I read a while back that XPlane recieved a valid training certification from the FAA...Can someone explain to me why the FAA would choose/certify XPlane as valid training tool over Flight Simulator??? It would seem to me with add-ons like PIC767 and PSS's A320/330/340 you could learn allot more with Flight Simulator. I know for a fact that with all the mesh scenery add-ons available for locations around the world that XPlane could never dethrone FS when it comes to VFR. You can literally take a map (and this goes for FS's default scenery as well) and visually see all topography locations as they are in real life (roads, rivers, lakes, mountains, etc.). I can't understand how an organization that counts like the FAA would choose XPlane if a choice was to be made at all. There are some that are still asking is Flight Simulation a valid training tool, which by right it is... The community around FS (this includes many real pilots) is huge and access to real world aviation and/or events like Oshkosh embrace Flight Simulator far more than XPlane (now I could be wrong but I haven't seen the Discovery Channel do any specials on the latter).Can someone explain this for me????

Maybe MSFS isn't certificate because Microsoft doesn't have interest on it and didn't applied for a certification.PFC is buildings professional cockpits using X-Plane.X-Plane has better flight dynamics, it is a fact.Maybe someone has a better answer :)Ulisses

Simple answer: X-Plane is developed in cooperation with some airplane manufacturers who use the program for development and testing purposes. Therefore, and because this is a real world application, FAA certification is needed. The program needs very special adaptions to receive FAA certification.FS is "only a game" (but I LOVE it!), and I don't see any chances that it will EVER get FAA certification.But FS is not aimed at FAA certifications at all. X-Plane is, and it needs to be so for several reasons. Take a look at the home page at www.x-plane.com for further details.I own both sims, and each has its benefits.Andreas

Hi,IMHO, the lonely reason why the FAA choose to certify X-plane is the tremendous quality of the flight models. These are designed and calculated, using sophisticated aerodynamic algorythms. I use to fly with X-Plane some times ago and the behaviour of the aircrafts is great. I changed over to MSFS because of the great sceneries available.If You are not afraid to download a new beta-version in a weekly schedule and do not want (need) eye-candies to fly around, this is THE sim to purchase.

X-Plane is only FAA approved with a professional full motion simulator. Don't think that by purchasing X-plane you have an FAA certified sim, cause you don't. And if you have X-Plane 7.1 Beta, it seems X-Plane 7.1 has actually gotten almost unflyable on a PC since Austin has been focused on making these changes for the full motion sim certfication.Those of us who attended the Avsim convention in Reading PA saw United Airlines demostrate how they were using MSFS for situationalpilot training, was pretty impressive how they were using it too.Its pretty clear both X-Plane and MSFS have found their way into professional Flight Training.Regards.Ernie.

The FAA does not choose any software package for certification. X-plane applied for certification in conjunction with a very expensive hardware package. If you look at the certification requirements for FAA approval, they actually have very little to do with the "flight model" of the simulation. The majority of the requirements are focused on the hardware and avionics fidelity.Also, Flight Sim has been approved by the FAA for use with some hardware as a training device. Go to http://www.flyit.com/index.html and take a look.

>And if you have X-Plane 7.1 Beta, it seems X-Plane 7.1 has>actually gotten almost unflyable on a PC since Austin has been>focused on making these changes for the full motion sim>certfication.>When I see statements such as one a few replies up, stating "X-Plane has better flight dynamics, and that's a fact"....I've always known, it ISN'T a fact, because I've used the demo's for years & now own version 7. I've found the new X-Plane Cessna 172 to fly much like the MSFS 172 infact. The panel & side views are a cross between the FS2K Dreamfleet 172 & Pro-pilot in looks. Other aircraft in version 7.1 are rather pitch sensitive & X-Plane doesn't have the sense of "mass" & dampening that MSFS does. But never the less, X-Plane does have it's good points, which is why I bought the product after sponging demo's all this time.L.Adamson

There are good and bad flight dynamics both in X-Plane and MSFS, but...when a aircraft has a great construction in X-Plane it is superior to FS, often FS is too easy to fly...crosswind landings are harder in X-Plane, etc...Why flight dynamics are better in X-Plane ? because it is calculated in an improved way. From X-Plane site:X-Plane goes through the following steps to propagate the flight:1: Element Break-DownDone only once during initialization, X-Plane breaks the wing(s), horizontal stabilizer, vertical stabilizer(s), and propeller(s) (if equipped) down into a finite number of elements. The number of elements is decided by the user in Plane-Maker. Ten elements per side per wing or stabilizer is the maximum, and studies have shown that this provides roll rates and accelerations that are very close to the values that would be found with a much larger number of elements.2: Velocity DeterminationThis is done twice per cycle. The aircraft linear and angular velocities, along with the longitudinal, lateral, and vertical arms of each element are considered to find the velocity vector of each element. Downwash, propwash, and induced angle of attack from lift-augmentation devices are all considered when finding the velocity vector of each element.Propwash is found by looking at the area of each propeller disk, and the thrust of each propeller. Using local air density, X-Plane determines the propwash required for momentum to be conserved.Downwash is found by looking at the aspect ratio, taper ratio, and sweep of the wing, and the horizontal and vertical distance of the "washed surface" (normally the horizontal stabilizer) from the "washing surface" (normally the wing), and then going to an empirical look-up table to get the degrees of downwash generated per coefficient of lift.3: Coefficient DeterminationThe airfoil data entered in Part-Maker is 2-dimensional, so X-Plane applies finite wing lift-slope reduction, finite-wing CLmax reduction, finite-wing induced drag, and finite-wing moment reduction appropriate to the aspect ratio, taper ratio, and sweep of the wing, horizontal stabilizer, vertical stabilizer, or propeller blade in question. Compressible flow effects are considered using Prandtl-Glauert, but transonic effects are not simulated other than an empirical mach-divergent drag increase. In supersonic flight, the airfoil is considered to be a diamond shape with the appropriate thickness ratio... pressures behind the shock waves are found on each of the plates in the diamond-shaped airfoil and summed to give the total pressures on the foil element.4: Force Build-UpUsing the coefficients just determined in step 3, areas determined during step 1, and dynamic pressures (determined separately for each element based on aircraft speed, altitude, temperature, propwash and wing sweep), the forces are found and summed for the entire aircraft. Forces are then divided by the aircraft mass for linear accelerations, and moments of inertia for angular accelerations.Today I fly more in FS2004 than in XP, for many reasons like 3rd part hardware and software, comunity, etc...but I don't forget the flight sensation in XP.Only my opinion,Ulisses

>There are good and bad flight dynamics both in X-Plane and>MSFS, but...when a aircraft has a great construction in>X-Plane it is superior to FS, often FS is too easy to>fly...crosswind landings are harder in X-Plane, etc...>>Why flight dynamics are better in X-Plane ? because it is>calculated in an improved way. From X-Plane site:>A few problems though. X-Plane just usually doesn't hit the real plane "numbers" without additional tweaking. Where X-Plane approximates the performace of an aircraft, MSFS can duplicate it by programming in "known" specs. This has been proven over & over by those who have used & designed aircraft with both simulations. Throw together a Piper PA-28 Archer in plane maker & it won't be anywhere close to Dreamfleet's ArcherII which is quite a close approximation of the real characteristics...........with out a bunch more tweaks.As to flight dynamics, I'll take cross-controlled "slips" and aerobatic qualities of the RealAir SF260 over X-Plane anyday. Over IL-2 Sturmovik too! The flight sensations of the SF260 are just "that good"!! L.Adamson

You are right Adamson,Every plane depends on the team is designing it :) DF and SF260 are good examples ! I saw very very good planes in XP too.Ulisses

> I saw very very good planes in XP>too.>Great!!!!! Because now that I can fly for more than six minutes, I'll be looking for them.At least if they work with V7.10????L.Adamson