I don’t get it :smile:I think the problem is we are looking for that first high we got in the 90’s.When we were just learning and everything was new.Well every junky knows deep down it's not out there :( Today we have more realism, more variety, healthy growth.Maybe it's all just taken for granted now.If you could bring a 90’s guy forward in a time machine to look at our sim...he’d flip out :( :Party:Ask him if he really wants to go back?

I don’t get it :smile:I think the problem is folks are looking for that first high they got in the 90’s.When they were just learning and everything was new.Well every junky knows deep down it's not out there :( Today we have more realism, more variety, healthy growth.Maybe it's all just taken for granted now.If you could bring a 90’s guy forward in a time machine to look at our sim...he’d flip out :( :Party:Ask him if he really wants to go back?

Add a 80's guy that also flips out on a daily basis..

You ask, "Is this now a sight-seeing" simulator?" Having jump-seated in more than a few FedEx cockpits in years gone by, I can with confidence say that "sight-seeing" has always been not only an enjoyable, but integral, part of flight from a professional pilot's perspective............. Cheers,Roy

I think that both functionality and visual pleasantness are both important. I can recall my first night time IFR instruction into KDEN at a quiet time, we had to call Denver TRACON and get permission in the c172. I was to fly to MM minimums with the blinders on, but my cfii said to take them off long before we got there on the way along the loc. What a sight, the approach lights and the visual ambience, too bad I had to fly to minimums for the rest ofbthe night's flights!Bruce

I think the thing that is really lacking,is the weather.Even with add-on weather programs, there are no real consequences for flying into bad weather,as far as breaking the airframe,killing yourself. I don't feel challenged.

It seems to me that it is a bit of an over-reaction to say that nobody save PMDG is releasing highly accurate add-ons anymore. Just in the last 12-18 months, we have seen the release of the FeelThere E-Jets, versions 1 and 2, whose systems and (especially) FMS simulation is extremely accurate, The Real Air Duke, The A2A Stratocruiser, The Eaglesoft Citation X, The CS classic 727, and most significant of all, the Flight Sim Labs Concorde, which IMHO is probably THE most complex add-on ever released for the MSFS franchise.It's important to keep in mind that a truly accurate and complete Airbus add-on IS coming, and FSLabs will be the one to do it. I have absolute confidence in their ability to deliver on this product, considering the proven track record of the developers who are working on the project.I definitely think there is a place for a "lite" simulation like the recent Aerosoft Airbus-X. Something that goes beyond the default FSX Airbus, but is easier to master that a full-fidelity 100% real-world accurate simulation. There are many potential customers for whom the lite version is just the right fit - complex enough to be more interesting than the default aircraft, but not so complex as to induce frustration in those who don't have the patience, time or motivation to fully master a truly complex sim.As someone who has spent thousands of dollars over the past 10 years for hardware and software add-ons for FS2002, 2004 and FSX, it certainly seems to me that the state of the complex add-on industry is as healthy as ever.Jim Barrett

A lot of these comments are coming from the consumer side. (want more realism, want more weather, want more systems, etc.)But all those "wants" come at a very expensive price on the development side. Who's gonna flip the bill when the target market is so tiny? And this market doesn't grow if you add more realism; it'll actually shrink since you will alienate the casual users. Of course FS9/FSX is a game. The reason why the next versions of FS is not going deeper into "realism" is pure and simple: COST. FSX is probably the last attempt at spending millions developing something for a niche market. The cost verses technology is no longer there. More realisim cost both time and money. There's a reason why real simulators cost millions. We are paying 50$ for a game, and that's exactly what it is. Think from the developer's side. It's easy to say "i want this!" but somebody has to make it first.PMDG is not a developer of platforms. They are an addon company. Their development costs are much lower (as in millions) than a full-on dev studio. Thus they can focus on hardcore products since their initial investment is much lower (but i'm guessing their margins aren't great either). Companies like PMDG doesn't even need a physical studio. Everything can be done via the internet w/ teams around the world. For a development studio, that simply can't happen. The cost to run even a marginal game dev studio these days is at least 2-3 million a year (and that's LOW). And it usually takes 3-4 years to dev a game these days. Simple math. If you put in 10,000 dollars into dev, then sell at least 200 copies at 50$ to break even (definitely acheivable in a niche market)But now imagine putting in 35 million to make a new flightsim with ultra realism (35 might not even be enough). You still have to sell the product at $50. That means 700,000 units pushed to the consumer. But that's not break even. Dev usually gets just a few % of that money. So you have to sell millions of copies in order to just break even....which is impossible for a niche product. So that's why there's more BF2, Modern Warfare, HAWX, etc. games out there. It's a business after all. anyways, my 2 cents...-feng

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

Well said. In real life flying, If one flew for just joy of manupilating a complex system, theoratically the joy will wear off once you mastered, say the 172 that you have been learning to fly. However, there are thousands of people who have been flying Cessna 172s for as long as decades and obviously they are not doing it to master the systems of their beloved Cessna. They take their bird our on weekends for interacting with scenery below.

Sorry, however I have to say this. MSFS was always considered a game by definition. It falls under the category of "Serious Games" but it is still a game. I know I am acting as flamebait here, but I have to say it because it's the truth. As for my personal stance on this, I have to say that they are both important to me. The reasoning is quite simple actually. Both graphics and systems modeling are equally capable of killing immersion. If you want a real effective solution, you have to remember that flight simulations need to appeal to both the younger generation, and the older one. They both care about systems modeling, however for the youth to be dragged in, you need graphics. You also need a scalable systems modeling level in order to drag in newcomers to the flight simulation "family". Sticking the average 15 year old with a 700 page manual and no hands on interactive tutorial is a big no-no. That is the big failing of most of the big names in the community, gear MSFS/Addons so that it's cost prohibitive and hard socially to get in to unless you are older and have been in the community for a while. That's why you see so many people in the youth turning to stuff like CoD, because it doesn't cost a ton to actually do anything serious with. In the end, it's not a lack of desire by the youth to fly flight simulators, it's a lack of willingness to spend a ton of money on a video game.Source about the last part: personal experience/talking with people my age.

-------------------------- In the end, it's not a lack of desire by the youth to fly flight simulators, it's a lack of willingness to spend a ton of money on a video game.Source about the last part: personal experience/talking with people my age.

Right on Peter- and that applies to some old age pensioners too! (or at least one with whom I am personally acquainted!)Alex Reid

Sorry, however I have to say this. MSFS was always considered a game by definition. It falls under the category of "Serious Games" but it is still a game. I know I am acting as flamebait here, but I have to say it because it's the truth. As for my personal stance on this, I have to say that they are both important to me. The reasoning is quite simple actually. Both graphics and systems modeling are equally capable of killing immersion. If you want a real effective solution, you have to remember that flight simulations need to appeal to both the younger generation, and the older one. They both care about systems modeling, however for the youth to be dragged in, you need graphics. You also need a scalable systems modeling level in order to drag in newcomers to the flight simulation "family". Sticking a 15 year old with a 700 page manual and no hands on interactive tutorial is a big no-no. That is the big failing of most of the big names in the community, gear MSFS/Addons so that it's cost prohibitive and hard socially to get in to unless you are older and have been in the community for a while. That's why you see so many people in the youth turning to stuff like CoD, because it doesn't cost a ton to actually do anything serious with. In the end, it's not a lack of desire by the youth to fly flight simulators, it's a lack of willingness to spend a ton of money on a video game.Source about the last part: personal experience/talking with people my age.

Peter, I respectively of course, have a slightly different opinion or maybe different take on MSFS being a game by definition. From my perspective a game provides a score or some sort of skill grading system. MSFS doesn't provide that at least in the out of the box form. (I used to have a gauge that replicated passengers screaming during a hard landing.) Personally I would classify MSFS as fantasy entertainment. I may need to borrow a flame retardant suit myself. I also should say that all else you said is right on the mark. The proof of that is the level to which Microsoft simplified all of their out of the box aircraft systems and flight dynamics. Make it look like motorcycle yet simple as a tricycle to operate. From my grandson;" When ya gonna fly grandpa, When ya gonna fly grandpa?" To my grandson;" As soon as the weather gets loaded I need to get the systems up and running, would you please hand me that book over there, no no the thick one, thanks. Then I need to enter the flight plan into the flight management computer, get IFR clearance and permission to taxi." At that point my grandson looses interest and wanders off to play on his XBox.Best regards,Mel

Peter, I respectively of course, have a slightly different opinion or maybe different take on MSFS being a game by definition. From my perspective a game provides a score or some sort of skill grading system. MSFS doesn't provide that at least in the out of the box form. (I used to have a gauge that replicated passengers screaming during a hard landing.) Personally I would classify MSFS as fantasy entertainment. I may need to borrow a flame retardant suit myself. I also should say that all else you said is right on the mark. The proof of that is the level to which Microsoft simplified all of their out of the box aircraft systems and flight dynamics. Make it look like motorcycle yet simple as a tricycle to operate. From my grandson;" When ya gonna fly grandpa, When ya gonna fly grandpa?" To my grandson;" As soon as the weather gets loaded I need to get the systems up and running, would you please hand me that book over there, no no the thick one, thanks. Then I need to enter the flight plan into the flight management computer, get IFR clearance and permission to taxi." At that point my grandson looses interest and wanders off to play on his XBox.Best regards,Mel

Whether game or sim it's the best tool for learning world physical geography that I've ever seen. Drag the kid back, dig out a sectional or topo map and show the 3D terrain in flight simulator - it's a great learning experience.DJ

Personally I would classify MSFS as fantasy entertainment. I may need to borrow a flame retardant suit myself. I also should say that all else you said is right on the mark. The proof of that is the level to which Microsoft simplified all of their out of the box aircraft systems and flight dynamics. Make it look like motorcycle yet simple as a tricycle to operate.

Nooooooooooooooo..........I don't believe that for a minute.. :)I wouldn't expect Microsoft to ship with a full blown airliner & systems package, but it does come with reasonable GA airplanes that get a desktop pilot from point to point with flight dynamics working as the real counterpart does.And that means a rudder that yaws, ailerons that roll, and elevators that pitch. The forces of P-factor, torque, & slipstream are also thrown in. Then you can add in the (real life) terrain & navigation databases which are included.I'm not a real life Cessna 172 fan these days (I just like more power), but I have flown plenty of 172s. The stock default 172 included with FSX isn't bad at all, when used as a serious desktop simulation, if you include a yoke/joystick & rudder pedals. There is quite a bit of difference between this, and a simple arcade model.And yes, my grand children can fly these planes, to a degree. That doesn't mean they roll down the runway and initial climb while using right rudder to stay on the runway heading, and it doesn't mean they'll roundout and flare for a precise landing...............yet the sim, as it comes stock, is capable of it. As it say's on the box, it's Microsoft "Flight Simulator".L.Adamson

Sorry, however I have to say this. MSFS was always considered a game by definition.

No it wasn't. Microsoft made a big deal about adding real life Jeppeson navigation databases with FS2000. They also completely revised the terrain database, as well as adding many additional airports......including accurate runways, taxiways, and building layout. In addition to that, Microsoft also encouraged many of us licensed pilots to share with the beta testing. Many 3rd party addon producers were also involved in beta testing. Much more work than a "game" as far as I'm concerned..........considering this product could be used, instead of several more expensiveoptions on the market for serious IFR practice.L.Adamson

No it wasn't. Microsoft made a big deal about adding real life Jeppeson navigation databases with FS2000. They also completely revised the terrain database, as well as adding many additional airports......including accurate runways, taxiways, and building layout. In addition to that, Microsoft also encouraged many of us licensed pilots to share with the beta testing. Many 3rd party addon producers were also involved in beta testing. Much more work than a "game" as far as I'm concerned..........considering this product could be used, instead of several more expensiveoptions on the market for serious IFR practice.L.Adamson

Larry, may I direct your attention to this Wikipedia article. It falls under the category of Serious Games.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serious_gamesEven military training simulators such as VBS 2 and Steel Beasts Pro fall under that category. So it is a game by definition. A serious game yes, however still a game.

Peter, I respectively of course, have a slightly different opinion or maybe different take on MSFS being a game by definition. From my perspective a game provides a score or some sort of skill grading system. MSFS doesn't provide that at least in the out of the box form. (I used to have a gauge that replicated passengers screaming during a hard landing.) Personally I would classify MSFS as fantasy entertainment. I may need to borrow a flame retardant suit myself. I also should say that all else you said is right on the mark. The proof of that is the level to which Microsoft simplified all of their out of the box aircraft systems and flight dynamics. Make it look like motorcycle yet simple as a tricycle to operate. From my grandson;" When ya gonna fly grandpa, When ya gonna fly grandpa?" To my grandson;" As soon as the weather gets loaded I need to get the systems up and running, would you please hand me that book over there, no no the thick one, thanks. Then I need to enter the flight plan into the flight management computer, get IFR clearance and permission to taxi." At that point my grandson looses interest and wanders off to play on his XBox.Best regards,Mel

It's not for everyone. You can't base your judgment off of one person in a situation such as this. Also, you have to get the person in to it before they are willing to go that far. Of course you bored the kid to death, because he isn't that passionate about simming yet. I didn't start getting very passionate until I was about 16 years old. Until then I was an instant fighter jock in Falcon 4.0 and other CFSes. You have to get people in to it and slowly build up the realism. I have stated this before in my post. You need to make it so that you start slow and then build up. You have to walk before you run, and you have to run before you sprint, and you have to sprint before you compete in the Olympics.

Larry, may I direct your attention to this Wikipedia article. It falls under the category of Serious Games.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serious_games

And........right from your link:"A serious game may be a simulation...."