The realism is mostly up to the user. The software sets the framework of what is possible, but the user decides the realism in their use of it. You can do what that guy did in the video, but you can also spend a lot of $ on proper addons and teach yourself how to fly an airliner or practice emergencies for your real world ATP check rides - all with the same base software.

Flying an airliner inverted is what our kind calls gamey and unrealistic, but then Tex Johnson came up barrel rolling a 707 and I think that wasn't a game.

27 minutes ago, regis9 said:

A 747 at Saba?  Meh, I’ll show you all and land a fighter there!  I mean it will be the F-35B in STOVL mode but whatever 😁

Hahaha. If you really want to impress me, land the Orbiter on SABA. 😄

Anything on a desktop is a game. However, simulators do have great capacity to emulate real life flying conditions remarkably well now, especially with Virtual Reality in the mix. Flying IFR in real life is a tremendous eye-opener in how sometimes even experienced pilots lose their lives if they fail to rely on their instruments - anybody who has encountered slant clouds will know what I mean 🙂

But I think it was one of the earlier posts that crystalised the difference most effectively - if you're in a real airplane, IFR at night, in terrible WX, the psychological effect can be as dangerous as the conditions themselves. There-is-no-escape-but-to-fly-correctly-and-land!! In MSFS ( or others ) the genuine threat to life and limb simply is not present. Thus, people can have fun and fly under bridges or through canyons at silly-speed, or land 747s on bush strips because "not real". On the other side of the coin, it's possible to fly with VATSIM in real weather with real traffic and other considerations, and experience quite an immersive simulation of real world flight. Likewise, well handled, the MSFS flight model is genuinely capable of realistic representations of real airplanes. Very few are qualified to judge whether a flight model is correct or not, and even for them, just like cars, many airplanes have "personalities" - two identical makes of airplanes often have slight differences in handling, weight, engine power etc etc. I've lost count at how often I see folks write these immortal words: "The flight model feels off."  It's like saying "The sky looks the wrong blue." Most often, it's not the flight model that is off at all, but the user's handling of that airplane or failure to understand that the same airplane will fly differently when even something as apparently irrelevant as the air temperature changes - those who know why, already know why  🙂

MSFS, like every other sim, is what we make of it and wish it to be for us as users. How realistic it is, or not, is all down to how much an individual knows about aviation, and aviation is a very big subject that takes years to become proficient in ( I'm certainly not yet! ).

 

 

 

Edited January 4, 20224 yr by DC1973
spelling

"Game or Sim" it is really a matter of perspective, some will use it as a game others to simulate/practice their RW flying, so it is really up the the one in front of the screen that decides.

Edited January 4, 20224 yr by CarlosF

If it doesn't have PS2-era graphics and doesn't run well it's no game it's a sim! 

7 hours ago, versus said:

I wouldn't know why but simulators are just too easy. Once I have tried approaching a runaway in RL the plane was all over the place I would have smashed it to the ground if it were not for the instructor. The feel of inertia and heaviness of the aircraft + effects of the turbulent air are just not there.  There is unrealistic twitching and oscillations as if the aircraft was made of cardboard but no flutter of the atmosfhere and erratic movements that require subtle yoke inputs and  numerous tiny adjustments to survive. How much I would like to just  try the accurate physics model of flight regardless of all other sim aspects. This is simply lacking all over the flightsim genre. Difficulty. You do something wrong and the plane crashes. Plane simple.

I'm so with you on this - I'm 25 hours into my PPL learning and still stuck at doing good landings! My 20 years of simulator flying prepared me very well right up to the last 20 feet above runway where everything begins to fall apart. Just as you said, all those physical factors at the final landing moment were barely modeled in all the simulators I flew (FSX/P3D, X-Plane, MSFS etc), plus something like inertia and turbulent air are just impossible without those full motion platforms. 

But I also want to add that MSFS can be incredible to simulate real flights in many other aspects, especially with the use of VR. I use ForeFlight to record my pattern practice/landing/takeoffs at the same home airport in both real flights and VR flights in MSFS. I flew in VR exactly as I did in real pattern flights in terms of speed, altitude, throttle, flaps etc, including using exactly same visual cues (beaming the runway numbers, looking over shoulder to see when to turn base etc). And these tracks are virtually indistinguishable. To me that really tells something that MSFS must have got most part of light model right, at least for 172.  

Edited January 4, 20224 yr by FlyIce

2 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Just flying at night can be pretty scary for a new private pilot. 

it is indeed more risky to fly VFR night if you aren't prepared and fly into remote areas and have equipment malfunctions. What's the second item (after Airspeed) on any emergency checklist enroute:  "Possible Landing Area - Select". At night that becomes a bit of an issue if it is pitch black and you can't distinguish a grass field from a forest (or a rock quarry for that matter). That's why I prefer to fly in darkness with an aircraft that has a ballistic parachute recovery system and modern glass avionics. 

To further emphasize that night VFR is another ball game, EASA demands that a separate "NIGHT RATING (A)" must be obtained before you legally can fly in darkness. It is basicly additional 5-7 hrs of instrument training/Solo/ X-country+ separate theoretical exam.

9 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

it is indeed more risky to fly VFR night if you aren't prepared and fly into remote areas and have equipment malfunctions. What's the second item (after Airspeed) on any emergency checklist enroute:  "Possible Landing Area - Select". At night that becomes a bit of an issue if it is pitch black and you can't distinguish a grass field from a forest (or a rock quarry for that matter). That's why I prefer to fly in darkness with an aircraft that has a ballistic parachute recovery system and modern glass avionics. 

To further emphasize that night VFR is another ball game, EASA demands that a separate "NIGHT RATING (A)" must be obtained before you legally can fly in darkness. It is basicly additional 5-7 hrs of instrument training/Solo/ X-country+ separate theoretical exam.

Doing an instrument CX with an instructor from Santa Barbara KSBA to Las Vegas KVGT on a moonless night. Somewhere between HEC and BLD VOR's over the I-15 I got really tired of chasing my altitude and in frustration just snapped the yoke back as a way of saying "Stop descending for fffff sake!" and there was an immediate pop and all the interior lights came on. About 20 seconds later we both smelled burning copper.

I tried flipping switches and killing CB's but the lights stayed on and the burning smell only grew stronger. Looked out the window and saw nothing but pitch blackness - like I was flying in a closet. No idea where the terrain was and no place to "put it down" if this thing caught fire. I have never in my life felt more dread and despair than in that singular moment. I was imagining how terrible it would be to burn alive in that tiny flight deck before hitting the ground like a lawn dart.

My instructor cancelled IFR and we B-lined it for Vegas and landed without incident. Maintenance said there was an arc between wires and a bunch fused together behind the panel. Suffice to say I've never been rough with the airplane ever since.

4 hours ago, Pastaiolo said:

How dare you? I have flown the FWB A320 numerous times and i am adding plane captain to my LinkedIn curriculum!

 

Jokes aside, you are absolutely right.

Honestly, if you have hours in the FBW A320, if you HAD to get in the cockpit of an A320 you would be way better off than the guy who hasn't. I bet you could get it onto the ground, maybe even in one piece... or a few large pieces 🙂

22 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

it is indeed more risky to fly VFR night if you aren't prepared and fly into remote areas and have equipment malfunctions. What's the second item (after Airspeed) on any emergency checklist enroute:  "Possible Landing Area - Select". At night that becomes a bit of an issue if it is pitch black and you can't distinguish a grass field from a forest (or a rock quarry for that matter). That's why I prefer to fly in darkness with an aircraft that has a ballistic parachute recovery system and modern glass avionics. 

When I was registering for my PPL learning at flight school little over a month ago I first learned the existence of night VFR. I always thought night VFR is certainly not permitted b/c in pitch black where could possible be the "V" for FR? Anyway, not very much looking forward to my night x-country flights and landings. 

3 minutes ago, FlyIce said:

. I always thought night VFR is certainly not permitted b/c in pitch black where could possible be the "V" for FR? Anyway, not very much looking forward to my night x-country flights and landings. 

You'll quickly discover that highways, roads, are your best friend.

If the engine dies on you, build an imaginary runway over an appropriate section of the road and conduct a standard drift down power off landing procedure with downwind/base/final. (Just remember to choose the lane with red tail lights and avoid the white headlights...)

I made sure I was always within distance from a major road - preferably with street lights- while en route between aerodromes at night  

Good luck with your training!

VFR and IFR are, legally (per the FAA anyway; other nations' authorities may differ) all about your ability to visually avoid other traffic.  The FAA isn't considering your ability to control your own aircraft.  Legally, VFR means you don't need air traffic control services because you can "see and avoid."

YOU, however, are probably interested in your ability to control your own aircraft ;).  And rightly so; many people have died over the years because they didn't consider this enough.  JFK jr famously lost control of a Saratoga over Long Island Sound on a clear night as a newish private pilot, and killed himself and a passenger. 

The good news is there's much more emphasis on this these days.  It's actually good to hear that Europe requires a night endorsement.  Over here, basic instrument training requirements as part of private pilot training have recently increased; I believe 10 hours of hood time is now required - or is it 5?  I only do aircraft transition and aerobatic instruction these days, I'm out of the loop on actually making a private pilot.  

Either way, there's increased emphasis on basic aircraft control solely by instrument reference, and that's good.  

A war story: as a young instructor, I had a student who was still in high school.  He was ready to solo, his parents had come out to watch. We did the obligatory few dual patterns to make sure he was feeling good that day, then he let me out. What neither of us realized was that, in the time it took for me to brief him and get out of the plane, the ceiling had come down.  I was standing with his parents as we watched him take off, turn crosswind and downwind... and disappear. 

As I raised the handheld radio to my mouth and keyed the mic, all I could think of was the clear remembrance that we'd hardly done any hood work - I think once for maybe 10 minutes - since the syllabuses of that time didn't call for any until after first solo. 

Luckily, he was sharp. Before I even had a chance to say anything I heard the power reduce - not a panicked yank to idle, just a smooth reduction - and he reappeared in a stable, wings-level descent.  He leveled on a low downwind, and clearly agreed with my suggestion over the radio: "why don't we call this one a full stop?"

I wished he was old enough for a beer for that debrief.  We were both a little shook haha. 

But yeah, I practiced that exact scenario before soloing students after that. I still shiver, thinking about what would have happened to many others in that scenario.  

39 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

You'll quickly discover that highways, roads, are your best friend.

If the engine dies on you, build an imaginary runway over an appropriate section of the road and conduct a standard drift down power off landing procedure with downwind/base/final. (Just remember to choose the lane with red tail lights and avoid the white headlights...)

I made sure I was always within distance from a major road - preferably with street lights- while en route between aerodromes at night  

Good luck with your training!

I asked my CFI what happens if at night, your engine quits.  He said, turn your landing light on, if you don't like what you see, turn it off. 

25 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

The FAA isn't considering your ability to control your own aircraft.  Legally, VFR means you don't need air traffic control services because you can "see and avoid."

Night VFR in Europe means that as soon as you leave the traffic pattern a flightplan (alternate is mandatory + adjusted night vfr endurance) & two way radio communication must be established even if you are flying in uncontrolled airspace.

It is actually great to see how serious EASA treats VFR night. Considering us PPL flyers are doing a rather impressive job totalling airplanes in daylight for starters

12 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

VFR and IFR are, legally (per the FAA anyway; other nations' authorities may differ) all about your ability to visually avoid other traffic.  The FAA isn't considering your ability to control your own aircraft.  Legally, VFR means you don't need air traffic control services because you can "see and avoid."

I can't agree with this.  The FAA defines IFR flight as flight in conditions under which flight by outside visual reference is unsafe.  The training and flight check for an IFR rating is at least as much about control and navigation of the aircraft by reference to cockpit instruments and standardized procedures to avoid the terrain and put the acft in a position to land, as it is about avoiding other aircraft.  The ground, as we say, has a 100% Pk (probability of a kill) if the acft hits it. 

The "sim or game" debate is an oft-recurring theme in the community...the answer, generally speaking,  depends on your perspective.  To say that a desktop sim is, by definition, a game, just doesn't pass the smell test here.  I've seen desktop simulators used as primary training devices in a foreign air force's training center, as medium-to-low-fidelity simulators that are part of a greater networked or part-task training system, as route simulators used to chart and dry-run ingress and egress routes to a target, and as acft systems simulators used for procedural training.  Over the years I've taken and given many hours of instruction in full-motion sims that lacked much of what our latest generation of desktop sims can do. 

Conversely, I've horsed around in multimillion-dollar Level-D sims after the training session was over to see if we could put the acft down on the runway deadstick, or fly the old checkerboard and land at Kai Tak with a 50-knot crosswind...certainly not events covered in any training objective.  Despite the expensive gear in use, it was just a game during those fun little diversions.