The scope of these words overlap so much this debate has always been hopeless :)In software terms games are simulations. In pedagogical terms games are tools for learning.Whether it’s a tool or a toy has everything to do with your intentions when you sit down.I’ve spent an hour in a levelD simulator. For that hour it was a very expensive game.The instructor supervising knew this was playtime...the emphasis was on fun not work.The utility of FS as a tool can be misleading because it’s not 100% realistic.But that’s not a requirement in a teaching context...as long as you know what the limitations are.You need to be clear what you are teaching or learning.Think of the old Link Trainer from the 1930’s.We all know the distinction between ESP and FSX is entirely legal - nothing to do with the equations of motion.For me, I’ve never liked the term ‘Serious Game’. It sounds like this oxymoron…honestly think it does more harm than good :)The age of everyone exploiting computer games as tools is just round the corner.

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

Which is a subcategory of Serious Games. Also it should be pointed out, that most of the people outside of the regulars at AVSIM are the kinds of people who refer to it as "just a game". You can't expect to pull people in to the community as more serious members if you don't allow them to learn step by step and gradually throw people in to it. That is one of the problems this community has in general. You can't teach someone vector calculus if they don't already know basic algebra, and you can't teach someone basic algebra if they don't know how to multiply and divide.Furthermore, the majority of people (even those that use MSFS) do consider MSFS a game, and are nowhere near as passionate as we are. Because of this, those people will never be willing to pay 60 or even 30 dollars for a pay-ware add-on with a single aircraft, no matter how good it is. It is precisely because of that that the community is going to die a slow painful death. Either the community and the industry evolves to meet the next generation of potential simmers, or the industry dies as the existing community members die or can no longer afford to spend as much on add-ons. If things keep going the way they are, I fully expect to see the FS industry die off in my lifetime, not because of lack of interest, but because people in the community were not willing to adapt to the situations they were faced with. These recent situations of developers closing down is a warning that if the industry and community do not adapt to bring in new blood to the community, flight simulation will fall apart because of lack of customers and developers to keep it going. The sooner people realize this, the more chance we have of keeping the hobby alive for future generations.I really hate being the doom crier, however it's the truth, and the sooner people realize it, the better odds of saving the community and hobby we love.

The scope of these words overlap so much this debate has always been hopeless :)------------------------------------------------We all know the distinction between ESP and FSX is entirely legal - nothing to do with the equations of motion.------------------------

I'm not so sure- according to Wikipedia, Lockheed hired some ACES people to continue development of FSX/ESP, the result of which has become a commercial product called Prepar3D. This latter is what Lockheed is marketing.I would rather expect that part of the license to Lockheed might include a "no compete" provision on the part of Microsoft- ie Lockheed would not want parallel development of FSX, which could compete with their product- Prepar3D.If that thought is valid, MS would probably still be able to develop a future/non commercial product based on the older engine/technology of FS9.A further thought is that in many of these commercial licensing arrangements, there is a provision for cross licensing of each others' work. That raises the possibility that some aspects of Prepar3D might find their way into a future product from MS -ie FLIGHT. As a purely speculative example- a high quality ATC module developed for Prepar3D might perhaps find its way into FLIGHT.And if Lockheed is doing licencable development work, then MS would require a much smaller group of development staff themselves for FLIGHT. Thus helping to explain the downsizing of ACES.If this collaborative idea seems far fetched, consider how Boeing has partnered with a remarkable number of other firms in the development of the 787.Alex Reid

Strictly, I was referring to MS ESP specifically :( I just meant to say that an entertainment product can also be a training aid.That the core engine can do either job.It’s not clear if or how Prepar3D differs from ESP.It is early days – for now the SDK looks to be the same.LM does state using Prepar3D for entertainment would violate their agreement with MS.So, what you’re say makes sense, that the license terms go both ways :)My hunch is the few items that MS did wrap-up for LM will also be implemented in Flight.Again just a hunch, but I suspect substantial changes in Prepar3D won’t happen this version.Going forward it’s reasonable to think there will be a lot of change.

Sticking a 15 year old with a 700 page manual and no hands on interactive tutorial is a big no-no.

Oops I broke a few generalisations. I follow procedures as close to real life as it gets, read the manual, spend money on the sim, etc. I started MSFS when I was 13, now 16.

Oops I broke a few generalisations. I follow procedures as close to real life as it gets, read the manual, spend money on the sim, etc. I started MSFS when I was 13, now 16.

I was like you when I was a kid...I guess we're a dying breed :)The thing was back then, aviation wasn't a big deal with any of my friends...that's pretty much still true.

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 this a game or a simulation makes no diffeerence to me, I use it as both, that's the beauty of this game/sim. I think it qualifies for either.Bruce.

Oops I broke a few generalisations. I follow procedures as close to real life as it gets, read the manual, spend money on the sim, etc. I started MSFS when I was 13, now 16.

You're right, I should have worded that differently... I should have said "average 15 year old", sorry about that, it's fixed now.

I was like you when I was a kid...I guess we're a dying breed :)The thing was back then, aviation wasn't a big deal with any of my friends...that's pretty much still true.

I would believe that it's not as popular, however I've encountered enough people 13-26 online in gaming communities who play MSFS that I see things a little differently. I agree it isn't a major thing for most, however I doubt that it's as rare as you think.

You're right, I should have worded that differently... I should have said "average 15 year old", sorry about that, it's fixed now.

I had a pretty good idea you meant average but I just thought I'd clarify. And that is true, not many of my friends are impressed by learning the difference between a 732 and a 733. I guess aviation is just left up to us elite few :(

Well said and done.You know, I used to have those days when I actually flew these high fidelity planes, particularly from Wilco, which was the 737PIC. Then again, the poor cockpit quality in FSX makes it hard to apply real-world procedures on a virtual aircraft (particularly because it was an older model simply being ported over to FSX). The freeware HJG 707 may not be the most realistic simulation of the venerable 4-engined legend, but at least the flight dynamics were ultimately realistic (it is very hard to lift off without trimming 4 degrees on the elevators though) and the George Carty panel was extremely complex. Dave.

I'm not bothered about following real world procedures and checklists to the letter, but I do want everything else to be highly realistic (flight dynamics, 3D models, VCs, scenery, terrain mesh, airports, and ATC interaction). I enjoy sightseeing, which is why I use high resolution photographic scenery of the UK. It's also a useful learning tool, because I like to check up on all the lakes, golf courses, forests etc. that I see during my flights.

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? Mike, agree spmewhat. But the above quote I don't feel is quite accurate. Mainly speaking of the fantastic Concorde X from FS Labs. True, they did add some "easy" stuff in the package. But, I beleive they did that to appeal to the "I don't want to read the manual" folks you mentioned. However, not with standing, if you don't read the manual or follow the tutorial on Concorde X; you'll most likely never get the beautiful girl off the ground.That said, if the simmer desires, he/she can shut off all the "easy" stuff and have a Concorde experience as close to the real aircraft as possible. Now they are working on the a320 airbus. If it is anything like the systems modeling that was done on Concorde, I believe it will be, then you'll certainly have a "Simulation" regarding airbus.Just .02David

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? Mike, agree spmewhat. But the above quote I don't feel is quite accurate. Mainly speaking of the fantastic Concorde X from FS Labs. True, they did add some "easy" stuff in the package. But, I beleive they did that to appeal to the "I don't want to read the manual" folks you mentioned. However, not with standing, if you don't read the manual or follow the tutorial on Concorde X; you'll most likely never get the beautiful girl off the ground.That said, if the simmer desires, he/she can shut off all the "easy" stuff and have a Concorde experience as close to the real aircraft as possible. Now they are working on the a320 airbus. If it is anything like the systems modeling that was done on Concorde, I believe it will be, then you'll certainly have a "Simulation" regarding airbus.Just .02David

I have to disagree with you. While there's no question PMDG, and Level-D is still the best there are other serious complex airliners out there like the Wilco Airbus Vol 1. While I'm not a big fan of the external model (I replace those with the Project Airbus models) The VC and systems are pretty well done, including the FBW system, which is only missing the overspeed protection. Feelthere's E-Jets, are also very good complex airliners, as is Flight 1 Super 80 Pro, and of course the Mad Dog. For GA aircraft, there are Real Air, and A2A, and others.