and that is to say aircraft that only marginally represent their real world counterparts inside where it counts. Oh, yes, there are plenty of pretty aircraft being produced that look picturesque and photo-real. So we then end up with no less than four Airbuses and NOT ONE "simulates" an Airbus! But why? All high fidelity aircraft come with an "easy" mode where you don't have to start from cold and dark and don't have to align the INS. Has the market changed from that of hobbyists to game players that have no interested in the value of reading a manual? Maybe the removal of the word "Simulation" from the next version of Microsoft's aerospace oriented title is a precursor of things to come. Maybe it is a time when no one cares about depth and the only thing that matters is pretty outside models. Maybe it is the way of things and I am just old. But I miss the days when the release of each new aircraft raised the SIMULATION bar just a bit higher. I miss the days when the competition forced each developer to bring something new to the table and show off their talents with each release. Today, the race is to see who can lower the bar and not offend the flight sim consumer with the annoyances of reality and I, for one, think that is sad. If the portrayal of reality is annoying (Aerosoft says that their Airbus eliminates the annoyance of having to wait 10 minutes for the INS to align) then whats the point of flying around from point A to point B? Is this now a Sightseeing Simulator?I guess, as long as there is PMDG and other's still interested in raising the bar to reality I will remain a fan of what remains of this hobby. But as the hobby slowly turns to a mere game I find myself more interested in more exciting games. As prancing deer, flower bombing and dumbed down aircraft fill the skies I find my love of what remains of this "hobby" waning and I guess soon its simply time to move on with fond memories in tow.

Well written. I agree with you 100%. It's not just a problem in the flight sim world, it seems to be in all PC sims. It seemed in the 90's we had Jane's sims of war platforms and now they are no more. I always enjoyed buying a sim and reading through a thick manual. To me it is much more engaging to have to learn a sim, then to just dive in and be doing it in 5 min. I believe that those days are over. The new generation of gamers are looking for an instant gratification. It's also easier for devs to throw out a quick model, then to work on one with the care that PMDG does. This is one of the best posts I've seen in a long time. It saddens me that this is the direction we're going. I've been flightsimming since the days of Flight simulator 3.0 on the Commodore 64. It's been a heck of a ride though....

I guess, as long as there is PMDG and other's still interested in raising the bar to reality I will remain a fan of what remains of this hobby. But as the hobby slowly turns to a mere game I find myself more interested in more exciting games. As prancing deer, flower bombing and dumbed down aircraft fill the skies I find my love of what remains of this "hobby" waning and I guess soon its simply time to move on with fond memories in tow.

I hear where you're coming from and for the most part agree.Though I predominately fly GA light singles with the occasional bizjet, I will say that even some of the GA produced today is more about visuals than simulation. I think a lot of users want the eye candy and don't really care about how the plane flies, whether or not it can be forward slipped to landing, if it has failures or not, etc. The worst part is when you have to tweak the plane yourself.... ugh...From a developers standpoint the only thing that makes sense is to produce a product that sells. Sometimes all the systems can equate to a lengthy and costly development time. I think that's why some stray away from in-depth simulation and FDE. Maybe at this point people want the glamour and glitz but they don't want to sit 10 minutes waiting for the INS to align. (I admit I don't either, and a few developers model this wait time but included a short cut function).This is why I am excited about the next version of XP, even if Austin has a huge ego...

I think as long as the software isn't approved for real world training, it is proper to call it a "game". After all, no matter how many of us want it to be real, it is almost always just for entertainment. Sure you can use FS in a serious manner and learn a lot about navigation and such. That doesn't make it not a "game" though. We use games now to teach children a lot of things, like math and english. If you don't like calling it a "game", calling it a "hobby" is a bit more proper.I've heard that certain setups of FSX, ESP, and X-Plane are approved by the FAA. Those would be the only "simulators" in my mind.

I hear where you're coming from and for the most part agree.Though I predominately fly GA light singles with the occasional bizjet, I will say that even some of the GA produced today is more about visuals than simulation. I think a lot of users want the eye candy and don't really care about how the plane flies, whether or not it can be forward slipped to landing, if it has failures or not, etc. The worst part is when you have to tweak the plane yourself.... ugh...From a developers standpoint the only thing that makes sense is to produce a product that sells. Sometimes all the systems can equate to a lengthy and costly development time. I think that's why some stray away from in-depth simulation and FDE. Maybe at this point people want the glamour and glitz but they don't want to sit 10 minutes waiting for the INS to align. (I admit I don't either, and a few developers model this wait time but included a short cut function).This is why I am excited about the next version of XP, even if Austin has a huge ego...

Austin does indeed have a huge ego (over compensation for something?) But if he's smart he'll fill the huge gap. He positions his simulator as "realistic" so if he focuses on getting his cockpits up to par and then adds better scenery and AI traffic I'd probably jump over to XP myself. I haven't reached that level of desperation yet, but I can see as the years pass by XP is fast becoming the only flight simulator for hobbyists while FS becomes the realm of the gamer. When that happens I'll simply move to a MAC and install XP.

Obviously you haven't flown the new CS 707. Stunning graphics, modeled systems, and ZERO FPS hit.

I'm not alarmed by the release of "liter" aircraft for FSX for the following reasons:

• They bring more sim pilots to the game, and numbers (and the market they represent) offer the only hope that flight sims don't end up banished to consoles only...and even further dumbed down
• There have lately been several releases that are anything but "lite", including the Eaglesoft Citation X 2.0, the PMDG J4100 turboprop, the feelThere ERJ135/145 v2, the A2A accusim-based P-47, B-17, and Piper Cub, etc
• There are some in depth, detailed goodies to look forward to, including the PMDG 737NX, the Level D 757, the turboprop version of the RealAir Duke, etc
• I like eye candy very much, also

Seems to me like FSX is finally and definitively coming into its own, and I'm looking forward to what's coming up.

There was a time when calling Microsoft Flight Simulator a "Game" would have drawn the ire of the entire forum. Those glory days are fast coming to an end as we enter a new era of the "dumb simulation."

Mike, I understand what you are saying, and there may well be a shortage of fully simulated airlinersin FSX, although PMDG is continuing to produce them, one by one. (737NG next).In parallel, however, for GA pilots, there are a number of fully realistic airplanes appearing,all based on GPS navigation, either G1000 or GNS530W type. These planes (Flight1 Mustang or RealAir Duke/RXP as an example)fly every bit as complex a set of navigational procedures (GPS approaches with lateral and vertical guidance) as most modern airliners,they just use a different interface for the pilot (GPS vs FMS). So, for those (like me) who prefer to have 1-3 passengers vs 50-400, there is a wonderful world ofaccurately modeled GA aircraft unfolding, allowing me to learn to fly pretty darn nice aircraft witha high degree of fidelity. There is nothing dumbed down about what is happening there..As to the Aerosoft Airbus, well I am enjoying learning to fly her and even though not everything is modeled,I still have a lot of fun figuring her out. Having some "more accessible" airplanes available is hardlya new trend, nor a threat to the "hardcore" flightsim community!

It's the same with racing simulations vs racing games.When Grand Prix Legends came out in 1998 it was a flop in sales and deemed a failure from a development standpoint, but drew a cult following for hard core "sim" racers for it's very tough to tame real world physics. This is why arcade games like Need For Speed have sold so well due to the fact you can hold your foot on the gas and steer instead of setting up your car and learning to trail brake and short shift.Most "gamers" want to do something "fun". So if it is too complex with slow results they give up on it.When friends come in my office and they see the yoke setup and ask to give it a go. Then after two minutes they want to crash into something and exclaim that the crash graphics "sux" and it is boring and anti climatic. So I then say it is a "flight" simulator not a airplane crash simulator.They cannot figure out how I can sit at my desk for hours in cruise.Guys (and gals). We are a rare breed us simulation addicts. That is why Abacus titles will out sell PMDG MD11 for example. It is a rare and niche breed that loves the realism like we do....

Sniff :)Its the same thing for FPS games also.To those that remember BF2 and what it is now.Damn kids ...

then whats the point of flying around from point A to point B? Is this now a Sightseeing Simulator?

To be honest, I consider a simulation that does well with what we see from altitude to the ground, to be very much a flight simulator. In fact, I'd call the simulation you speak of, a "systems" simulator. And when it comes to hard IFR simulation, it's just that.............and not necessarily flight.I have a different view, than that of "some" airline pilots. I'm into building and flying airplanes, in which many commercial & military pilots do the same thing. It's for their enjoyment of flight, besides the day job. It's interesting to see an F-16 or Airbus 380 pilot getting a big kick out of something that's single engine, high performance, with a 23' wing span. I know of an F-16 pilot, who regularly fly's his home built experimental to the back country of Idaho. In fact, I know quite a few former and current airline pilots who are in to back country flight.And speaking of back country.............it's for the beauty of it. It's sight seeing from a different perspective, but it's certainly flight. And it's for this reason, that I consider addon's such as Orbx to be very much a "flight" simulation. I know that one of the main reasons that I spend money on real flight.........is for the sight seeing. After all, I live in an area that's full of some of the best sight seeing from the air.... in the entire world.Therefor, I have my own views on what I prefer in regards to a desktop simulation. I don't really care for a complete "simulation" of an airliner start up. If I don't intend to fly a real airliner, then I'm not really interested in learning the whole procedure to simulate it. But I do want the controls to do a reasonable and believable job in regards to flight dynamics. If they don't, the simulated aircraft becomes arcade, and it's my last flight with the product. I'd personally rather have a sim that perfectly emulates a Garmin 1000, or perhaps my Garmin 696 hand-held, as that is more beneficial to my own simming needs. A faithful rendition of topography & land mass is also very beneficial for my needs, as it serves well, to get acquainted with areas before actually going there. L.Adamson

Nice to read but I can't follow you on that Boeing pilots are airmen and fly their aircraft, while Airbus pilots just program computers thing. An airplane that avoids stalls and over-g by its systems still must be flown and it still requires the same attention and skill to get it done.So your view towards the difference between those two manufactures should focus on their philosophy and not on "who has more computers involved". You're still riding an aircraft in an Airbus and I agree in no way about "manual skill still required" in Boeing in therefor not or less in those various other planes.Someone who raises his voice about lesser detailed flight sim addons should loose this rather casual point of view. High automation (which is present in every modern Boeing too) doesn't mean that the pilots can reduce their ability to intervene. It just reduces your workload in the normal situations, it does not intentionally try to reduce your need for flying and system management skills. Mostly the complete opposite is the fact.Incidents where the wrong (working) engine was shut down and the erroneous one left on, show that system understanding is a big factor and manual skill can't be replaced.Another "can't follow":I don't know why people think that Boeing types are simulated well and in depth while Airbus types are arcade mode only. Fact is, that both things are arcade modes compared to anything close to the real thing and it might be that Boeing stuff is a little lesser. The only detailed airbus on the flight sim market today still is the good old Wilco/Feelthere production from approx 2007. At this age, it does the job in a great way and on a Boeing centric basis.the Aerosoft stuff never wanted to be detailed and it surely isn't. It also introduces flaws that should have been avoided, casual flyer basis or not.So asking "why" in case of an up to date Airbus model and its lack of presence will give you answers on how such a thing can be sold to people and only in the second place how it could be realized.Seems like the world has waited long enough now so that the demand for a new model is high. This leeds to various companies trying to build a detailed thing. Market numbers did its purpose.I also don't understand this constant praise of e. g. PMDG and Level D. The first one goes for new expansions of its "Queen" (which I own too), but only models some nice optics around the old model. The VC still lacks of an update and the "precise" data is completely lost when going for the 8i or the Dreamlifter. That's how it's supposed to be?So "raising the bar" first of all seems to be a money thing. NGX surely is to come, but if you have such optics only models in the hangar too, you can't really speak of a success when it comes to realism on the complete model line. The other company is precisely described in a sentence including "decades". Good product, but especially the optics had its days.We are all flight simmers and I understand this little amount of being proud when mastering a complex addon (like e. g. the Concorde, which in my understanding lacks of attention, because she's very well designed and even the experienced simmer will have to read a while before flying "like real"), but we should never forget, that this PC simulator mostly is a thing to get to know some procedures.You move your joystick or your yoke, you can tell (from a simmers view) what "feels real" and what not, but whatever you do in your home cockpit, your &@($* won't move, your heart won't beat higher if facing some crosswinds and your knowledge about real planes only develops in the meaning of "knowing what that red button does".So you're enjoying procedures and a top down on real flying but you won't come out of the most detailed PC simulation as some sort of real pilot.I know, this is hard for all those veterans, all the QRH students and of course all the "praise this manufacturer" people that don't fly other aircraft from other devs, because "this one is the one to go real".You will stay a simmer until the end and if some dev raises the bar, this usually means, that all those nice switches, lights and instruments just look even more nice and now beep like the real one when your simulated winds change too fast.Know what I mean? Detail isn't the thing that drives markets, customers and their money are. If seeing some lesser detailed addons coming up in one quarter, you shouldn't start to cry that everything goes down the drain, you should just wait and always have in mind, that "detailed" and "lesser detailed" are just millimeters apart in the flight sim worls and both have a huge gap to fill when it comes to reality.Enjoy the nice optics of those various VFR sceneries in foreign countries and go for another QRH run on your favorite addon if you like, but don't overrate your skills when it comes to the knowledge about real flying.Arguing about flight dynamics and their "realness" on a PC simulator mostly is a subjective thing. You can compare numbers, but can't compare feelings that are only visually present on your TFT. So see my eyes rolling if somebody compares big planes on small monitors.Today, every dev states those magic "real pilots involved" words and isn't it funny how different those pilots styled e. g. the 767 in case of flight dynamics and numbers? So on some models, the "realness" of one dev is fighting the one of the other and usually the longer lasting one wins.By the way, there ARE some really good devs out there that produce very fine addons and good support services and they are not automatically named PMDG or Level D.Funny to read that some think X-Plane does the job better in any way. There are some nice tests around the net where the aircraft behavior gets judged on FS2004, FSX and X-Plane and none of those titles does it all, none does it really good and none is the way to go.The approach of X-Plane is different because it mainly models its stuff by the design of the structure. This of course is the greatest lack of this software too. Ever phoned Airbus to give you the exact shape of the A380 wing? Tried Boeing for the 787?Well, you see my point.Those tables in the Microsoft sims are far more able to reproduce some real numbers, but it's nice to see that none flight sim model is perfect, although in theory, both should.So changing over to the other sim dev is a step towards other lacks while maybe filling the gaps of the business rival.

Hi,Flight simulator is not a game, it is above all a fantastic learning tool for computer and config file tweaking. :( I am joking of course.I try to use it as seriously as possible. I want to replicate what is done in real world. I've even used it professionally. But if you spend your time flying outside the cockpit, well it is closer to a game. It all depends on you...

Sniff :)Its the same thing for FPS games also.To those that remember BF2 and what it is now.Damn kids ...

HEAR HEAR!! preach it! Compare BF1942 to now. Heck how about Medieval: Total War compared to M2:TW. yikes.

My take is that the realism in this sim is somewhat specific to the application. I use FSX to practice approaches in a simulated c172 with gns 530 equipment, and for that this sim excels itself. I also like airliners and the quality from some developers, but am equally happy to come home from a hard day at work and "fly" something that requires no brain power but looks nice. I think we have the perfect world in FSX, just my opinion.The contest between sim and game reminds me of years ago when the SubLogic ATP sim was around.Bruce