For the next time the "sim or game" debate is raised :)

[mtaxp 666]

38 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

Good enough for what? You seem to have truncated my statement in your quote, omitting the part about the software being used in an "actual simulator." 

 

If it's good enough as a certified *flight* simulator (note: not a *specific aircraft* simulator) for REAL aircraft manufactures that also work with the military to test, fix and make sure their vehicle is safe to fly before it actually flies a single mile in reality, then it is good enough as a "simulator" by your definitions. And that's exactly what I proved with the videos above, first one is BETA team using x-plane to test their new ALIA, second one is ALIA flying in reality, simple proof.

Edited January 9, 2022 by mtaxp

[MrFuzzy 2,118]

18 hours ago, Krakin said:

People in this tread who think they're experts are saying the 747 was FLYING at 90 kts lol. Were we watching the same vid? The guy pulled up at the last second to bleed off a ton of speed and the callout sounded like it was conducting an auction just before touchdown haha!

More than 10 seconds actually. I am not an expert, I was just asking if this is possible. 

At 0:35 the a/c is at 121 kts and -700 fpm

At 0:41: 101 kts and +1400 fpm

At 0:44: 90 kts and +190 fpm

Is that even possible for any aircraft? And for the 747? LOL is not an answer, thanks. 

[Tierborn 188]

landed at 88knots

[tutmeister 695]

10 minutes ago, MrFuzzy said:

More than 10 seconds actually. I am not an expert, I was just asking if this is possible. 

At 0:35 the a/c is at 121 kts and -700 fpm

At 0:41: 101 kts and +1400 fpm

At 0:44: 90 kts and +190 fpm

Is that even possible for any aircraft? And for the 747? LOL is not an answer, thanks. 

Yes because it is not actually flying at that point. It has been lobbed in a trajectory that lands it on the runway by pitching up and losing all its flying speed. At that point it is just a body on an arc. Realistic or not, it is a skill full use of in game physics.

[scotchegg 4,170]

48 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

If it's good enough as a certified *flight* simulator (note: not a *specific aircraft* simulator) for REAL aircraft manufactures that also work with the military to test, fix and make sure their vehicle is safe to fly before it actually flies a single mile in reality,

Professional version, right? Not the desktop version?

[scotchegg 4,170]

This is really a silly old discussion and I just don’t see how it can have any meaningful conclusion. A better question might be ‘Why is it important, and what motivates some people to strongly claim it’s one or the other’?

[tutmeister 695]

2 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

This is really a silly old discussion and I just don’t see how it can have any meaningful conclusion. A better question might be ‘Why is it important, and what motivates some people to strongly claim it’s one or the other’?

Ego. Nothing more. There is no social stigma to being a nerd or playing computer games these days but there is a misconception that there is. I happily admit to playing arcade games, serious simulator games, adventure and rpg games. Some people get offended if someone labels them as a gamer or calls their sim of choice a game.

[scotchegg 4,170]

2 minutes ago, tutmeister said:

Ego

That would be my guess for most cases.

[Stearmandriver 2,244]

1 hour ago, mtaxp said:

If it's good enough as a certified *flight* simulator (note: not a *specific aircraft* simulator) for REAL aircraft manufactures that also work with the military to test, fix and make sure their vehicle is safe to fly before it actually flies a single mile in reality, then it is good enough as a "simulator" by your definitions. A

Well... no.  That's the point really; we aren't using "my" definitions, we're using the FAA's.  They're the only authority (in the U.S.; but their counterparts in other countries use similar definitions) who can actually write these definitions. 

Per their definitions (and mine I suppose, as I just accept theirs), X Plane and P3d are not "certified flight simulators."  As far as I can tell, they aren't even software used to drive such a device.  The definitions of such devices have been posted a couple times now, and you can easily see how none of your examples meet the definition of even the lowest level of "simulator."  They can meet the definition of a "training device", as a device running MSFS equally could and I'm sure will eventually. 

My only point is that a "simulator" is a very specific type of device, and unless I'm missing something, there is no such thing as an actual "simulator" running any desktop sim software. 

Edited January 9, 2022 by Stearmandriver

[ADamiani 470]

23 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

This is really a silly old discussion and I just don’t see how it can have any meaningful conclusion. A better question might be ‘Why is it important, and what motivates some people to strongly claim it’s one or the other’?

I agree on the fact that it is not so important after all. If you have fun, you have fun. Having fun is a fundamental part of life.

But having a good contact with reality is also important. We are proudly playing games: being a pilot is another thing. 

But in my opinion, it detracts nothing from the fun. As someone else correctly says, it may hit on someone's ego, but I think this has more to do with the accomplishments one has reached in their life (not sure this is good English 🙂 ) and the level of self esteem of the subject.

A.

[mtaxp 666]

1 hour ago, scotchegg said:

Professional version, right? Not the desktop version?

Yes. But the only difference between both is hardware related.

57 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

Well... no.  That's the point really; we aren't using "my" definitions, we're using the FAA's.  They're the only authority (in the U.S.; but their counterparts in other countries use similar definitions) who can actually write these definitions. 

Per their definitions (and mine I suppose, as I just accept theirs), X Plane and P3d are not "certified flight simulators."  As far as I can tell, they aren't even software used to drive such a device.  The definitions of such devices have been posted a couple times now, and you can easily see how none of your examples meet the definition of even the lowest level of "simulator."  They can meet the definition of a "training device", as a device running MSFS equally could and I'm sure will eventually. 

My only point is that a "simulator" is a very specific type of device, and unless I'm missing something, there is no such thing as an actual "simulator" running any desktop sim software. 

Ok I get you now, yes it is certified for "training", then again every peace of hardware and software should, so x-plane itself is not enough, we agree here. 

But it is also certified and used to analyze data, determine flight behavior, test and help building for real life vehicles. This is not "training" it is rather a developement tool as well. Hence I mentioned not a *specific* simulator rather (i.e. a 737, 747 or whatever spceific simulator) a *flight* simulator in the meaning it simulates how a given profile will behave and aims to predict it's flight characteristics before it actually do that in reality.

I don't want this thread to escalate, but I recommend searching for what BETA & x-plane are doing together and what is coming in x-plane 12 in terms of flight model as a result of this work.

I've always said that the for an average home user most of this does not matter as we are mostly playing the "pretend you are an airbus captain" game or training for specific conditions.

But this still does not make both (msfs/x-plane) equal as a flight simulator. More like aircraft that msfs tries to mimic, x-plane helps build, to me and you it does not matter, we just want to fly our favorite one. But we need someone to develop it in the first place, and this is where MSFS can't compete (and not really trying too).

Edited January 9, 2022 by mtaxp

[Krakin 5,747]

2 hours ago, MrFuzzy said:

More than 10 seconds actually. I am not an expert, I was just asking if this is possible. 

At 0:35 the a/c is at 121 kts and -700 fpm

At 0:41: 101 kts and +1400 fpm

At 0:44: 90 kts and +190 fpm

Is that even possible for any aircraft? And for the 747? LOL is not an answer, thanks. 

I think that response lets everyone know how much they should value your opinion on these matters. It also lets me know that you are anything but genuine when you say you're "just asking questions"

[MrFuzzy 2,118]

52 minutes ago, Krakin said:

I think that response lets everyone know how much they should value your opinion on these matters. It also lets me know that you are anything but genuine when you say you're "just asking questions"

Suppose I'm genuine, neither you nor others have answered those questions yet.

[Krakin 5,747]

1 hour ago, MrFuzzy said:

Suppose I'm genuine, neither you nor others have answered those questions yet.

Sigh. Listen the stall speed of a 747 with full flaps is 100 kts. In the video the nosed up, bled a lot of speed and started to fall like a rock below 100 kts. It had just enough momentum to take it over the rocks. The plane did not fly for 10 seconds at 90 kts. I'm pretty sure you know how to count so I don't know how you came up with that.

[Noel 4,487]

8 hours ago, scotchegg said:

This is really a silly old discussion and I just don’t see how it can have any meaningful conclusion.

I agree and I think the reason for this is that there is no concensus on what is required to call something a Game versus a Simulator.  Until you can agree on that it's subject to no meaningful conclusion.

From Collins online dictionary there are a multitude of definitions for the word 'Game' that absolutely apply poorly to MSFS, or P3D or XP for that matter.  The one that I think is most apt is this one, and I say most apt because I think this is how this is used in the context of this thread:

Quote

You can describe a situation that you do not treat seriously as a game.

This suggests it's more the mind set of the user that constitutes something as a game, or not.

And for Simulator, this:

 

Quote

one that simulates; specif., a training device that duplicates artificially the conditions likely to be encountered in some operation, as in a spacecraft, or a flight simulator

 

So really, MSFS/P3D/XP are all simulators, period end of that silly distinction!  The fact is given the right mindset anyone can use any of these flight sims as a 'game', or as a 'simulator'.  Today XP/P3D are farther along in meeting this definition of 'flight simulator' as training device, but that well could change as most MSFS users hope going forward.  And if you were to enumerate all of the aspects of using any of these platforms as training devices you would likely find even immature MSFS will aptly meet many to most of these aspects, at least the basics.  Put another way, if you took a complete newbie, gave them any one of these you would likely find similar levels of learned skills acquired no matter which simulator you exposed them to, or so is my take.

 

Edited January 9, 2022 by Noel