19 minutes ago, eslader said:

The game vs sim debate around MSFS really I think got its start with the p3d licensing thing. Somehow people decided that because Lockheed is contractually obligated to say that their game isn't a game so they don't get sued by Microsoft, that means p3d actually is a full-fledged flying simulator that's somehow in the same league as actual training sims even when installed on a home user's desktop and flown with a $50 joystick.

P3D and XPlane Pro both can be used as the software component by a company producing a BATD or AATD, the lowest certified level of Training Devices. Only FFS are technically sims but most instructors and students will call ATDs, FTD, and FFS sims. CPTs (Cockpit Procedures Trainers) are generally not referred to as sims. 

21 minutes ago, eslader said:

These are the same kind of people that are convinced by marketing that there's a material difference between a "designer dog" and a mutt. 😉

So true.  The mutt will probably be healthier (Darwin in action...) and go to a dog show sometime and watch the obedience / working trials.  Thats where the real dogs are.  We have three pure-bred labs, but always loved the over performing mix-breed dogs.  The blood line isn't everything!

2 hours ago, KenG said:

P3D and XPlane Pro both can be used as the software component by a company producing a BATD or AATD, the lowest certified level of Training Devices.

Key phrase being "can be used."  Yeah, they can, if you set up a bunch of other stuff. Otherwise, and in particular the way most of us have them set up on home computers, they're "games" that happen to reflect real world flying to varying degrees of success, but can't be used to log training hours.

The problem is that people are getting far too interested in what a thing is called than they are in what it does. It reminds me of Pirsig in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance when he went on a tirade about Aristotle's categorization knife. We love to divide the world up into neat little categories, and that gets us in trouble when something can't be so easily categorized.

People are desperate to categorize the various flying sims/games as "sim" or "game," and they spend a lot of time arguing about whether a sim is a game or vice versa. But all of them, from MSFS2020 all the way back to Chuck Yeager's Advanced Flight Trainer and earlier, are more accurately a blend of both, and judging their relative superiority absent consideration of the purpose for which they're bought is silly. 

A tiny fraction of users here bought p3d as a legitimate training aid. Lockheed was well aware that p3d could and would be used, at least a healthy percentage of the time, as a game. Else they would not have stuck the F22 and F35 in there because first, no one who actually flies those things is going to learn how on P3d, and second, the cockpit systems weren't even realistic and the flight model, at least of the one originally built by Iris, was guesswork because the full performance capabilities of those particular aircraft is classified. So they couldn't be used for actual pilot training, and yet there they are sitting in a so-called "definitely-not-a-game-flight-sim," right next to a nuclear submarine which, I trust we all understand, is not in fact being used by the Navy to teach submariners how to sail.

Yet people on here who did not buy p3d to learn how to fly a real Raptor are happily flying the Raptor in P3d while simultaneously starting fights because they wish it to be known that they are "simulator pilots," not "gamers."

Bottom line, the "sim or game" argument is silly and overly focused on words. Focus more on what the various programs can do rather than what somebody called them.

Edited December 20, 20205 yr by eslader

I have a Prosim-based home cockpit, and - more importantly - I research simulation in my day job.

What’s a simulator? It’s something you can usefully use for real-world training. In aviation simulation, that might be a full-motion Level D sim, or something much simpler.

If you’re wondering if MSFS is a sim, the question you should be asking is whether MSFS can be USED as a sim. Think about how it could be used for training. You could use it for VFR familiarization with a specific geographical area that the pilot is going to be flying over, for example.

However, in its current state it’s not very useful as a base for simulation training. For display output, you want good multi-monitor/projector support, or increasingly, VR support. That’s a weak point at the moment.

Secondly, you want the ability to interface controls, which is really what a program like Prosim does so well. At the moment, MSFS is also very weak in this regard.

In summary, at the moment MSFS is a poor platform for most types of simulation-based training. For professional use, there would also be issues with licensing and end-user perception as it is designed and marketed as a game.

P3D is designed and marketed for simulation-training. In addition to the different licences, the developers have focused on some of the areas noted above, along with the other types of tools that you want in a sim eg scenario planning, debriefing. The fact that P3D was 1. derived from a game and 2. Is used as a game by many people who post in these parts does not in any way make it unsuitable for simulation-based training.

MSFS obviously has some great strengths. Although the developer’s goal is not to make a training tool, its superior scenery rendering may make it the preferred option with platforms such as Prosim once issues like multimonitor support and flight modelling are addressed.

 

Edited December 20, 20205 yr by OzWhitey

You say "potato'" I say "potahtow."  Is this a simulator? I recently exited the cockpit due to age-related vision issues. MSFS works as a "simulator" for me. I can get my hands and feet on a stick and a set of rudder pedals, and with the assistance of Track IR, pretty much re-live anything I used to do in and around the pattern. I'm grateful for it. Is it a "replication" of the real world? Of course not. No pilot is going to declare that this kind of thing reproduces the real world exactly. When the physics and gravity are missing, so is replication. Yeah, I could practice real world procedures in 2020 if I wanted - to a limited extent. Whatever you want to call this software, it's a pretty amazing experience for anyone sitting at home in front of a PC.

PS. No matter how much you've spent on hardware to increase your belief this is real, it pales in comparison to the cost of real flying. Be grateful for that too.

 

Edited December 20, 20205 yr by OSM

34 minutes ago, Bosco19 said:

PS. No matter how much you've spent on hardware to increase your belief this is real, it pales in comparison to the cost of real flying. Be grateful for that too.

 

A friend of mine involved in restoring WWII warbirds once said "restoring vintage aircraft is the fastest way known to mankind to turn large fortunes into vastly smaller ones " .

On 12/19/2020 at 11:55 AM, Chock said:

... they are the childish 'p***ing contest' between several home-based PC sims.

And tiresome they are too. Whatever your favourite sim(s) is/are, just enjoy it/them. Just don't expect everyone to share your opinions, and certainly don't try to force them on others. 

It's not just flight sims which are vastly different between pro (multi-million cost) and amateur in terms of graphics. Look what Formula drivers use for testing - the cockpit rigs are essentially the necessary parts of a real car, but the graphics are primitive compared to what we can play on PC and console. Of course, Covid has seen many of them trying out e-sports  racing and probably has many of them wishing they could mix the game graphics with the true sim cockpit. But I know which one they'd still value more.

I would think that the majority of people enjoying PC-based flying would choose their PC program over a "real" Level-D simulator after spending a month in it.

I have spent too many hours in those in my life and they are great training tools - but most people would miss a lot of things that they enjoy and are used to in their PC-based simulators:

• Easy/intuitive GUI to set up flights
• Real, dynamic weather
• worldwide scenery/detailed airports
• Multiplayer
• Ability to fly different aircraft
• AI traffic
• ATC
• Replay

There are obviously some areas the Level-D simulators excell at (motion, being in a real cockpit, system fidelity) - but really, most people would be bored/disappointed after the novelty of the first two weeks wears off.

Even X-Plane 11 (which doesn´t even nearly look as good as MSFS) has superior graphics to even the most advanced Level-D simulators we have at my airline. The "handcrafted" airports look okish, and so does the immediate surrounding. But go 10 miles from a big airport and you have no autogen, no trees, no nothing. Just a satellite picture that is blurry below 10.000 feet...

Don´t even think of getting a beautiful sunset or reflections on the water...whispy clouds or other "eye candy".

+1