Why do you think flight simulator is a "game"?

[sightseer 895]

I'm sitting here hoping MSFS doesnt congratulate me for landing like FSW did.  Real life doesnt have "Good boy, you've landed!" messages.  I was always waiting for my computer to throw out a Scooby snack.

Im pretty sure Asobo is just looking to make as real a world as they can without too many game aspects.

as to the original question, I think it was said best earlier...its a simulation game ( a subgenre). Surviving well simulated reality IS the win.

[KenG 492]

8 minutes ago, Claviateur said:

By the way... Few professional pilots on Youtube (airline, fighters etc) tried XPlane, DCS etc and they use the expression video game not simulator... For them simulators are the machines they use for training at the facility... So they do not identify a software on home PC as a simulator but rather the whole machine in a training facility, although the software of any pro simulator was programmed on a PC and could run basically on a  PC.

Server racks. A single PC cannot run a FFS. Our typical sim has a 4 racks for motion (which includes control feedback), a node for sounds, a rack for visuals, a rack for flight dynamics, and multiple nodes for systems and avionics. I don't think you can even plug the 6 x Quadro R6000s used for visuals into a single PC.

[Chock 17,769]

30 minutes ago, KenG said:

The FAA is quite clear on the matter, it is NOT a simulator as defined by FAR Part 60 and numerous Advisory Circulars.

As you point out, it's worth bearing in mind that the FAA is a US organisation, it is not the Aviation World Police. The absolute authority on this if you were to pick one, would be the ICAO, and the guidelines in its publication: Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulation Training Devices - Volume II - Aeroplanes.

As noted, there are various 'levels' of flight simulators which are approved for training, but then there are also procedure trainers too, the most basic of which would literally be a full sized poster of an aircraft's panel which you could use to practice a visual scan and to familiarise yourself with the layout.

This means that some PC-based entertainment software flight sims are actually considerably more complex than some real-world flight training devices, but the main difference of course, is that they are not approved for the purposes of using them 'officially' for recognised training, which makes them 'games'.

That said, there are plenty of pilots and engineers who these 'games' for 'unofficial training' and familiaristaion, for example, I've been able to do stuff on real Airbus A320s and A321s at work several times because I learned how you do it on some flight sim versions of the A320, i.e. getting the thing to use the ground power when the aircraft was on a remote stand with no crew on board, so it could be worked on. Not difficult to do if you know where to look and what switches to flip etc, but it was nevertheless a PC-based flight sim game in which I learned how to do that stuff even though I've worked on the real things many times. 

In the end it doesn't matter whether it's called a sim or a game when you're at home, what matters is that you are having fun with it.

 

[Concodroid 84]

So I've gathered three things - the majority of Avsim doesn't consider a "game" to be a bad thing. That's nice to know.

Second, no matter the way you slice it, any downloaded software isn't technically a simulator, but it can be used for certain training purposes - and some downloaded software, like Prepar3d and X-Plane (And hopefully msfs 2020) actually has more detail than some simulators, but they're not approved, which makes them games.

Third, this topic's been beaten to death here.

Am I missing anything? I just summed up all the info in the last 4 pages.

[Claviateur 789]

55 minutes ago, KenG said:

Server racks. A single PC cannot run a FFS. Our typical sim has a 4 racks for motion (which includes control feedback), a node for sounds, a rack for visuals, a rack for flight dynamics, and multiple nodes for systems and avionics. I don't think you can even plug the 6 x Quadro R6000s used for visuals into a single PC.

Sure, I agree 100% with you but I just meant the visual system of certified professional level D simulators are programmed like any software and like the PC flight simulators, but yes, for sure with an architecture that is specific to the multi hardware...

[Ron Attwood 3,465]

2 hours ago, charliearon said:

Is Ron's mustache real or a simulation?     I get stimulation, humiliation, aggravation, and a vacation from my  simulation!  I should go fly something!

Oh it's real, you can bet your anus.

[KenG 492]

54 minutes ago, Chock said:

As you point out, it's worth bearing in mind that the FAA is a US organisation, it is not the Aviation World Police. The absolute authority on this if you were to pick one, would be the ICAO, and the guidelines in its publication: Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulation Training Devices - Volume II - Aeroplanes.

As noted, there are various 'levels' of flight simulators which are approved for training, but then there are also procedure trainers too, the most basic of which would literally be a full sized poster of an aircraft's panel which you could use to practice a visual scan and to familiarise yourself with the layout.

This means that some PC-based entertainment software flight sims are actually considerably more complex than some real-world flight training devices, but the main difference of course, is that they are not approved for the purposes of using them 'officially' for recognised training, which makes them 'games'.

That said, there are plenty of pilots and engineers who these 'games' for 'unofficial training' and familiaristaion, for example, I've been able to do stuff on real Airbus A320s and A321s at work several times because I learned how you do it on some flight sim versions of the A320, i.e. getting the thing to use the ground power when the aircraft was on a remote stand with no crew on board, so it could be worked on. Not difficult to do if you know where to look and what switches to flip etc, but it was nevertheless a PC-based flight sim game in which I learned how to do that stuff even though I've worked on the real things many times. 

In the end it doesn't matter whether it's called a sim or a game when you're at home, what matters is that you are having fun with it.

 

ICAO sets up global minimum standards, however there is no such thing a ICAO certified sim. Countries still certify sims for training and when you build a sim to FAA and EASA standards you have a device that will stand up to the requirements for about 85% of the world. Thus FAA and EASA are consider to be the gold standard for building sims.

A poster is a poster, you cannot log time spent poking a poster. 

If you or someone else pushed the wrong sequence of switches and burned out a component on the airplane (not likely in the A3xx series since the computers will prevent you from doing stupid stuff) and they asked where did you learn to do what you did. I guarantee that MSFS or Xplane will not cut the mustard. I have trained ground crews to preflight, start, and taxi aircraft and we do so in the exact same certified Level D FFS we use for the pilots. There is a specific ground crew certification program that groundcrews must go through before they just jump up front and start pushing buttons. If your airline lets you do so untrained, then I would not boast about that on a public forum. 

[charliearon 3,024]

36 minutes ago, Ron Attwood said:

Oh it's real, you can bet your anus.

The planet, right?

[LHookins 3,103]

1 hour ago, Concodroid said:

So I've gathered three things - the majority of Avsim doesn't consider a "game" to be a bad thing. That's nice to know.

It wasn't always that way.  I guess the majority of "Serious Simmers" have moved elsewhere.

I'm personally looking forward to having some gamey elements like we had in FSX and Microsoft Flight, even if I never use many of them.

Hook

PS.  Yes, those are sarcasm quotes.

 

[LHookins 3,103]

8 hours ago, domkle said:

Another <cough> simulation <cough> which I don’t remember the name was an oversimplified ATC with a matrix of dots for the airspace and letters for aircraft.

I remember coming home from work one Friday evening and playing that for 40 hours total before Monday morning.  This wasn't long after the air traffic controller strike.  Obviously a game but I did learn quite a bit from it.  And watching an expert play on the highest difficulty level was quite instructive.

Hook

[lzamm 143]

If it's not being used for Academic or Professional purposes, what else could it be?   😉

Edited April 4, 2020 by lzamm

[mSparks 2,086]

1 hour ago, Concodroid said:

Am I missing anything?

Yes, some people are overly and unnecessarily specific with what they define as simulator and simulation, and sloppy with their use.

System.out.println(Math.random()<0.5?"H"|"T")

Is a simulation (of a coin toss)

the machine it runs on is a simulator.

some kind of agency "approval" of your simulator/simulation is only required if you want them to give you credit for using it, or there are some legal requirements surrounding its sale (such as aviation or gambling, or the simulator is sold for only entertainment or professional use).

Chess is a great simulation of how Monarchies work - all games typically have some kind of simulation aspect to them.

And I dont know what you are all so excited for, when it comes to flight simulators, Microsoft released "as real as it gets" circa 1998 (and literally, haven't improved on the simulation aspect since)....

Sigh.

 

 

[Scottoest 1,561]

You can split hairs over whether a simulator without game-ified objectives and systems etc. is a "game" or not, but it's at least sold as entertainment, and made by game developers.  True simulators of flight cost millions of dollars.

If someone wants to call it a "game", go ahead.  If you prefer "sim", go ahead.  Just don't push up your glasses and correct either person, or I'm going to roll my eyes at you, haha.

[buskras 11]

Simulator is a sub-category of games.

[Greek 18]

2 hours ago, buskras said:

Simulator is a sub-category of games.

Aerowinx is not a game. Simulators are simulators, and games are games. A software product could be both.

In the case of MSFS, from https://www.flightsimulator.com/june-20th-2019/:

"We are making Microsoft Flight Simulator. Emphasis on the word SIMULATOR."

@Concodroid The people who call it a game have no knowledge about these things, and are interested in having opinions instead of wanting to learn all the things they know nothing about or very little about.

Opinions do not matter, only the facts matter.

Edited April 4, 2020 by Greek