Um, that's Prepar3D, not Microsoft Flight Simulator. It's based on the same code, but it is for all intents and purposes a completely different product targeted at a completely different market

 

Same thing applies to the retail version of XPlane, it, simply not FAA certified.

The FAA version is a completely different product with a different software licence, aircraft files ect, It's based on the same code, but it is for all intents and purposes a completely different product targeted at a completely different market

 

As you correctly pointed out, "You couldn't load retail Xplane up on that thing and still have a certified simulator because retail Xplane itself is not FAA certified"

The reason FSX is not used in conjunction with an FAA approved cockpit is because it's not allowed to be used for that purpose in the distribution license. Nothing to do with its capability as a flight simulation. P3D however does have the license for training. Both sims are virtually identical when it comes to running a cockpit. FAA approval is good for use in a flight school whereby the flying training is the one and only use, but it's not a good recommendation to look out for when obtaining a useful home flight simulator.

Um, that's Prepar3D, not Microsoft Flight Simulator.  It's based on the same code, but it is for all intents and purposes a completely different product targeted at a completely different market (the P3D EULA explicitly prohibits the use of the software for entertainment).  You couldn't load FSX up on that thing and still have a certified simulator because FSX itself is not FAA certified.

 

As far as certification is concerned: "Certification requires not only that the user have [certified software], but also certified hardware (cockpit and flight controls) [...] This is because flight training systems can only be certified as a complete package (a software and hardware combination)."

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

This is just re-hashing of old information, that's gone on for many years. I no longer remember when X-Plane became certified in conjunction with the hardware based simulator. Was it version 6,7 or sooner. Whatever it was, it had little to do with flight dynamics. Just the fact, that the software was to operate the hardware.  Back then, I didn't like the flight dynamics at all.  I always felt like they were a puppet on a string. Pull up, and the nose goes accordingly up. No sense of "feel".  All planes seemed the same.  We've gotten far past those days!  Of course, being FAA certified (with approved hardware $50,000 or so), was a great marketing tool. 

Same thing applies to the retail version of XPlane, it, simply not FAA certified.

The FAA version is a completely different product with a different software licence, aircraft files ect, It's based on the same code, but it is for all intents and purposes a completely different product targeted at a completely different market

 

As you correctly pointed out, "You couldn't load retail Xplane up on that thing and still have a certified simulator because retail Xplane itself is not FAA certified"

 

But the fact remains, you have never been able to buy an FAA certified version of Microsoft Flight Simulator because it was always intended to be entertainment software.  Austin, in contrast, makes X-Plane for professional use first and the consumer market second. 

 

I'm not arguing that this makes one sim is better than the other.  I'm simply pointing out why FSX has a larger install base among average consumers -- and, therefore, a more robust 3rd party add-on market -- than X-Plane.  Somebody mentioned earlier that there's a reason FSX is "massively more popular".  That's the reason.  It's all about the target market.

That's still not correct - FSX and P3D are made from software intended for any market.

 

 

But the fact remains, you have never been able to buy an FAA certified version of Microsoft Flight Simulator because it was always intended to be entertainment software.  Austin, in contrast, makes X-Plane for professional use first and the consumer market second. 
 

 

Way back in those mid to late 90's years.................X-Plane adds appeared in pilot store catalogs.  Part of the appeal, was the representation of lakes, rivers, and snow.  If it hadn't been for the consumer use and sales, Austin would never had made it financially.  There was that notion................that if I want to be a real pilot, or act like one, then I should get X-Plane.  I just never bought into it.  I didn't like it, period. The graphics sucked, the planes all felt the same, and it didn't have the real database backing like Microsoft did. I was a pilot first, and desktop simulator user second.   However, all those old thoughts don't apply these days. There is a lot to like about X-Plane. 

That's still not correct - FSX and P3D are made from software intended for any market.

 

Microsoft Flight Simulator was always intended to be entertainment software.  This is a fact.

 

P3D, like I said, is a completely different product for all intents and purposes, so what Lockheed-Martin chooses to do with P3D in the future doesn't change what MSFS has traditionally been in the past.

No, to not put any spin on it - the software MS developed into FSX was the one intended for entertainment licencing so that they could licence ESP, now called P3D, for training.

If it hadn't been for the consumer use and sales, Austin would never had made it financially.

 

What are you basing this on?  Back in the "good ol' days", X-Plane was prohibitively expensive for the average consumer who would have found Microsoft Flight Simulator's price-point far more attractive (we're talking tens of dollars versus hundreds of dollars).  And the fact that Austin advertised in magazines and catalogs read by professional pilots instead of PC Gamer tells you exactly who his target market was (and in many ways still is).

 

Again, I'm not arguing which one is better, I'm simply pointing out why one is more popular with consumers than the other, and that's because it was marketed to consumers.

 

P3D, like I said, is a completely different product for all intents and purposes, so what Lockheed-Martin chooses to do with P3D in the future doesn't change what MSFS has traditionally been in the past.

No it is not, LM have been provided a license by MS to improve MS code in accordance with the training concept, whereas in a similar fashion DTG have been granted license by MS to improve the said software further for entertainment.

What are you basing this on?  Back in the "good ol' days", X-Plane was prohibitively expensive for the average consumer who would have found Microsoft Flight Simulator's price-point far more attractive (we're talking tens of dollars versus hundreds of dollars).  And the fact that Austin advertised in magazines and catalogs read by professional pilots instead of PC Gamer tells you exactly who his target market was (and in many ways still is).

I'm basing it on the fact, that I was around computer simulation for all of those years. Many non-pilots were paying those expensive prices. MSFS products have also appeared in many pilot catalogs, along with hardware for home use.  I didn't much care for blade element theory either, but in all of these years, the best developer programmers have worked around it's limitations, just as they've done with MSFS.  I feel like we're going back into the twilight zone. I wasn't too popular on X-Plane boards back then.....  :smile:

 

 

I feel like we're going back into the twilight zone. I wasn't too popular on X-Plane boards back then.....

 

That's because you're still trying to argue about which one is "better".  I'm not.  I'm simply pointing out why one sim is more popular with average consumers than the other.  It's the same reason Maglite flashlights are more popular with average consumers than Surefire.

That's fair. I wouldn't pitch FAA and fluid dynamics for desktop flight simulators, maybe software wind tunnels. Ironically the data from a wind tunnel can be used very effectively in look up tables for the aerodynamics of objects. The data can be collected in our own time at any resolution. Running fluid dynamics in a real time sim is going to require by definition lower resolution.

That's because you're still trying to argue about which one is "better".  I'm not.  I'm simply pointing out why one sim is more popular with average consumers than the other.  It's the same reason Maglite flashlights are more popular with average consumers than Surefire.

Nope, just last year, I finally came to the conclusion, that if I truly could only have one simulator................that it wouldn't matter. I even proclaimed that somewhere on these forums. It would be a case of giving up Orbx for  X-Planes portrayal of mountain/desert areas. Being a GA flyer, I really do like some models for either sim.  But............I don't have to give up anything. Two years ago, I did a big time computer upgrade for both FSX & X-Plane.  Had a new copy in the drawer for each. 

 

edit: changed three years to two. Dec. of 2014

That's fair. I wouldn't pitch FAA and fluid dynamics for desktop flight simulators, maybe software wind tunnels. Ironically the data from a wind tunnel can be used very effectively in look up tables for the aerodynamics of objects. The data can be collected in our own time at any resolution. Running fluid dynamics in a real time sim is going to require by definition lower resolution.

 

Yep... the blade element theory versus look-up tables debate will never die.  Each has its advantages and disadvantages.