Could the PMDG add ons be good enough for FAA certification?

[3-2-1-Now 126]

Concerning PMDG, they have a reputation based on realism and the fact that their products fly like the real bird. Could be useful for keeping procedures (flows and checklists) fresh while at home between annual (or is it six months?) training.

Uhh... flying the aircraft almost everyday in between checks isn't enough?? Depending on the airline, you might manage as many as SIX takeoffs and landings IN A DAY, and do that 6 days on, 2 days off! Crews duty period is counted in hours, not cycles. You can do a lot of flying if you're only flying 200 nm.

 

Now, with training recognition by the FAA or other authority, I would seriously hope not. FSX is a video game (I think I just signed my death warrant). All (or most) controllers cannot produce the feel of the aircraft flight controls. And there are things that may be in the real aircraft that may not be in FSX aircraft.

You got that right - it is the hardware not the software that is certified.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

[kevinh 409]

I think as far as an FAA approved sim, it's not really the software that matters.

It's the total system, including the hardware+ what ever software is used.

They approve the whole system, not just the software.

And by the time you had all the needed hardware, etc, you would almost be

to the "level D" sim stage. :/

Without all the hardware, no software would ever qualify no matter how

accurate it was.

Even with all the hardware required for a Level D simulator, FSX+NGX can never be a good enough to qualify as a full flight simulator. The FSX flight model is nowhere near detailed enough to meet the tolerances the FAA specify.

[PHXMD-11 86]

Uhh... flying the aircraft almost everyday in between checks isn't enough?? Depending on the airline, you might manage as many as SIX takeoffs and landings IN A DAY, and do that 6 days on, 2 days off! Crews duty period is counted in hours, not cycles. You can do a lot of flying if you're only flying 200 nm.

 

Robin, the procedures that I was thinking of are the ones that are in the QRH.

[Fabo 213]

Robin, the procedures that I was thinking of are the ones that are in the QRH.

 

I suppose you are trying to say Abnormal procedures.

 

Would would you rather help fly a real 737 in an emergency...., some joe who has spent a week training in a prop jet? Or some dude with 3+ years training in FSX PMDG 737 sim?

 

I'd rather have a qualified 737 pilot in there, failing that, I'd rather have a qualified Boeing pilot there, failing that, I'd rather have a qualified airliner (other than Airbus, but including turboprops) pilot there, failing that, I'd rather have a qualified Airbus pilot in there, and then and only then I would go with someone who knows the NGX in and out and even so, I would only have them set it up for an autoland - and that is also the thing I would do if I really had to land a 737, e.g. every other person is either unconcious, or can not tell thrust lever from gear lever.

 

(edit: by Airbus, I mean 320/330/340/380 here. 300/310 are "other airliner" for this purpose)

[PHXMD-11 86]

I suppose you are trying to say Abnormal procedures.

 

 

 

I'd rather have a qualified 737 pilot in there, failing that, I'd rather have a qualified Boeing pilot there, failing that, I'd rather have a qualified airliner (other than Airbus, but including turboprops) pilot there, failing that, I'd rather have a qualified Airbus pilot in there, and then and only then I would go with someone who knows the NGX in and out and even so, I would only have them set it up for an autoland - and that is also the thing I would do if I really had to land a 737, e.g. every other person is either unconcious, or can not tell thrust lever from gear lever.

 

(edit: by Airbus, I mean 320/330/340/380 here. 300/310 are "other airliner" for this purpose)

 

I did mean abnormal procedures.

 

A flight deck in an emergency is not the time for an NGX (with absolutely no RW training) pilot to get his 15 minutes of fame. Now a NGX pilot that has some RW training (commercial or private) is another matter.

[AFAGNC 0]

I have always wondered if PMDG add ons could be certified by the FAA due to the extreme realism.

 

I think the problem will be the simulator platform, the aircraft is perfect

[PerWel 23]

Sorry but can not resist.....

 

Have you noticed FSXs name ??

 

It says Microsoft Flight Simulator, not airplane or flying or similar. It just Simulates a Flight, no promise about correct aerodynamics, weather or so.

 

That's why X-Plane is certified by FAA, a lot better aerodynamics. Almost perfect, but boring scenery and VC panels.

I know I have some of the early versions and it was as I remember very close to real life to takeoff and land in some wind.

X-Plane is also used by some real airplane manufactures to prototype new models, you can monitor a couple of hundred parameters from it

how different parts are affected during the flight. Includes a whole toolkit for plane making. Austin who is the programmer is also a aerodynamics enginer.

 

FSX aerodynamics is far behind X-Plane, saw some note on a forum where someone who had a neighbor who is an

real 737NGX pilot that tried the PMDG. He started to laugh, not at the panels and systems but to the aerodynamic behavior.

Completly wrong was his judgment. But the panel and systems/buttons was great, like the real thing. So he said

why not for training procedures or tricky approaches at home for well trained crews but a big NO for training manual flying

of new pilot students, aerodynamics was to wrong. Not PMDGs fault but because of FSX core.

 

FSX is all about a Flight experience with great scenery, airports and graphical look. + all addons to make it even better.

In this case it is an great experience with the PMDG 737NGX that is really an experience in how a real big jet is handled/controlled with most systems

working close to the real thing. I like it. But if you want to learn how to handle an airplane by hand go for X-Plane but if so forget the nice scenery and panels

like what FSX have. Even if X-Plane have improved in those areas it is still behind.

 

So that is why FAA does not call FSX for a simulator, it just is not. FAA demands that the aerodynamic is correct or very close. You can not learn how to handle an airplane

via software if it not behaves correct.

 

Could not resist, have had these feelings for many years after my first training in a Piper. And later when I got X-Plane. FSX is just does not have realistic

behavior in the air, no matter what brand on the addon. Worst are those included, like driving a bus in the air.

 

PMDG have done a great job with this plattform that have a lots of limits and pushed it very far.

 

I will stay with it. But I consider to get the latest X-Plane for the aerodynamics and only fly the small ones. And if PMDG makes a version for

it I WILL get it and move over.

 

Until that day I will defend FSX and PMDG because it is so very good at giving a great Flight experience.

 

Happy flying

[rgamurot 1]

It could actually be certified if you get the right hardware. For those saying X-Plane is the only PC based sim that can be FAA certified, thats simply not true. At the school I instruct at we have an FAA certified sim and guess what, FSX is the base operating software. Now having said that the thing sucks, but then I'm one who's been spoiled for nearly the past 4 years with flying real aircraft.

 

Does software matter? To a point yes depending on what the simulator is supposed to be used for. Mainly though it is hardware. The CPU itself must run the software smoothly within or exceeding certian requirements. At a minimum (for a PCATD or basically a Personal Computer Aviation Training Device) you must recreate the hardware for the controls (yoke, throttle, trim, rudder pedals, etc.) and radios and instruments (something with knobs).

 

For Airmen Certification, you can actually perform certain tasks in a Training Device (all you can really do with a single computer and monitor(s) and afore mentioned hardware). But of course you need a full motion Level A thru D simulator if you want to do all of the checkride in a sim. Only reason I know this is I'm trying to work on my CFII for a pay rise at my job. I was trying to get away with doing my training in a sim (money thing) but I need at least 3 hours in the real thing given the simulators we have.

[kevinh 409]

Sorry but can not resist.....

 

Have you noticed FSXs name ??

 

It says Microsoft Flight Simulator, not airplane or flying or similar. It just Simulates a Flight, no promise about correct aerodynamics, weather or so.

 

That's why X-Plane is certified by FAA, a lot better aerodynamics. Almost perfect, but boring scenery and VC panels.

I know I have some of the early versions and it was as I remember very close to real life to takeoff and land in some wind.

X-Plane is also used by some real airplane manufactures to prototype new models, you can monitor a couple of hundred parameters from it

how different parts are affected during the flight. Includes a whole toolkit for plane making. Austin who is the programmer is also a aerodynamics enginer.

 

FSX aerodynamics is far behind X-Plane, saw some note on a forum where someone who had a neighbor who is an

real 737NGX pilot that tried the PMDG. He started to laugh, not at the panels and systems but to the aerodynamic behavior.

Completly wrong was his judgment. But the panel and systems/buttons was great, like the real thing. So he said

why not for training procedures or tricky approaches at home for well trained crews but a big NO for training manual flying

of new pilot students, aerodynamics was to wrong. Not PMDGs fault but because of FSX core.

 

FSX is all about a Flight experience with great scenery, airports and graphical look. + all addons to make it even better.

In this case it is an great experience with the PMDG 737NGX that is really an experience in how a real big jet is handled/controlled with most systems

working close to the real thing. I like it. But if you want to learn how to handle an airplane by hand go for X-Plane but if so forget the nice scenery and panels

like what FSX have. Even if X-Plane have improved in those areas it is still behind.

 

So that is why FAA does not call FSX for a simulator, it just is not. FAA demands that the aerodynamic is correct or very close. You can not learn how to handle an airplane

via software if it not behaves correct.

 

Could not resist, have had these feelings for many years after my first training in a Piper. And later when I got X-Plane. FSX is just does not have realistic

behavior in the air, no matter what brand on the addon. Worst are those included, like driving a bus in the air.

 

PMDG have done a great job with this plattform that have a lots of limits and pushed it very far.

 

I will stay with it. But I consider to get the latest X-Plane for the aerodynamics and only fly the small ones. And if PMDG makes a version for

it I WILL get it and move over.

 

Until that day I will defend FSX and PMDG because it is so very good at giving a great Flight experience.

 

Happy flying

Guess what the F in FFS and FTD stands for? Flight. If you are simulating free flight, you must be simulating aerodynamics.

 

X-Plane isn't approved by the FAA, no matter what their sales pitch says. That would imply you could do flight training with X-Plane out of the box. It has been used as part of FAA approved PC-ATD products. There's nothing superior about the aerodynamics of X-Plane, "blade element theory" still relies on look up tables for the aerofoil sections concerned. It isn't CFD (computational fluid mechanics), it can't accurately predict lift, drag and pitch from shape alone. FSX simulates the aircraft aerodynamics as a whole (just like most FTDs and FFSs). X-Plane can consider the wings and tail separately, this allowing more realistic spins, stalls, etc. The equations of motion are apparently better. So the flight model is more detailed as it considers more terms.

 

ATDs (which X-Plane and FSX might be a part of) aren't intended for learning aircraft handling so high fidelity aerodynamics aren't required. FSX is accurate enough in the longitudinal axis for hobby purposes and for any instrument or procedure training which might be undertaken in a PC-ATD. You certainly wouldn't use such a device to teach a pilot to fly.

[PerWel 23]

Guess what the F in FFS and FTD stands for? Flight. If you are simulating free flight, you must be simulating aerodynamics.

 

X-Plane isn't approved by the FAA, no matter what their sales pitch says. That would imply you could do flight training with X-Plane out of the box. It has been used as part of FAA approved PC-ATD products. There's nothing superior about the aerodynamics of X-Plane, "blade element theory" still relies on look up tables for the aerofoil sections concerned. It isn't CFD (computational fluid mechanics), it can't accurately predict lift, drag and pitch from shape alone. FSX simulates the aircraft aerodynamics as a whole (just like most FTDs and FFSs). X-Plane can consider the wings and tail separately, this allowing more realistic spins, stalls, etc. The equations of motion are apparently better. So the flight model is more detailed as it considers more terms.

 

ATDs (which X-Plane and FSX might be a part of) aren't intended for learning aircraft handling so high fidelity aerodynamics aren't required. FSX is accurate enough in the longitudinal axis for hobby purposes and for any instrument or procedure training which might be undertaken in a PC-ATD. You certainly wouldn't use such a device to teach a pilot to fly.

 

Yes you are right!

 

X-plane is not certified 'out of the box' alone. But there are two versions of it, one Desktop and the other Professional. To get a FAA cert. both hardware and software (proff. version) together in a system can get a certification and for only

one specific aircraft. So it is not on the software level but at system level. X-plane prof is different and have different airplane files then the desktop version. It also removes a lot of the graphic fancy stuff and

enhance the instruments. Price tag is also higher.

 

http://www.x-plane.com/pro/certified/

 

Interview with the CO of PFC: (They make FAA approved systems.)

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=32754

 

The answer I react on is about that the whole system must be within 5% of the real aircraft numbers to get a FAA Ok. And they use only X-plane in their systems. You can get FSX but without FAA approval.

 

Check their site and the menu FAA certified systems:

http://flypfc.com/

 

It is X-Plane in all of them, but the price tag is far to high for me. Unless I win on lottery. Up $150 000

You can get them with FSX but then it is NOT FAA approved. Maybe because it can't make 5% within a real aircraft.

 

So why can not FSX make it into a FAA cert. system but X-plane can ??

 

FSX uses table lookup for all airplanes. X-Plane Desktop uses a simpler aerodynamics then the Proff because it needs CPU power to run all graphic. In Proff it need all CPU to run instruments and aerodynamics

and turns off all fancy looking stuff. + that the airplane files are a lot more detailed.

 

Anyway I will stay with FSX and PMDGs just because it is OK by me what it is. I do not expect it to be 100% perfect in aerodynamics but I do like that all the systems are working. Scenery and all addons.

 

Why I put in the post about that FSX is only a Flight sim. is because I have seen many posts about people complaining about how it flies. Some think that they have a very advanced simulator in front of them

and think it should fly as a real one, same with the weather. Me I am happy with what FSX is, only paid $30 for it and $50 for NGX so we are talking very low budget compared to eg. PFCs systems.

Yoke and pedals I paid about $3-400 for, nothing compared to a HiFi version. But it works great for me. It is also just a hobbie at home, no plan to take a real license. I did try 30 years ago but

ran out of money and had to quit training. Checked now today what it costs and it is sky high, around $15-20 000 for a singel engine VFR license. Forget it!

 

So when I saw this subject on FAA and NGX I could not resist. I think PMDG can make it if they have a better plattform, so if they make a X-Plane version someone might try to get a FAA cert. for it.

We'll see!?

 

But in the end the only way to really learn how to fly by hand is in a real aircraft.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

You can get them with FSX but then it is NOT FAA approved.

 

Not true. Fly in a RedBird Simulator and if you look at the instructor station, you'll note the Cessna looks a little familiar.

http://www.redbirdflightsimulations.com/

 

 

 

Guys, what everyone here is failing to realize is that it's not that the sim is 100% flight dynamics accurate, it's that the FAA has approved THAT INSTANCE. Meaning, a specific simulator is approved in a specific situation (or in some cases across the board, as in the case of the old ATC 710s, FRASCAs and so on). I can give Microsoft Flight a run at approval if I wanted to (it would be a waste of money, but I could). The FAA has deemed, on multiple occasions, FSX to be up to par, provided the end user has a particular license and has met certain FAA requirements. The reason you don't see it in homes is that, as mentioned, it costs an arm and a leg. It's better to just use the local flight school's simulator, whatever that happens to be.

 

If you go out and look at simulators approved by the FAA, some of them hardly model dynamics, and some don't even have visuals. Rather, some just have instruments that change based on where you place the yoke. Before anyone goes any further in suggesting something is worthy FAA-approval or not, you should go educate yourself on the process.

 

Example: The ATC 710 (my first few hours of logged sim time)

 

That's approved by the FAA. Would you think it was at first sight? Probably not. FSX in many ways blows that out of the water.

 

There are also different levels of approval:

• Cockpit Procedures Trainer (CPT) - Used to practice basic cockpit procedures, such as processing emergency checklists, and for cockpit familiarization. Certain aircraft systems may or may not be simulated. The aerodynamic model is usually extremely generic if present at all. CPTs are usually not regulated.
  
• Aviation Training Device (ATD) - Used for basic training of flight concepts and procedures. A generic flight model representing a "family" of aircraft is installed, and many common flight systems are simulated.
  
• Basic Instrument Training Device (BITD) - A basic training device primarily focused on generic instrument flight procedures.
  
• Flight and Navigation Procedures Trainer (FNPT) - Used for generic flight training. A generic, but comprehensive flight model is required, and many systems and environmental effects must be provided.
  
• Integrated Procedures Trainer (IPT) - Provides a fully simulated cockpit in a 3D spatial cockpit environment that combines the use of multiple touch-sensitive screens that display simulated panels in the same size as the actual aircraft panels with hardware replica panels.
  
• Flight Training Device (FTD) - Used for either generic or aircraft-specific flight training. Comprehensive flight, systems, and environmental models are required. High level FTDs require visual systems but not the characteristics of a Full Flight Simulator (FFS), see below.
  
• Full flight simulator (FFS) - Used for aircraft-specific flight training under rules of the appropriate national civil aviation regulatory authority. Under these rules, relevant aircraft systems must be fully simulated, and a comprehensive aerodynamic model is required. All FFS require outside-world (OTW) visual systems and a motion platform.
  

 

Each has its own requirements and logging applicability (some are loggable, some are loggable only towards certain requirements, and so on).

 

 

 

 

It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Moral: Educate first, then speak.

[kevinh 409]

Yes you are right!

 

X-plane is not certified 'out of the box' alone. But there are two versions of it, one Desktop and the other Professional. To get a FAA cert. both hardware and software (proff. version) together in a system can get a certification and for only

one specific aircraft. So it is not on the software level but at system level. X-plane prof is different and have different airplane files then the desktop version. It also removes a lot of the graphic fancy stuff and

enhance the instruments. Price tag is also higher.

 

http://www.x-plane.com/pro/certified/

 

Interview with the CO of PFC: (They make FAA approved systems.)

http://forums.x-plan...showtopic=32754

 

The answer I react on is about that the whole system must be within 5% of the real aircraft numbers to get a FAA Ok. And they use only X-plane in their systems. You can get FSX but without FAA approval.

 

Check their site and the menu FAA certified systems:

http://flypfc.com/

 

It is X-Plane in all of them, but the price tag is far to high for me. Unless I win on lottery. Up $150 000

You can get them with FSX but then it is NOT FAA approved. Maybe because it can't make 5% within a real aircraft.

 

So why can not FSX make it into a FAA cert. system but X-plane can ??

 

FSX uses table lookup for all airplanes. X-Plane Desktop uses a simpler aerodynamics then the Proff because it needs CPU power to run all graphic. In Proff it need all CPU to run instruments and aerodynamics

and turns off all fancy looking stuff. + that the airplane files are a lot more detailed.

 

Anyway I will stay with FSX and PMDGs just because it is OK by me what it is. I do not expect it to be 100% perfect in aerodynamics but I do like that all the systems are working. Scenery and all addons.

 

Why I put in the post about that FSX is only a Flight sim. is because I have seen many posts about people complaining about how it flies. Some think that they have a very advanced simulator in front of them

and think it should fly as a real one, same with the weather. Me I am happy with what FSX is, only paid $30 for it and $50 for NGX so we are talking very low budget compared to eg. PFCs systems.

Yoke and pedals I paid about $3-400 for, nothing compared to a HiFi version. But it works great for me. It is also just a hobbie at home, no plan to take a real license. I did try 30 years ago but

ran out of money and had to quit training. Checked now today what it costs and it is sky high, around $15-20 000 for a singel engine VFR license. Forget it!

 

So when I saw this subject on FAA and NGX I could not resist. I think PMDG can make it if they have a better plattform, so if they make a X-Plane version someone might try to get a FAA cert. for it.

We'll see!?

 

But in the end the only way to really learn how to fly by hand is in a real aircraft.

The operative words in that first link are X-Plane "can have FAA approval". Not "does have". Each device (or product line) a manufacturer puts up to the FAA must be individually approved. A PC-ATD can be for a class of aeroplanes too, so being within 5% is not a requirement, not for aerodynamic performance at least. The reason is cost, flight test data is extremely expensive to obtain, so the FAA don't require it in such low level devices. I've seen FAA Level 5 FTDs (with full cockpit hardware and visual) based on entirely generic flight data yet simulating a specific aircraft type's systems. For initial approval the handling and performance are subjectively assessed. For recurrent the performance has to match the baseline of the initial approval.

 

You've clearly swallowed the X-Plane sales talk about FSX and look up tables. All Level D full flight sims use look up tables, for the whole aircraft, not parts of it, just like FSX. None use anything like the X-Plane approach because the aircraft data is not supplied that way. X-Plane style blade element theory is used for helicopter simulators though for good dynamics. Lookup tables (data tables) can be produced by analysis from flight test data and give a high fidelity simulation model directly. X-Plane's blade element model provides a good approximation to start with but needs iterative tuning to get to a high fidelity result. FSX has much simpler tables and fewer coefficients, but the principles are the same. X-Plane (Professional or otherwise) does not have an aerodynamic model good enough to be qualified for flight training. X-Plane does not buy the flight test data necessary to support that for a start.

 

Ultimately X-Plane also relies on lookup tables to generate the lift, drag and pitching moment coefficients for each of its aerofoil sections. PFC use X-Plane and produce FAA approved devices, but that interview does not say FSX can't provide the fidelity required. It simply says X-Plane does. The reason PFC hardware plus FSX is not FAA approved is because PFC have not gone through the approval process of that combination.

 

Obviously there are limits to how well the NGX can fly in FSX compared to the real thing, just as there would be in an X-Plane Pro version. But it's very close for a cheap desktop sim. However no PC-ATD will have good enough aerodynamics to teach aircraft handling and the devices X-Plane is approved on aren't used for that purpose.

[PerWel 23]

The operative words in that first link are X-Plane "can have FAA approval". Not "does have". Each device (or product line) a manufacturer puts up to the FAA must be individually approved. A PC-ATD can be for a class of aeroplanes too, so being within 5% is not a requirement, not for aerodynamic performance at least. The reason is cost, flight test data is extremely expensive to obtain, so the FAA don't require it in such low level devices. I've seen FAA Level 5 FTDs (with full cockpit hardware and visual) based on entirely generic flight data yet simulating a specific aircraft type's systems. For initial approval the handling and performance are subjectively assessed. For recurrent the performance has to match the baseline of the initial approval.

 

You've clearly swallowed the X-Plane sales talk about FSX and look up tables. All Level D full flight sims use look up tables, just like FSX. None use anything like the X-Plane approach because the aircraft data is not supplied that way. X-Plane style blade element theory is used for helicopter simulators though for good dynamics. Tables can be produced by analysis from flight test data and give a hi fidelity simulation. X-Plane's blade element model starts provides a good approximation to start with but needs iterative tuning to get to a high fidelity result. FSX has much simpler tables and fwere coefficients, but the principles are the same. X-Plane (Professional or otherwise) does not have an aerodynamic model good enough to be qualified for flight training. X-Plane does not buy the flight test data necessary to support that for a start.

 

Ultimately X-Plane also relies on lookup tables to generate the lift, drag and pitching moment coefficients for each of its aerofoil sections. PFC use X-Plane and produce FAA approved devices, but that interview does not say FSX can't provide the fidelity required. It simply says X-Plane does.

 

Obviously there are limits to how well the NGX can fly in FSX compared to the real thing, just as there would be in an X-Plane Pro version. But it's very close for a cheap desktop sim. However no PC-ATD will have good enough aerodynamics to teach aircraft handling and the devices X-Plane is approved on aren't used for that purpose.

 

I did not swallow the LookUp table thing from X-plane. I read about it on a MSDN/FSX Internals site and it is about how .air files looks.

From that page:

"Most of the base aerodynamic coefficients have a corresponding lookup table based on mach." And this was made for performance reasons as someone from FSX team said on a other forum, sorry but that site is gone.

Takes to much CPU to calculate otherwise.

Here it is, it's about .air files:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc526961.aspx

 

In the end I do not care if it is lookup or not, it is what I see and experience on the screen that matters.

 

Please, back off a little now. I did not start this because I think I am some kind of Judge that can tell what is right or wrong. I only said my opinion and findings. And being called a fool and not being able to discuss matters is pathetic.

I like FSX and NGX, end of story.

 

I do have some real pilot training and to me x-plane feels a lot more realistic in the yoke than FSX. That's my opinion!! In the Graphics area FSX is at the top right now, together with NGX.

 

Also to Scandinavian: I only said that PFC did not have FSX on the approval list. Not in general. I DO also know about the different levels. Me at least, find more approved systems with x-plane then fsx. Might be

that x-plane is still around and fully supported. I do not know?!

[kevinh 409]

I did not swallow the LookUp table thing from X-plane. I read about it on a MSDN/FSX Internals site and it is about how .air files looks.

From that page:

"Most of the base aerodynamic coefficients have a corresponding lookup table based on mach." And this was made for performance reasons as someone from FSX team said on a other forum, sorry but that site is gone.

Takes to much CPU to calculate otherwise.

Here it is, it's about .air files:

http://msdn.microsof...y/cc526961.aspx

 

In the end I do not care if it is lookup or not, it is what I see and experience on the screen that matters.

 

Please, back off a little now. I did not start this because I think I am some kind of Judge that can tell what is right or wrong. I only said my opinion and findings. And being called a fool and not being able to discuss matters is pathetic.

I like FSX and NGX, end of story.

 

I do have some real pilot training and to me x-plane feels a lot more realistic in the yoke than FSX. That's my opinion!! In the Graphics area FSX is at the top right now, together with NGX.

 

Also to Scandinavian: I only said that PFC did not have FSX on the approval list. Not in general. I DO also know about the different levels. Me at least, find more approved systems with x-plane then fsx. Might be

that x-plane is still around and fully supported. I do not know?!

The problem is your findings were rather at odds with what is actually the case. FSX can be used for FAA approved devices. It doesn't matter how subjectively realistic X-Plane feels compared to FSX, for lower level devices this is not an issue, since there is no handling training and accurate control feel is not required.

 

Sorry for accusing you of swallowing the X-Plane sales line, but that view was certainly frequently expressed by X-Plane fans, some of whom seemed to think an FSX flight was one long lookup table. Yes FSX AIR files use tables, but the aero data is based on AOA, not just Mach, so it's perfectly acceptable modelling. This is just like FFS and FTD aero models which also use look up tables. The reason X-Plane can fly better is that it uses a more detailed flight model, especially in the lateral axis, but still nowhere near as complex as that used by an FFS. The lack of good sideslip modelling is a major FSX drawback, but it wouldn't be an issue in an FAA approved PC-ATD, because engine out handling would not be on the training syllabus.

 

A full flight sim using X-Plane techniques would struggle with the computational demands. A typical FFS uses 'whole aircraft' data look ups, dozens of terms per major coefficient. An elemental X-Plane model would have the same complexity of data to compute but several times over, once for each wing station. In theory the best aero model would be based on CFD, but simulating an aircraft using that method in real time is not yet possible, and still might not accurately enough reflect how the real aircraft flies. A data table approach allows full flight simulators to exactly match flight test recordings without actually simulating the airflow or pressure distribution over the aircraft surface at all.

 

X-Plane excels at accurately simulating aircraft based on their physical characteristics, not flight data. It will be interesting to compare the performance of a PMDG product in FSX with the same product produced for X-Plane, should that ever happen.

[PerWel 23]

So to sum up all this is that a PC today is to weak to do everything some people wants. Great flighmodel together with a great scenery/graphic. Next step if so is a fat UNIX machine with 16-32 CPUs working in paralell

Wonder who will program such a thing? But it would be really cool to see. But the pricetag will be multiple of 10 maybe 100+ times a PC.

 

Once again, real flying can only be done in a real aircraft. Some postings I have seen feels like they expect FSX to fly like a real aircraft, wich is wrong. It is close and OK for home use. That is the reason I put in my very first quote about this.

Some have even said that FSX have perfect aerodynamics.??!!