Without Bill, We Lost

[Guest jahman]

No - we're talking about what's a game and what isn't.

OK, then the software portion of a professional simulator is also a game.

You linked to Elite!

Yes, and they show clearly a PCATD-ready version of their simulator is available as an upgrade.

. Anyway the answer to be question is in the FAA requiremements:You need an instructor as well to get value from a PCATD!

Yes, that would make sense for initial learning (instructor required in the RW), but for currency? (No instructor required in the RW).

FSX (or any other software) cannot be certified. Only specific combinations of hardware and software can.

I know that, that's why I said "PCATD-Ready" AFAIK you can't build a PCATD based on FSX because FSX is not PCATD-ready.Cheers,- jahman.

[N738NM 0]

Per my reply in the other thread, I can't falt Jahman for thinking outside the box. And, having checked out the Elite website (yes, I'll take one of the ELITE Evo­lu­tion Cessna 172 G1000 setups, please), I think some FSX users have achieved the same level of realism or better than Elite's desktop PI-121 model. Also, the cost for recreating something like the PI-121 at home is coming down thanks to people like Saitek (still not cheap, but less expensive than even GoFlight and way cheaper than Simkits).In terms of working with an instructor, the authors of Microsoft Flight Simulator X For Pilots Real World Training discuss using FSX (stand-alone or shared cockpit) with a CFI for practicing for real-world lessons. Yes, I know, per what MGH found this wouldn't qualify toward loggable time because of hardware approval restrictions. However, I'm wondering how much this is done with real-world instructors. I'm wondering what a CFI would think about Flight. Do you really want your students thinking they can jump in their LSA and buzz innocent balloonists (humor)? Also, at least one online FSX community (Boston Virtual ATC) has a strong structure for helping their members increase their aviation skills and knowledge using FSX.

[eSimmer 10]

Some of you will remember this one:

]Reminiscing: if only he'ld retained some control... Edited January 8, 2012 by eSimmer

[mgh 89]

The current FAA requirements for PCATD are here.

[N738NM 0]

Thanks, mgh. And, look, it's only 28 pages. Reading to put one to sleep. Happy (non PCATD) simming.

[Guest jahman]

The current FAA requirements for PCATD are here.

All software requirements more than amply met by FSX (even likely FS9).Same for a CH Products yoke/pedals/throttles combo plus appropriate GoFlight avionics modules.Of course the main impediment is a bureaucratic one of actually submitting your kit for FSS PCATD Certification, as unfortunately the certification is issued to the complete installation instead of its parts (would be better for flexibility).Cheers,- jahman.

[mgh 89]

All software requirements more than amply met by FSX (even likely FS9).Same for a CH Products yoke/pedals/throttles combo plus appropriate GoFlight avionics modules.Of course the main impediment is a bureaucratic one of actually submitting your kit for FSS PCATD Certification, as unfortunately the certification is issued to the complete installation instead of its parts (would be better for flexibility).Cheers,- jahman.

FAA's requirements always were met by FSX, which is why Elite uses and there'd be no point in Microsoft developing a separate version.The "bureaucrtic impediments" are to protect us from the fools who'd otherwise seek inadequate training on the cheap. Edited January 9, 2012 by mgh

[MarkRey 16]

I agree with all the preceding (esp. BollG being a simviation fan), and add:

1. I think we're all being short-sighted as to what Flight "is" and "isn't" because we're looking at Flight today.
2. Flight is multi-purpose scenery and flight simualtion engine (an operating system of sorts) for aviation simulation.
3. Today it downloads with the bare essentials for kiddie arcade simming.
4. It is about as entertaining as plain vanilla Windows plus MS Paint and Mine Sweeper.
5. Tomorrow can be a different story, depending as to how MS develops the business plan for Flight.
6. Anyone who thinks MS paid for development of Flight to entertain kids with spearing golden donuts in the sky with an Icon A5 is not seeing the forest for the trees. So...
7. Have some faith!
8. Either way, with a new sim it takes a year to get the first quality aircraft and scenery, so
9. In the meantime keep busy with FSX, enjoy upgrading to Ivy Bridge and PCIe3 and keep posting on Avsim.

Cheers,- jahman.

can you imagine Windows with No third party applications (unless devs sell their first born to MS)? that's the current 'Flight' model Edited January 9, 2012 by MarkRey

[Guest jahman]

FAA's requirements always were met by FSX, which is why Elite uses and there'd be no point in Microsoft developing a separate version.

MS doesn't have to develop a separate version, they only have to add a label.

The "bureaucrtic impediments" are to protect us from the fools who'd otherwise seek inadequate training on the cheap.

You are quoting me out of context. The FAA could very well pre-clear a certain set of software and hardware elements separately such than when used together in the manner specified in Appendix 1 of the stated document the equipment would automatically qualify for PCATD certification.Cheers,- jahman.

[Manny 1,293]

I have a similar view/theory too.Almost all the original MS geeks have made their millions with their stock options and have either retired or sitting cushy at MS.The newbies are not that good and these folks have not been making much money in stock options and hence these folks who are driving MS are 2nd tier or maybe even 3rd tier and 4th tier folks.Just a hunch! :(

[n4gix 4,955]

You are quoting me out of context. The FAA could very well pre-clear a certain set of software and hardware elements separately such than when used together in the manner specified in Appendix 1 of the stated document the equipment would automatically qualify for PCATD certification.

Well, they kinda-sorta do, actually. Certification as a PCATD is similar to that of an aircraft, it need only be done once. As long as nothing changes in the manufacturing and/or assembly process, all subsequent units produced and delivered are considered certified.