Q&A is Live

[VFXSimmer 1,310]

8 hours ago, pstrub said:

What's the difference between a simulator and a real simulator? So this means, in your opinion MSFS is a simulator but not a real simulator? 🤔

The difference between a simulator and a real simulator is that one has the world “real” in front of it.  The word is used as emphasis by the person pretending to be a pilot while sitting on the couch with a thrustmaster in his hands trying to convince his spouse that he/she can’t do the dishes until the fake passengers have been safely delivered back to earth despite the intense crosswind … (that was achieved by pushing the slider all the way to the right of course).  I mean, if it were only a “simulator”, said pilot wouldn’t have a leg to stand on in that domestic dispute.

Perspective people.  Give the person their due!  This is critical stuff.

Edited October 2, 2021 by VFXSimmer

[riverreveal 145]

Did they mention which region the next World Update will focus on? 

[mtaxp 666]

2 hours ago, VFXSimmer said:

The difference between a simulator and a real simulator is that one has the world “real” in front of it.  The word is used as emphasis by the person pretending to be a pilot while sitting on the couch with a thrustmaster in his hands trying to convince his spouse that he/she can’t do the dishes until the fake passengers have been safely delivered back to earth despite the intense crosswind … (that was achieved by pushing the slider all the way to the right of course).  I mean, if it were only a “simulator”, said pilot wouldn’t have a leg to stand on in that domestic dispute.

Perspective people.  Give the person their due!  This is critical stuff.

While I agree with all your post in relation to the home market, there is a better way to draw the line: A "real" simulator is one that can be tested against reality to test, promote, fix and improve existing aviation tech. For example, creating a new aircraft design that is aimed to fly in reality.

[Biology 1,347]

4 hours ago, mtaxp said:

While I agree with all your post in relation to the home market, there is a better way to draw the line: A "real" simulator is one that can be tested against reality to test, promote, fix and improve existing aviation tech. For example, creating a new aircraft design that is aimed to fly in reality.

According to your definition, no flight simulator (including DCS and Prepar3D) other than X-Plane is not a "real" simulator. User name checks out I guess...

[mtaxp 666]

40 minutes ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

According to your definition, no flight simulator (including DCS and Prepar3D) other than X-Plane is not a "real" simulator. User name checks out I guess...

P3D is included in my definition with out a single doubt.

And yes, what helps advance aviation technology in reality has a better value as a simulator than "pretendeing to be a 737 captain" flying above my home. Your assumption about my comment (and my nickname) is wrong, i'm a home-market user so I might use MSFS as well. BETA or lockheed, are not, and unlike us they do something to advance reality. No point of getting defensive just because I dared to say something unpopular in an MSFS forum.

Edited October 2, 2021 by mtaxp

[Biology 1,347]

31 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

P3D is included in my definition with out a single doubt.

And yes, what helps advance aviation technology in reality has a better value as a simulator than "pretendeing to be a 737 captain" flying above my home. Your assumption about my comment (and my nickname) is wrong, i'm a home-market user so I might use MSFS as well. BETA or lockheed, are not, and unlike us they do something to advance reality. No point of getting defensive just because I dared to say something unpopular in an MSFS forum.

I was simply pointing out a major flaw about your definition. Most flight simulators like P3D and DCS use wind tunnel data to determine aircraft behavior, which can only be acquired after aircraft design, not before. Therefore they are not suitable for aiding aircraft design from scratch. Based on your definition, a "real" simulator should be able to aid aircraft design from scratch, which requires a flight dynamics engine that determines aircraft behavior based on airfoils and geometric information and not existing wind tunnel data, which is only possible with X-Plane (and FlightGear with their YASim flight dynamics engine) as most other flight simulators work their way backwards (aircraft behavior from wind tunnel data) unlike X-Plane and FlightGear with YASim.

And my "user name checks out" comment was simply a joke, not based on assumptions but your comments on X-Plane and MSFS forums.

For me, a "real" flight simulator is anything that is / can be used for research purposes to advance aviation technology, regardless of its status among people. This also means very likely none of us are using any flight simulator, be it X-Plane, MSFS or P3D as a "real" flight simulator, as pretty much all of us are using it for entertainment, recreational purposes and learning aviation, practicing etc.

Edited October 2, 2021 by BiologicalNanobot

[mtaxp 666]

26 minutes ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

I was simply pointing out a major flaw about your definition. Most flight simulators like P3D and DCS use wind tunnel data to determine aircraft behavior, which can only be acquired after aircraft design, not before. Therefore they are not suitable for aiding aircraft design from scratch. Based on your definition, a "real" simulator should be able to aid aircraft design from scratch, which requires a flight dynamics engine that determines aircraft behavior based on airfoils and geometric information and not existing wind tunnel data, which is only possible with X-Plane (and FlightGear with their YASim flight dynamics engine) as most other flight simulators work their way backwards (aircraft behavior from wind tunnel data) unlike X-Plane and FlightGear with YASim.

And my "user name checks out" comment was simply a joke, not based on assumptions but your comments on X-Plane and MSFS forums.

It does not have to be a completely new aircraft, it can be new system, trying to predict failures, training an organization for a certain mission...

Wether it fits the ego (simulator vs game) or not from a home user standpoint is irrelevant. So yes x-plane and p3d are more "simulators" because they give development tools and eco-system that are used to promote real life aviation advancements. But the majority of us are using them as "games" to pretend we are 737 captains, just like a typical MSFS, aerofly, DCS or another home simulator.

So to me, an average home market customer, x-plane is not "more simulator than MSFS" as we are rarely exposed to the other aspects that matter To BETA, and many profissional companies, this difference is crucial.

Edited October 2, 2021 by mtaxp

[MrBitstFlyer 3,910]

1 hour ago, mtaxp said:

It does not have to be a completely new aircraft, it can be new system, trying to predict failures, training an organization for a certain mission...

Wether it fits the ego (simulator vs game) or not from a home user standpoint is irrelevant. So yes x-plane and p3d are more "simulators" because they give development tools and eco-system that are used to promote real life aviation advancements. But the majority of us are using them as "games" to pretend we are 737 captains, just like a typical MSFS, aerofly, DCS or another home simulator.

So to me, an average home market customer, x-plane is not "more simulator than MSFS" as we are rarely exposed to the other aspects that matter To BETA, and many profissional companies, this difference is crucial.

While doing the PPL course in the UK, I used FSX with Orbx satellite imagery/addon airports.  I flew the same plane, pressed the same buttons, saw the same scenery and followed the same airport/navigation procedures in FSX as I did in the real world.  I practiced each cross country exercise in FSX before doing it in the real aircraft.  FSX SIMULATED my real flights very accurately.

The fact somebody can follow no procedures at all and spend their FSX/MSFS/P3d/XPlane time flying under bridges doesn't change the fact.

[VFXSimmer 1,310]

2 hours ago, mtaxp said:

It does not have to be a completely new aircraft, it can be new system, trying to predict failures, training an organization for a certain mission...

Wether it fits the ego (simulator vs game) or not from a home user standpoint is irrelevant. So yes x-plane and p3d are more "simulators" because they give development tools and eco-system that are used to promote real life aviation advancements. But the majority of us are using them as "games" to pretend we are 737 captains, just like a typical MSFS, aerofly, DCS or another home simulator.

So to me, an average home market customer, x-plane is not "more simulator than MSFS" as we are rarely exposed to the other aspects that matter To BETA, and many profissional companies, this difference is crucial.

You say that X-Plane and P3D are “more simulators” than MSFS?

Let’s see.  P3D uses look up tables for its flight model. X-Plane uses BET with lookups for airfoil. MSFS uses a multi sample surface surface calculation modified by look tables.  All three have had calibrations made to real world results with adjustments to match actual performance.  What is the difference that disqualifies one and not the others?  A level D simulator uses nothing but lookup tables.  Are they lesser simualors?

Of the three, only one currently has a full atmospheric model that considers the surrounding airflow in its flight model, yet its the one you consider to be “less”’a simulator.

All three have the capability to fully model flight systems and instruments for “testing” as you describe.  What specifically disqualifies one and not the others in this department?

Only one of the three represents the world accurately enough out of the box that you can truly follow published VFR procedures at an airfield, yet it is a lesser simulator in your eyes.

Interesting perspective.  If however, you are basing your assessment purely as a snapshot comparison of state of completeness of all three at this specific moment in time (and not comparing their actual capabilities) that’s another story, but one that is perhaps a bit analogous to standing on a melting iceberg.

[Noel 4,572]

13 minutes ago, VFXSimmer said:

.If however, you are basing your assessment purely as a snapshot comparison of state of completeness of all three at this specific moment in time (and not comparing their actual capabilities) that’s another story, but one that is perhaps a bit analogous to standing on a melting iceberg.

This really is the crux of the matter for the sim v game people who are still stuck on the 20 year old platforms because they can't see the forest for the trees.   Now a whole 13.5 months out of the gate, on two platforms, it's just a matter of time before the already narrow gap completely closes at which point all of these comparisons will be put to rest.

[mtaxp 666]

16 minutes ago, VFXSimmer said:

Interesting perspective.  If however, you are basing your assessment purely as a snapshot comparison of state of completeness of all three at this specific moment in time (and not comparing their actual capabilities) that’s another story, but one that is perhaps a bit analogous to standing on a melting iceberg.

I'm basing it on the fact that both p3d/xp are used to build and test real aircrafts for reality.

But i'm also saying that for the home users, us, it does not matter therfore the whole debate of simulator vs game from a home user perspective is plain wrong and mostly driven by ego.