I'm afraid you misread the statement. In Sekstifire's comment, he never mentioned "FSX" but "Consumer grade software".I'm quite sure it is legal to train pilots with commercial grade software. I am 100% sure they do it in Belgium, with some older, modified, version of Lock-On. They use it to test and improve your situational awareness.Basic training (trimming, engine performance,...) is also done using some commercial software, although I can't remember the name.

Actually, sort of true and not true FSX is not legally able to be used for training even though it COULD be used. It is specific in the EULA and ANYONE using it for commercial purposes is breaking the EULA. Prepar3D is able to be used in a commercial setting. Your software on Prepar3D for training would be fine. Commercial sim builders that are providing FSX are putting them and their users at risk legally and anyhow, why would I put a $50 unsupported piece of software that is now dead in a new simulator that might have cost $50,000 +? Doesn't make sense.

My opinion is that is not training BUT... It is very very helpful for practise for the real thing. Getting in the classroom and knowing most things well is good. Going in new would be a struggle. I'm using fsx and excelant add ons as way to help overcome those struggles

It must have to do with aiming for another level, cause 95% of the guys which will buy it will never ever use the capabilities which the 737NGX obviously possess. And it is also almost impossible to use in a single pilot concept, which the FSX is. Try to handle the workload when something goes wrong all by yourself, isnt really that fun stuff. First when we have shared cockpit, or something similar makes it worth all that stuff. Which hobbypilot really cares if even the secondary heat exchanger and the expansion turbine are modeled to the deepest, or that you have the real cabin airflow. Only pros will see it.So ist it necesarry to have all that stuff for an homesimulator, no not at all. Is it nice to have, for sure.Regards Sven

In fact, HVAC engineers go further. 10 students taking a test have a higher heat load than 10 students sawing logs during a boring lecture. I'm not sure if they have an entry explicitly for airline passengers stuck on a runway with no food, water, or restrooms for 10 hours.

Nah. We could. But we don't. ;)Cheers,

Which hobbypilot really cares if even the secondary heat exchanger and the expansion turbine are modeled to the deepest, or that you have the real cabin airflow. Only pros will see it.

You might be surprised how many flight simmers do care about that stuff, especially the ones who buy PMDG's products. Just look at how many people go to the extent of knocking up a convincing 737 cockpit in their basements.It's worth remembering that the PMDG 747 was pretty much the first FS aeroplane that genuine pilots were not afraid to own up about using for practice, so it did kind of open a floodgate on that score, and it was the legacy of PMDG's approach to creating their FS9 737 which began building that credibility. Go back before then and you would have been hard pressed to find any airline pilot that would have admitted to using FS seriously, now pilots are queuing up to get involved in producing flight sim stuff, and it was PMDG who drove that state of affairs more than any other developer.Back with people who don't fly for real, but who have a passion for flight just the same though their simulation hobby, one only has to look at the amount of times a topic crops up on forums along the lines of 'do you think I could land a real airliner because I know it in the sim?' Fifteen years ago when everyone was flying around in FS95 and looking forward to FS98, such a question would have been shouted down as a complete joke by any real world pilot, but it doesn't get that kind of reaction these days. I suspect there is probably more than one simmer out there who knows more about all the systems on an airliner than some of the people who drive them for real. After all, many of the people who create detailed FS add-ons these days have never driven anything more complex than a GA aircraft, and some of them have never piloted anything for real.Al

It is very important to me for the systems to be exact.

For me I don't need a full in depth systems, I just enjoy flight sim as a hobby, which I think is the majority :( Always remember, two sides to every story :(

I have a question: If a "consumer grade FS software" exceeds and surpasses the demands on current day "commercial grade fs software" - what prevents the use of that consumer grade software to be used in schooling pilots? If it is the best, shouldn't they use it simply because using anything but the best is a lesser way of teaching and training said students?I'm not so naive though. I expect commercial grade software to have passed rigorous tests with official establishments as part as being certified for commercial training. That process is not needed for consumer grade software. But if PMDG wanted to, could they pursue the certification of their NGX as BOTH consumer and commercial use?

For me I don't need a full in depth systems, I just enjoy flight sim as a hobby, which I think is the majority :( Always remember, two sides to every story :(

That's true...this will be a two day a week evening deal for me as i just finished uni and start my new job full time Monday....simply don't have the time or interest for too much system depth, but looking forward to learning as much as I can:) The default 737 looks like.... and some of the older titles just don't give immersion factor that is capable in today's machines.

I beg to differ, for me I want this to be a product that I'm still learning about 6 months from now, a year even. If the whole thing seems 'canned' and predictable after about a month of use, then it'll feel like a disappointment. We all have those add-ons, many of them good ones too, that we sit there and think "OK, 15 seconds after lightoff it'll peak at x degrees and will roll back to exactly x% N1 etc"...What excites me about the NGX is that I'll still be discovering little idiosynchrasies months down the line, which - after all - is what gives us "hardcore simmers" (I hate the term!) the best value for money.

I beg to differ, for me I want this to be a product that I'm still learning about 6 months from now, a year even. If the whole thing seems 'canned' and predictable after about a month of use, then it'll feel like a disappointment. We all have those add-ons, many of them good ones too, that we sit there and think "OK, 15 seconds after lightoff it'll peak at x degrees and will roll back to exactly x% N1 etc"...What excites me about the NGX is that I'll still be discovering little idiosynchrasies months down the line, which - after all - is what gives us "hardcore simmers" (I hate the term!) the best value for money.

Sounds like they will have options to please more casual simmers and people who want as much detail as possible. So there is no argument really, just simply a matter of taste; all should be happy:)

You might be surprised how many flight simmers do care about that stuff, especially the ones who buy PMDG's products. Just look at how many people go to the extent of knocking up a convincing 737 cockpit in their basements.It's worth remembering that the PMDG 747 was pretty much the first FS aeroplane that genuine pilots were not afraid to own up about using for practice, so it did kind of open a floodgate on that score, and it was the legacy of PMDG's approach to creating their FS9 737 which began building that credibility. Go back before then and you would have been hard pressed to find any airline pilot that would have admitted to using FS seriously, now pilots are queuing up to get involved in producing flight sim stuff, and it was PMDG who drove that state of affairs more than any other developer.Back with people who don't fly for real, but who have a passion for flight just the same though their simulation hobby, one only has to look at the amount of times a topic crops up on forums along the lines of 'do you think I could land a real airliner because I know it in the sim?' Fifteen years ago when everyone was flying around in FS95 and looking forward to FS98, such a question would have been shouted down as a complete joke by any real world pilot, but it doesn't get that kind of reaction these days. I suspect there is probably more than one simmer out there who knows more about all the systems on an airliner than some of the people who drive them for real. After all, many of the people who create detailed FS add-ons these days have never driven anything more complex than a GA aircraft, and some of them have never piloted anything for real.Al

I agree,I think you correctly state the general situation.

you can maintain IFR prof using a FRASCA which is an FAA approved FTD..if PMDG wanted they could file with the FAA to have their software approved..as a FTD

you can maintain IFR prof using a FRASCA which is an FAA approved FTD..if PMDG wanted they could file with the FAA to have their software approved..as a FTD

FAA approval is gained by certifying a combination of hardware and software. PMDG is an add-on for FSX (and presumably would work with Prepar3D). Software alone is not certified. Presumably also, an FTD with FSX in it would violate the terms of the Microsoft EULA, whereas an FTD with Prepar3D would not. Just saying.... Certification/qualification is such a pain!!!

Here's a full motion sim that uses FSX. Combine this with the PMDG NG and that would be a pretty good training tool I should think:http://www.plugandplaysim.com/engAl