What makes a sim?

[Oracle427 45]

I guess when I started out in Sub Logic FS II at 8 years old, my brain was pre-programmed from that point forward to think that the center of the worlds was Chicago Meigs field R.I.P. (I am a New Yorker).I just got used to flying the rather empty skies of Illinois and one day I discovered O'Hare Intl. It was a thrill!In a way I've just experienced a reboot and "discovered" Hawaii. :)However, I totally understand that the consumer would want to do a bit a local flying and see their hometown or other local sights. Heaven knows how many times I slewed to some point so I could see the landmarks of NY.*sigh* good memories... I've never had the chance to visit Meigs field in person.In any case, on the the point of what makes a simulator a simulator... (for me in order of priority)1 Replicating the behaviors of particular aircraft, their subsystems and the human interfaces is foremost.2 The ability to replicate realistic weather parameters3 The infrastructure that supports the pilot and aircraft such as radio Nav aids, GPS, etc.4 The ability to input and modify the above parameters to create specific scenario to recreate real world events (weather, systems failures, weight and balance)5 ATC using real people in a network environment6 There are so many aspects, but scenery and a specific locale is low on my list.Such a tool should process a set of input data and allow one to make a flight and get a particular fairly reproducible outcome (time flown, fuel consumed, techniques used, issues encountered, etc.)One "simple" scenario can be shooting a landing over and over in a 12G18 xw on a 35C day with a 2500x40ft runway at night with no electrical at a remote untowered field where I can't get the runway lights on without my radio and my fuel is getting too low to wait for someone to show up and hopefully turn them on. Wait I said too much there... :)

[Great Ozzie 101]

*sigh* good memories... I've never had the chance to visit Meigs field in person.

Meigs was a fun field to fly to... and you could take a short walk to get lunch before flying back home.

Wait I said too much there

Yep! :Doh:

[OzWhitey 3,353]

@arwen, interesting but irrelevant. Firstly, those regs means any fixed-based simulator is not a simulator. They're just defi ing a specific meaning of the term 'flight simulator' within the faa's regulations. I don't think the initial question was 'is Flight an FAA-approved flight simulator! @Mensch, the non-availability of your own local terrain has nothing to do with whether something is a sim. Chances are high that Qantas's level-d 'simulators' don't include good visuals of your flying area - but I think they'd disagree that they just spent x-million dollars on a 'game'. All you can say is that the lack of your local geography makes a simulator unsuitable for your training requirements.We were more on track with 1. Mvgibbages's comment that 'It's 100% in the usage.' the 100% bit is wrong - the actual simulation platform is very important - but the usage is probably the single most important thing. Does Flight have a better flight model than a link trainer? Uh, yes. Does it have better terrain representation? I think so! Does it have a better physical cockpit? No. So there's two devices that could in theory be used for sim - they both to some extent aim to simulate reality. The link trainer was used extensively for military flight training, Flight in its current form may never be officially used for anything - but the platform has plenty of potential to simulate aspects of real-world aviation if you so desire.

[T_Fleck 36]

Does this mean I am not actually the mayor of Sim City? Because I think I am. Just the same I can make Flight as real or as imaginative as I feel at any given moment. They are both games and they both simulate something. It doesn't matter how realistic it is or not. Because in my opinion the human imagination is more powerful than any "simulator" can ever be. Although flashy graphics don't hurt.

[Great Ozzie 101]

@arwen, interesting but irrelevant. Firstly, those regs means any fixed-based simulator is not a simulator.

Allow me... mademoiselle... to step in first with my sword.Not at all irrelevant Rob, when trying to determine what a "real flight simulator" "is".Too many here trying to do the "this game is rubbish... I fly only Sim X... which is a real sim". When the fact of the matter is, all our $30 gaming sims "are all just computer games that simulate flight to some degree". That's a fact.Could they be taken to "the next level"? Lockheed Martin attempting that right now. With the "right" hardware, I believe X-Plane software can be granted FAA Approval for a PCATD device.You want a serious sim for flight training? Get one with real approval. Otherwise it is all a matter of degrees what we do with our FS9/FSX/FLIGHT sim-games. We have our fun... and hopefully learn something useful about flying in the process.-Rob

[Faire 0]

Thanks for your answers, I tend to agree rather with GreatOzzie and Arwen. I see both FSX and Flight as a simulators - to a degree (Arwen's definition of true simulator was useful in realising that all the games lack a lot to be a true sim). FSX is broader - it gives you basic ATC, far more aircraft, whole world. Flight is focused on flying smaller aircrafts just for the joy of flight - so it concetrates on landscape, fun airplanes, good flight model, good weather modelling.I think that flight is closer to reality in its own field (better flight model and weather), and FSX is more general, but also more customizable.

[OzWhitey 3,353]

Allow me... mademoiselle... to step in first with my sword.Not at all irrelevant Rob, when trying to determine what a "real flight simulator" "is".Too many here trying to do the "this game is rubbish... I fly only Sim X... which is a real sim". When the fact of the matter is, all our $30 gaming sims "are all just computer games that simulate flight to some degree". That's a fact.Could they be taken to "the next level"? Lockheed Martin attempting that right now. With the "right" hardware, I believe X-Plane software can be granted FAA Approval for a PCATD device.You want a serious sim for flight training? Get one with real approval. Otherwise it is all a matter of degrees what we do with our FS9/FSX/FLIGHT sim-games. We have our fun... and hopefully learn something useful about flying in the process.-Rob

The question was whether Flight is a game or a sim.Obviously it's not an FAA approved flight simulator under the specific requirements mentioned - and no one has, or ever will, argue that it's currently a FAA approved sim! But you're arguing that anything that doesn't have a full cockpit and at least three degrees of movement (as per the FAA regs quoted) is not a simulator and is therefore a game - which means that many expensive devices used for professional training are now 'games'.You've then shot down down your own arguement by mentioning two things that are simulators that don't fit those regs - a flight sim built on X-plane that's FAA approved and Lockheed martin's Prepar3d. Prepar3d is on the market now, as a simukator, not a game. The software is very, very similar to FSX (i've got p3d, btw).The FAA regs define what is accepted by them as a flight simulator for a specific purpose. The concept of 'what is simulation' is much, much broader in concept than specific regulations for a specific purpose (from one country, btw - we're not all american!).

[japascoe 98]

I find most people who say Flight is not a simulator do so because it does not simulate a certain feature of let's say the 'aviation experience' (e.g. ATC) or because it does not simulate certain features with high enough fidelity.Although in the end this is a game of semantics, IMO this is a rather limited definition of simulator. A simulator is any program (or device) that correctly models certain aspects of reality. The fact that it only models some features of reality and not others, or that it is not 100% accurate does not make it any less of a simulator. As an example consider the following code:

x = 0v = 51.5dt = 0.01end_time = 1e4for i = 1 to end_timex = x + v*dtend

This is a perfect simulation of an aircraft flying straight and level at 100 knots (51.5 m/s) for 100 seconds. It 100% correctly predicts how far the aircraft will travel in that time. It is a very limited simulation since it can't do anything other than straight and level flight and only models the aircraft's position, but is it a simulation none the less.

[Scottj85 0]

Meigs was a fun field to fly to... and you could take a short walk to get lunch before flying back home.

I'll be spending some time in Chicago later this year, and while I'm there I plan to visit the park where it used to be.

[jcomm 6,080]

This, pretty much makes A SIM!!!!!

Or, yet this one where an EDGE540 FM using the default C172 visuals works... It's a sim, yes it is....

If my Rig wasn't an ASUS Eee 1000H :-(

[OzWhitey 3,353]

. The fact that it only models some features of reality and not others, or that it is not 100% accurate does not make it any less of a simulator.

Japascoe, your comments are mostly right on the money.However, less realism does in fact make a "lesser sim". The academic literature on simulation talks about 'low fidelity' vs 'high fidelity' simulation, and would generally suggest that an increase in verisimilitude results in better training outcomes.As we're talking about flight simulation here, a level D full motiom simulator represents "high fidelity". I would suggest that Flight is a "low fidelity" simulator. Everyone will most likely agree that the multi-million dollar level D sim - the hi-fidelity option - is a better tool for training airline pilots.The question then is "what can be taught with this low-fidelity tool called Flight". It's an interesting question and one I don't fully know the answer to. However, people whose answer is 'nothing, it's just a game' don't actually understand what simulation is.

[Great Ozzie 101]

The question was whether Flight is a game or a sim.

Well that is a simple question.

But you're arguing that anything that doesn't have a full cockpit and at least three degrees of movement (as per the FAA regs quoted) is not a simulator and is therefore a game

Not exactly.And the certification process for PCATD approval is a wee more complicated than you mention.

You've then shot down down your own arguement by mentioning two things that are simulators that don't fit those regs

I see you fail to see my point... ok.

from one country, btw - we're not all american!

:Sigh:You want to go to an approved sim in your country to have things like an ILS glideslope shack on the taxiway, a tower in the middle of the runway or even "carb heat" in a Beech Baron... fine have it. To me, to pay $5000 for a transition course for such a thing would be crazy.Or to pay close to $15,000 for a Lear type rating only to find out the simulated flight model was nowhere near the actual one. Then I see how it would be acceptable to generate the kind of complaints we have seen in this forum.I want to be able to walk from a Sim sign-off and go straight to the plane to be ready & able to fly it. Or be able to use the hours logged in some way. That is what I call a Sim. You don't pay that kind of money "to have fun."

it's just a game' don't actually understand what simulation is.

I hope you aren't referring to me with this statement. I know perfectly well what "simulation" and "the real thing" is. I have said (FS9 / FSX / FLIGHT) are games that simulate flight. How well they simulate flight is debatable. I have never said there is not any "flight simming value" with the above mentioned games (quite the opposite in fact).But a child that talks like an adult and acts like an adult is still a child, no matter your protestations otherwise.Are they good? Obviously yes. Otherwise companies like Lockheed-Martin would not be investing is the commercial version of FSX to bring it to the commercial market. Was it ready for prime-time? Obviously not... or Lockheed-Martin would not have invested so much money and time developing it.

I'll be spending some time in Chicago later this year, and while I'm there I plan to visit the park where it used to be.

I hope you enjoy your time there... would be interesting to see... and there is a planetarium there that is neat to check out.But I still have a hard time thinking what Daly did to it.

[OzWhitey 3,353]

Nah, i wasn't referring to you with that statement.

[simmerhead 885]

Dictionary: Any device or system that simulates specific conditions or the characteristics of a real process or machine for the purposes of research or operator training.So in reality a simulator is both dependent on the system/software and the proper usage. In the context of Flight and FSX we are really discussing simulator games, not real simulators, although FSX and X-Plane can be modified to suit professional usage.Simulator games can thus be called reality/documentary games, as opposed to fictional/fantasy games.

[Guest]

• ATC
• Weather Management and Real World Weather
• Flight Planner
• SID and Stars
• A/P
• Jets,helos and gliders
• Planes with the same quality of PMDG ones therefore status of the art FMC f.i. and much much more
• Airports working vehicles
• Checklists for each plane
• VC for each plane
• Landing replays
• At least 80% of world coverage
• Co-pilot functions and helps
• Wet / snowy / heat hazed runways
• Planes mechanical failures and stress consequences

Let's say pretty much everything that Flights misses and still ignores.