10 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. 

Yes, it's quite possible.  Much more dramatic transients than that occur when flying aerobatics, for instance.  All about energy management.

Boeing lists initial buffet onset of a light -400 at 100kts, meaning it would very likely still fly at 90-something knots.  It wouldn't be wise, but you can do what you want in a sim...

14 hours 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’?

Your right. Many discussions go this way simply because there are no agreed definitions or in the case of MSFS several definitions might equally apply, which only muddies the water further and obscures any hope of a sensible conclusion. Still, such philosophical musings can be considered by some as fun or amusement and so therefore...... a game.🤔....   

The Avsim population are known for such behavior 🤣😭

OMG a boat addon developer???

You guy's are ruining our "study level sim experience" 

OMG a car addon developer???

"Waah waah you guys are making this GTA"

OMG what? Airport interiors full of detail peds and life??

"Please stop ruining the sim and turning into a Sims title."

OMG VR??? Really MS/Asobo you are gonna implement VR?"

"Nooooo don't turn my "serious study level sim" into the Matrix!"

Biggest gatekeepers, arrogant study level egomaniacs, and overall bitter Bettys in the Flight Sim community. 😂

 

 

Edited January 10, 20224 yr by blueshark747

It`s a Simulator just like goat simulator, Train simulator, Bus simulator, Truck simulator, Fishing simulator, and the most popular Farming simulator, Most popular VR simulator Cooking simulator. All Simulators it says so on the tin 🙂.

Edited January 10, 20224 yr by G-RFRY

MSFS can be used as a simulator or misused as a game...

As apparently Flight Simulator does not have  a goal like other games, in order to give the sense of accomplishment that you get in other games for killing a boss and advacing to the next level,  it needs to be restrictive in sense that you get feedback when you do someting wrong and landing with no warnings could be that kick similar to getting rid of the demanding boss. So what could be a feedback for doing someting wrong ( there is no need for explicit depictions, just a written notice and game interruption if needed)? 

1. gear collapse (instant or delayed depending on the terrain and force applied)

2. flying surfaces damage on high load factor

3. engine failures on mismanaging the engine operations

4. greater impact of the weather on the flight envelope and visibility (icing, crosswind, tailwind, density altitude, rain, snow, fog, overcast)

4. ATC warnings and "have the paper ready when you land"  for breaking the FAA rules

5. configurable random equipment failures

 

I don't buy into argument that one shoud pose these restrictions upon themsleves without it being enforced by the software as simulators are meant for serious purpose and not for toying around.

You don't pass through enemy unscathed in arcade games and you don't see through walls in FPS. If one sets FS for 100% realism than he cannot expect to finish a flight on the fiirst attempt.

With more challenge more audience would be attracted whether serious or casual. A career mode from PPL  to ATPL  would be more than welcome.

Edited January 10, 20224 yr by versus

32 minutes ago, versus said:

As apparently Flight Simulator does not have  a goal like other games, in order to give the sense of accomplishment that you get in other games for killing a boss and advacing to the next level,  it needs to be restrictive in sense that you get feedback when you do someting wrong and landing with no warnings could be that kick similar to getting rid of the demanding boss. So what could be a feedback for doing someting wrong ( there is no need for explicit depictions, just a written notice and game interruption if needed)? 

1. gear collapse (instant or delayed depending on the terrain and force applied)

2. flying surfaces damage on high load factor

3. engine failures on mismanaging the engine operations

4. greater impact of the weather on the flight envelope and visibility (icing, crosswind, tailwind, density altitude, rain, snow, fog, overcast)

4. ATC warnings and "have the paper ready when you land"  for breaking the FAA rules

5. configurable random equipment failures

It's true that idea that damage or mishaps aren't an intrinsic part of civilian flight is ludicrous. HOWEVER, a lot of manufacturers don't care to see their aircraft in a ditch with half a wing. Hell, the topic is so touchy Captain Randazzo of PMDG never released a 737 Max - which his team had spent dev hours working on - to avoid any drama after the accidents.

If someone brought a realism mod to MSFS that took the wingtips off on a wing strike or let me shear the vertical stabilizer off with aggressive rudder inputs, I'd buy it no matter the price.

Chances are it'll never be a thing in civilian sims, though. You just have to wait for someone to bring a PMDG or Leonardo into DCS.

A message like 

"your airrplane has suffered structural damage that prevents controlled flight"

would  be enough for me. 

 

2 hours ago, versus said:

A message like 

"your airrplane has suffered structural damage that prevents controlled flight"

would  be enough for me. 

 

You wouldn't want a challenge? Say you wing stike on landing attempt #1. Do you want a black screen and an auto-reset back to the ramp, or would you want to try again but with a broken wing and leaking fuel? It adds a level of accomplishment if you land on attempt #2. If this is in fact a game, the word I'd use to describe a damage model would be "fun".

There seems to be a restrictive definition of what a game is, in this thread.

A sandbox game can be totally open. I play another run of one of my favorite games that has no goal, no level, no boss to kill. I have just to survive extreme cold, scavenge, hunt, fish and be careful of the occasional wolves and bears. The only goal is to live another day. The main danger, the thing that really kills the player ? Complacency.

Flightsims are the same. You can dress up your flights around a nice story but, at the end, the only goal is live another landing. And what kills you is also complacency. Thats why I always set all the damage options on. 

This is what gave A2A birds their reputation of excellent products. There is price to pay for complacency or worse the anything goes type of flying, the aircraft breaks. 

I think people are making this far more complicated than it has to be. After 14 pages I think it's obvious you're not getting anywhere when everyone comes up with definitions of what a game or a simulator is from 10 different authorities, while another 5 quote different definitions from different dictionaries, while others argue that company X uses MSFS/P3D/XP/DCS/whatever for some stage in aircraft developing and therefore has to be a simulator and cannot be used as a game, ...

This is just my (and from the looks of it some other's) opinion, but it's down to the user and how it's being used. Someone toying around to see what they can do with any aircraft like trying to enter outer space is probably not too serious about simulating real world flight realistically, while I'm not going to call a pilot practicing procedures ahead of their check ride a gamer. And both uses are fine. I think this is an approach that will get you somewhere without having to go over semantics.

Edited January 10, 20224 yr by threegreen

2 hours ago, Dominique_K said:

There seems to be a restrictive definition of what a game is, in this thread.

A sandbox game can be totally open. I play another run of one of my favorite games that has no goal, no level, no boss to kill. I have just to survive extreme cold, scavenge, hunt, fish and be careful of the occasional wolves and bears. The only goal is to live another day. The main danger, the thing that really kills the player ? Complacency.

Flightsims are the same. You can dress up your flights around a nice story but, at the end, the only goal is live another landing. And what kills you is also complacency. Thats why I always set all the damage options on. 

This is what gave A2A birds their reputation of excellent products. There is price to pay for complacency or worse the anything goes type of flying, the aircraft breaks. 

I agree

There is nothing to win if you can't lose.

A.

Is MSFS a game?

Yes. It can be 'played' in a fun, non-serious way.

No.  It has no rules, opponents or intermediate and/or end goals that must be achieved before progressing.

MSFS is therefore a non -ruled based game. 

Is MSFS a simulator?

Yes.  It simulates the characteristics and physics of flight such that it can be used for educational, development and personal training and refreshing purposes.

No. It doesn't meet the requirements nor is it certified by the FAA as an authorized training device ATD.

So it is a non FAA certified flight simulator.  

 Basically it is both a game and flight simulator but does neither well enough to be a rule based game or a certified ATD.

 

Edited January 10, 20224 yr by Lord Farringdon

Very succinct. This should end the endless debate. Of course it won't, but thanks for trying!

 

9 hours ago, Lord Farringdon said:

No.  It has no rules, opponents or intermediate and/or end goals that must be achieved before progressing.

A good synthesis but I would disagree on the above. Just for the pleasure of the conversation, mind you ! 
 
Again there are games which satisfy this definition of having no rule, no opponent just an environment to survive, no well defined goals, levels or even progression. The Long Dark I was alluding to upthread is one. Like it, a sim is an open world, sandbox game.

And anyway, if I follow your reductive definition, a sim has rules that, if broken or not minded, make you lose (crash) : our old friends Newton and Bernoulli, among others, wrote them up. It has a clear goal : landing in the manner to stay alive and minimize the reparation (cf A2A hangar), it has levels of sort if you want (rating), and you know that there is a progression the first time you grease a landing  😁