MSFS 2020 is the EASports for flight simulation. There are probably tons of pros who regularly play FIFA 2021, Madden 21, or NHL 21. 

I don't think any of them confuses those games with the real thing. They are doing it for endorsement money, relaxation, and fun, and the fun of seeing their likenesses in the games. 

I don't see Pilot Emilie on youtube boring everyone to death with longwinded explanations about why the gradation coefficient divided by rudder slip 1/78 multiplied by a wind factor coefficient of 6,009 only equates to .456 lift force, whereas in the real plane.....

Pilot Emilie just seems to be having a lot of fun, she's knowledgeable and isn't confused about the differences between MSFS 2020 and the plane(s) she's flying in real life. As are A320 simpilot and others. 

In the end that's what it's all about: having fun, enjoying what you are doing. 

And if you're not having fun, it's time to do something else. 

1 hour ago, Ricardo41 said:

MSFS 2020 is the EASports for flight simulation. There are probably tons of pros who regularly play FIFA 2021, Madden 21, or NHL 21. 

I don't think any of them confuses those games with the real thing. They are doing it for endorsement money, relaxation, and fun, and the fun of seeing their likenesses in the games. 

I don't see Pilot Emilie on youtube boring everyone to death with longwinded explanations about why the gradation coefficient divided by rudder slip 1/78 multiplied by a wind factor coefficient of 6,009 only equates to .456 lift force, whereas in the real plane.....

Pilot Emilie just seems to be having a lot of fun, she's knowledgeable and isn't confused about the differences between MSFS 2020 and the plane(s) she's flying in real life. As are A320 simpilot and others. 

In the end that's what it's all about: having fun, enjoying what you are doing. 

And if you're not having fun, it's time to do something else. 

I not confused between real and simulation. I know when I'm handling a real Skylane and when I'm at my desk handling the Accusim Skylane. For me it's  about trying to be as authentic as possible, do all the procedures with the sim as I would the real aircraft and yes, enjoy doing it.  One thing I like is that in the sim I get to work with avionics that I would never need in the pattern at KSEG. And some I will never even see in real life like a Smith's CDU for example. I just wish I could do more in sim like checking the fuel the real way, checking for water in it, actually pulling a dipstick etc. Some things can't be simmed. But I can do mag checks, run ups etc. 

21 minutes ago, Gary1124 said:

 do all the procedures with the sim as I would the real aircraft and yes, enjoy doing it.  

As I said it, you do you. 😀

It's definitely a game. There's a Wizard at every large airport who keeps casting Time Stop whenever I pan the camera. (2s / 10 d6).

Edited April 28, 20215 yr by jarmstro

6 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

And if you're not having fun, it's time to do something else...

...like move over to P3D where you're definitely not supposed to be entertained...

5 hours ago, Gary1124 said:

One thing I like is that in the sim I get to work with avionics that I would never need in the pattern at KSEG. And some I will never even see in real life like a Smith's CDU for example. I just wish I could do more in sim like checking the fuel the real way, checking for water in it, actually pulling a dipstick etc. Some things can't be simmed. But I can do mag checks, run ups etc. 

I think Gary has an important point - especially for licensed Pilots thinking of using this sim/game.

It's a great way to practice procedures which we COULD do in a real aircraft but don't much of the time due to the cost. It's an expensive business - especially here in the U.K.

I used FSX to help plan my flights during my PPL/IR training. With photographic scenery and ActiveSky it was a great way to "fly" the route first to pick-out landmarks and plan ahead to avoid any  airspace issues. That saved me time and money and importantly it gave me extra confidence during my solo qualifying cross-country flight.

We still use FSX during basic training to help students familiarize themselves with the controls and instrument functions and layout.

I don't think we'd use this current version - the graphics are too distracting and many of the default aircraft systems are incorrectly modelled or not modelled at all!

 

Edited April 28, 20215 yr by TrafficPilot

4 minutes ago, TrafficPilot said:

I used FSX to help plan my flights during my PPL/IR training. With photographic scenery and ActiveSky it was a great way to "fly" the route first to pick-out landmarks and plan ahead to avoid any  airspace issues. That saved me time and money and importantly it gave me extra confidence during my solo qualifying cross-country flight.

We still use FSX during basic training to help students familiarize themselves with the controls and instrument functions and layout.

I totally get that there are issues that make MSFS less than ideal as a procedure training simulator, such as well-known problems with ATC, default planes lacking in IFR features (although this is improving with mods for the Garmin glass cockpits and new add-on planes), compatibility issues with specialised hardware, and probably more... 

I don't think we'd use this current version. The graphics are too distracting!

But this ^^^^^^ is probably the funniest statement I've read so far about why MSFS can't be used as a training tool 😂

Would you mind explaining why you think this, I really think I don't understand the point you're trying to make...

 

Game or simulator? There is no way I would have obtained my PPL in 6.5 months without the several previous years of Flight Simulator. Familiarity with the instruments, pattern, basic manoeuvres, judging height, distances, speeds etc. all quickly became intuitive and second nature in the real world Cessna 172. Quite a game to help one accelerate through real world training!

6 hours ago, pstrub said:

I totally get that there are issues that make MSFS less than ideal as a procedure training simulator, such as well-known problems with ATC, default planes lacking in IFR features (although this is improving with mods for the Garmin glass cockpits and new add-on planes), compatibility issues with specialised hardware, and probably more... 

But this ^^^^^^ is probably the funniest statement I've read so far about why MSFS can't be used as a training tool 😂

Would you mind explaining why you think this, I really think I don't understand the point you're trying to make...

 

I can't speak for trafficpilot, who said that MSFS is too distracting to be useful in flight instructionbut I think his point is well taken. Profession flight simulators, especially those used in training airline pilots, have bare-bones scenery -- mainly confined to airports -- because more detailed images of buildings are not necessary for learning procedures. What IS detailed, of course, is the cockpit instrumentation. In MSFS, by contrast, the highly detailed depiction of the earth is incredibly real (a frequently used word in the MSFS forums is "immersion", a term I don't think I ever encountered in discussions of earlier sims). This tends to put the fun of flying ahead of the mechanics of flying for all but the most serious flight simmers. I imagine most instructors would not look kindly on this..

I had a chance to fly a $20,000,000 + full motion sim right before 9/11 put all that to a halt. I was surprised at the almost total lack of complex scenery. I have also flown Harrier Sims, Cobra Sims, for the military, and same thing. The last thing they are thinking of when they design these sims is eye candy. It's all about how the sim feels to the pilot, period. 

I have what I need to make FSX-SE useful for practice. Good terrain mesh, good road and railroad alignment, accurate ground features like rivers and bodies of water, and of course some outstanding A2A aircraft plus my yoke, throttles, pedals, and radio stack.

Now I'm shopping around for a better ATC engine. One that can also manage AI traffic and be upgraded to voice. 

Considering PF3

Edited April 29, 20215 yr by Gary1124

8 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

The last thing they are thinking of when they design these sims is eye candy.

While this is true to some extent (it is the LAST thing), this does not mean that it is not desired - there is a big difference!

I have been an airline pilot for 25 years and am currently rated on A320 aircraft. The Level-D simulators we use have been increasingly getting better "eye candy" - i.e. more realistic representation of the environment and weather effects.

The most important feature of a Level-D sim (besides aerodynamic modeling, system fidelity and ability to simulate failures/scenarios) is smooth framerates.

One main requirement of the FAA to use a simulator as IFR training device is framerate/lack of stutter - that´s why X-Plane 9 was often still used in professional settings, X-Plane 11 (before Vulkan) suffered from tiny "texture loading" stutters that made it not suitable for that - except in very controlled setting with minimal scenery so that no "texture loading" stutters would occur.

Our big level-D´s had very "spartanic" scenery for this reason when I started flying in the mid-90s... lack of computational horsepower to guarantee smooth framerates. But the newest simulators we got have excellent graphics (mostly in the vicinity of the airports though) with moving traffic, individually modeled houses, satellite picture textures, etc.

Using MSFS and it´s great visuals would be desirable for "real training" for sure - but as a professional simulator it would need to be "+60fps at all times" and "no discernable stutter ever".

Cheers, Jan

 

Edited April 29, 20215 yr by Janov

15 hours ago, TrafficPilot said:

the graphics are too distracting

So the "graphic" of reality is distracting too for pilots? If so, MSFS can help you simulating the distraction of the world outside the windows. 😉

IMHO MSFS extends the boundaries of flight simulation into some specific realms which have never been tapped before by any flight simulator, including 20 million full motion simulators: 

Trainings like this one would be nearly useless if the sim which is used for the sim sessions just has "bare-bones" scenery. To the opposite, having a scenery like MSFS allows the training of visual approaches better than in any other sim. I guess we will see such applications in the coming years.

The second thing, which can't be offered as well by any other sim, is the simulation of VFR navigation (navigate by looking out of the window). This allows airport or route familiarization. Using MSFS, GA pilots can familiarize with unknown terrain and destinations, can train flying circuits (like identifying the visual cues documented e.g here) and so on. For things like that, even a 20 million full motion simulators is of no use. Only 60$ MSFS can offer you that.

 

11 hours ago, cobalt said:

I can't speak for trafficpilot, who said that MSFS is too distracting to be useful in flight instructionbut I think his point is well taken. Profession flight simulators, especially those used in training airline pilots, have bare-bones scenery -- mainly confined to airports -- because more detailed images of buildings are not necessary for learning procedures. What IS detailed, of course, is the cockpit instrumentation.

Ok, this is something I can understand for first-time students, but if you use a flight simulator to do preparatory flights ahead of real flights, I think the good graphics actually helps to make certain landmarks less conspicuous than they are in a simulator with "older" graphics. I remember in FSX some features such as the runways  stand out a lot more than they do in real life and in MSFS, which may make it less useful than taking a sim flight with better graphics. 

Anyway, my original comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but in fact I'd be interested to understand this.

Edited April 29, 20215 yr by pstrub

7 hours ago, Janov said:

While this is true to some extent (it is the LAST thing), this does not mean that it is not desired - there is a big difference!

I have been an airline pilot for 25 years and am currently rated on A320 aircraft. The Level-D simulators we use have been increasingly getting better "eye candy" - i.e. more realistic representation of the environment and weather effects.

The most important feature of a Level-D sim (besides aerodynamic modeling, system fidelity and ability to simulate failures/scenarios) is smooth framerates.

One main requirement of the FAA to use a simulator as IFR training device is framerate/lack of stutter - that´s why X-Plane 9 was often still used in professional settings, X-Plane 11 (before Vulkan) suffered from tiny "texture loading" stutters that made it not suitable for that - except in very controlled setting with minimal scenery so that no "texture loading" stutters would occur.

Our big level-D´s had very "spartanic" scenery for this reason when I started flying in the mid-90s... lack of computational horsepower to guarantee smooth framerates. But the newest simulators we got have excellent graphics (mostly in the vicinity of the airports though) with moving traffic, individually modeled houses, satellite picture textures, etc.

Using MSFS and it´s great visuals would be desirable for "real training" for sure - but as a professional simulator it would need to be "+60fps at all times" and "no discernable stutter ever".

Cheers, Jan

 

I would love to see the new sims. I was the training director for the company  that made many of the projectors used in the CAE and other military sims. Couple of hundred thousand dollars worth of projectors in each sim. The video was smooth as silk, and the lights for the approach, etc, were extremely bright, just like in real life. You felt like you were in an actual aircraft when making a night approach to minimums and would break out of the soup at 300 feet.