What if MS were to seek PCATD (PC Approved Training Device) status from the FAA for FSXI (a "serious version of Flight", plus approved hardware)? Would development be justified?

1. There are 600,000 pilots in the U.S. alone!!!
2. What does the Elite PCATD software have over FSX? Just the expensive price?
3. Why not sell a terriffic FSXI for $500 to 1,000,000 pilots world-wide? Is half a billion not enough revenue to justify FSXI? (Not including sales of non-PCATD'd FSXI to teenager, middle-aged and over-aged pilot wannabes?)

Cheers,- jahman.

Jahman, see my post in the "Bill" thread. I agree that there is an untapped market here for Microsoft. I'm just not sure how big that market is since there may be 600,000 certified pilots in the U.S. but not all of us can afford to stay current (price of avgas was a killer a couple of years ago).Some of us have proposed a console version of Flight could be marketed one way and a Flight Pro version could be marketed another way, regardless of some sort of PCATD certification. Hello, Redmond, are you listening?However, the devil is in the details both in terms of development and certification. Okay, who knows more about simulator certification?p.s. I had the pleasure of visiting CAE as a tagalong on a story my wife's station did on the Montreal based company and a brand new 787 simulator they were getting ready to deliver to Continental (like brand new sim complete with red seat covers to keep the upholstery clean). Great fun. Here's a link: http://video.mountai...ideo/1954305036

Edited January 8, 201214 yr by N738NM

What ifs for FSX won't get it...see Lockheed Martin and Prepare 3D.

p.s. I had the pleasure of visiting CAE as a tagalong on a story my wife's station did on the Montreal based company and a brand new 787 simulator they were getting ready to deliver to Continental (like brand new sim complete with red seat covers to keep the upholstery clean). Great fun. Here's a link: http://video.mountai...ideo/1954305036

Thanks for that link. I actually worked at CAE at the time of transition to modern visuals from cameras moving over a table-top terrain. I wonder how long some of the code I wrote hung around after I left.

What ifs for FSX won't get it...see Lockheed Martin and Prepare 3D.

Alas, Ron, I think you're right. Flight Pro is actually probably the new version of Prepar3D, isn't it? I mean the price tag ($500) is what some of us would consider for a "modernized" FSX. However, I can't fault Jahman for thinking outside the box (since it was empty when we got it from MS). And, I think that many of our setups would rival the desktop PCATDs like the stuff from Elite (my kids will just have to get scholarships). p.s. I thoroughly enjoyed your XL2.

Thanks for that link. I actually worked at CAE at the time of transition to modern visuals from cameras moving over a table-top terrain. I wonder how long some of the code I wrote hung around after I left.

Hi, Attila. Yeah, my visit to CAE was like visiting flight simulator heaven! I'm sure it was even back in the day with moving cameras. Glad you enjoyed the link.

Jahman, see my post in the "Bill" thread. I agree that there is an untapped market here for Microsoft. I'm just not sure how big that market is since there may be 600,000 certified pilots in the U.S. but not all of us can afford to stay current (price of avgas was a killer a couple of years ago).

Exactly! The sim hour is a lot cheaper than the RW flight hour, so expect all pilots not able to remain current to pick-up simming? :(

Some of us have proposed a console version of Flight could be marketed one way and a Flight Pro version could be marketed another way, regardless of some sort of PCATD certification. Hello, Redmond, are you listening?

Yes, thats the point I'm making. Redmond, please listen!

However, the devil is in the details both in terms of development and certification. Okay, who knows more about simulator certification?

We need to know!

p.s. I had the pleasure of visiting CAE as a tagalong on a story my wife's station did on the Montreal based company and a brand new 787 simulator they were getting ready to deliver to Continental (like brand new sim complete with red seat covers to keep the upholstery clean). Great fun. Here's a link: http://video.mountai...ideo/1954305036

That's a very nice looking 787 simulator! Thanks for posting. Minus all the hardware, the visuals can be done with FSX without a hitch. Any idea what software they're using?Cheers,- jahman.

Alas, Ron, I think you're right. Flight Pro is actually probably the new version of Prepar3D, isn't it? I mean the price tag ($500) is what some of us would consider for a "modernized" FSX.However, I can't fault Jahman for thinking outside the box (since it was empty when we got it from MS).

Haven't had a recent look at Flight Pro so can't say.... Of course no one can be faulted for thinking "outside the box" but one should explore and know the intricasies, and there are many, to bridging the gap between casual FSX use and Commercial PCATD certification.Redmond listened long ago and cut the deal with Lockheed Martin on P3D. A little historic research on the subject will save many from "wild eyed conjecture". :(

However, the devil is in the details both in terms of development and certification. Okay, who knows more about simulator certification?

Well, to certify a new plane there's the famous saying that when the weight of the paperwork equals the weight of the plane you're ready to start flying. I would assume the certification of a simulator is equally intensive. I would also assume that the certification would have to be repeated (to a degree) for each plane, and would require extensive cooperation from the manufacturer (since they would have to provided detailed aerodynamic data, we're not just talking manuals here). Also looking at the Elite site, you would have to certify the accompanying hardware as well. My Google-Fu came up with the following: http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/ac61-126.pdf

Well, to certify a new plane there's the famous saying that when the weight of the paperwork equals the weight of the plane you're ready to start flying

ROTFL!

My Google-Fu came up with the following: http://www.aopa.org/...ry/ac61-126.pdf

Thanks for posting! FSX has no problem meeting the software requirements for PCATD Certification as listed in Appendix 1 of that document.Cheers,- jahman.

Edited January 8, 201214 yr by jahman

There is no point in MS seeking those type of certifications because they are not going to be in the business of selling the hardware required to get it. In order for it to be approved as a training device (At least not that I am aware of). The hardware that is rigged to it is a big portion of what they will be looking at and certifying. It would be much easier for a user to get the appropriate license to use FS commercially, brew up the hardware and cockpit, etc, and get the FAA to come over and look at it. If anyone doubts the hardware is a huge portion of what they're mostly looking at, talk to me about all the IFR simulators at the schools that don't even have a visual display! FSX, FS9 are more than adequate as a visual and physics model for several certifications when it comes to simulation.

Edited January 8, 201214 yr by RicardoNY1

What if MS were to seek PCATD (PC Approved Training Device) status from the FAA for FSXI (a "serious version of Flight", plus approved hardware)? Would development be justified?

1. There are 600,000 pilots in the U.S. alone!!!
2. What does the Elite PCATD software have over FSX? Just the expensive price?
3. Why not sell a terriffic FSXI for $500 to 1,000,000 pilots world-wide? Is half a billion not enough revenue to justify FSXI? (Not including sales of non-PCATD'd FSXI to teenager, middle-aged and over-aged pilot wannabes?)

Cheers,- jahman.

I think its called Prepar3d......

Well, to certify a new plane there's the famous saying that when the weight of the paperwork equals the weight of the plane you're ready to start flying.

Great quote. I'll read the bulletin.

Redmond listened long ago and cut the deal with Lockheed Martin on P3D. A little historic research on the subject will save many from "wild eyed conjecture".

But conjecture is so much fun! Seriously, okay, it seems to be what the tea leaves are saying. Prepar3D is FSXI.

That's a very nice looking 787 simulator! Thanks for posting. Minus all the hardware, the visuals can be done with FSX without a hitch. Any idea what software they're using?

I'm not sure what the software is, but I can try to find out. The station did two video shoots with CAE. I was lucky enough to go on the second shoot when we did the interviews with test pilots Domenic and Jonathan (and hitched a ride on the sim, visuals-only first and then full-motion for the last sequence). The first shoot was where they got the footage of the guy placing trees in the scenery software. I wasn't there for that, but I can ask about it if you're curious.And, thanks for trying on this thread. Welcome to the Lockheed Martin family.

but one should explore and know the intricasies nay Legalities, and there are many, to bridging the gap between casual FSX use and Commercial PCATD certification.

... Some of us have proposed a console version of Flight could be marketed one way and a Flight Pro version could be marketed another way, regardless of some sort of PCATD certification. Hello, Redmond, are you listening?

Folks,I know that your thoughts and possible scenarios are noble and without merit, but it's time to face the facts... all of the pleas, wishes, suggestions begging and demanding that have occurred from the last year and a half until the present day are falling on deaf ears atop Mt. Redmond. Their sights are set on all of the folks playing all of the other games out there; the ones who are playing the top 10 selling games on the market, that are selling on average 450,000 units a month. Their eyes are on the 5 million subscribers to WoW... the 'average' Gaming market. To Microsoft, the prior incarnations of Microsoft Flight Simulator are ancient history, a product that was too "obtuse, dense, and hard to get into."Those are their words, folks... not some musing from out in cyberspace.Microsoft has a mission with Flight, aimed at a specific target demographic. I would surmise that they have no interest in producing a product specifically for the aviation market, let alone having to deal with the monumental task of dealing with the FAA. Besides, the FAA has their own problems and issues to deal with, and trying to push through a certification program for a piece of software would have a very low priority in their eyes.Look, I know everyone out there wants so bad to quantify that somehow Flight can be molded, groomed and pampered to be the simulator we all want to have, with all of the features, compatability and ability to use add ons just like before. Well, I hate to say it but I do not think that will ever happen.It's like the life situation where you may like a certain girl, but she doesn't like you, doesn't want anything to do with you, whatever. You can't MAKE her like you, no matter what you do, right? So what do you do? You MOVE ON.Support the current crop of 3rd Party developers like Ron, John @ ORBX, and all of the others out there. Let's get back to the business at hand... flying, discovering new places, learning and growing.Peace. :(

Edited January 9, 201214 yr by ViperPilot

Folks,I know that your thoughts and possible scenarios are noble and without merit, but it's time to face the facts... all of the pleas, wishes, suggestions begging and demanding that have occurred from the last year and a half until the present day are falling on deaf ears atop Mt. Redmond. Their sights are set on all of the folks playing all of the other games out there; the ones who are playing the top 10 selling games on the market, that are selling on average 450,000 units a month. Their eyes are on the 5 million subscribers to WoW... the 'average' Gaming market. To Microsoft, the prior incarnations of Microsoft Flight Simulator are ancient history, a product that was too "obtuse, dense, and hard to get into."Those are their words, folks... not some musing from out in cyberspace.Microsoft has a mission with Flight, aimed at a specific target demographic. I would surmise that they have no interest in producing a product specifically for the aviation market, let alone having to deal with the monumental task of dealing with the FAA. Besides, the FAA has their own problems and issues to deal with, and trying to push through a certification program for a piece of software would have a very low priority in their eyes.Look, I know everyone out there wants so bad to quantify that somehow Flight can be molded, groomed and pampered to be the simulator we all want to have, with all of the features, compatability and ability to use add ons just like before. Well, I hate to say it but I do not think that will ever happen.It's like the life situation where you may like a certain girl, but she doesn't like you, doesn't want anything to do with you, whatever. You can't MAKE her like you, no matter what you do, right? So what do you do? You MOVE ON.Support the current crop of 3rd Party developers like Ron, John @ ORBX, and all of the others out there. Let's get back to the business at hand... flying, discovering new places, learning and growing.Peace. :(

ViperPilot: Finally the truth seems to be sinking in.Everyone who has had a friend go through a breakup or divorce knows that their friend assumes a form of denial that the girl actually wants nothing more to do with him.He somehow thinks that if he trys A,B, or C then she will again want to have a relationship.Rinse and repeat a few months and the reality finally takes hold.After the healing up takes place your friend is then ready to resume a simulated flight career with his choice of either FS9 or FSX. :( :(