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

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,798]

I hope people got those short runways up to full speed and turned them into the wind before landing 😄

Sim versus Game, that one is easy -

• if the parents/wife/person-with-the money is asking why you are spending such ludicrous amounts of money on hardware then it is definitely a full on simulation with real world training value
• otherwise it is just a game

 

Edited January 4, 2022 by Glenn Fitzpatrick

[Stearmandriver 2,304]

1 hour ago, Bob Scott said:

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. 

Of course that's what training and checking focuses on, as those are the skillsets required to control an aircraft by reference to instruments.  But the FAA's requirements for when you need to be on an IFR clearance have everything to do with traffic separation, and not much to do with aircraft control.  Every time someone loses control of an aircraft flying VFR on a horizonless night, or flies into a black mountain, that's entirely legal VFR flight.  It probably was not safe, but per the FAA - completely legal. 

Up until very recently, we could fly several legs in SE Alaska VFR, in 737s part 121.  It's currently suspended because - surprise - a few crews did dumb things ;).

Every time I hear that old saw about the ground's 100% PK, I have to wonder: just how bad ARE the landings of the person saying it?   😁

[177B 730]

This is a photo of a 172 the day after a new VFR pilot took off at midnight on a dark moonless night with 3 passengers.

 

I was just putting my C177 into the hanger when I heard the 172 start up and taxi out for T/O. I said to my wife I hope that pilot is instrument rated, or he will die tonight. We had just landed after a flight back up from the Cape when I had diverted and spent 3 hrs waiting for thunderstorms to pass the southern NH border. We had dinner and saw a movie. Then we flew home to B20 (now KIZG) it was a VFR flight but I flew it only using instruments as there was good visibility around the cities but none in rural ME and NH. I used flight following and did the NDB approach into Fryeburg.  The ground was completely black as it was still overcast and wet trees are very black.

 

Well the sad news is 4 people died that night. The pilot only made it to the end of the runway before he lost orientation, once away from the runway light everything is pitch black, no horizon. He stalled and crashed 100' in the woods from the airport entrance. less the 20 seconds flying.

 

That is as real as it gets.

 

[harrry 322]

The actal controlling of a sim aircraft is easy and intuitive for a person used to computer games and controllers.  These skills transfer fairly easily to the real thing..the ability to control the orientation of your body without overcontrolling and the ability to remember a few key speeds.

What is hard and takes much training and practices are learning the procedures to take when things go wrong or the environment throws its handballs at you and when you cannot see outside and your body is telling you one thing and the instruments another.

Most important thing though is learning when NOT to do something.  Some never learn that.

Edited January 5, 2022 by harrry

[scotchegg 4,192]

Good to see 2022 starting with a fresh perspective on our hobby…

[MrFuzzy 2,118]

12 hours ago, ryanbatcund said:

This video means nothing.

My airliner friend was over once and flew the 747 under the golden gate - because he could.  You can do similar things in level D simulators.  It doesn't make it less of a simulation.

That bridge has 67 m clearance, so technically it's possible to fly under it with a 747.

But make it climb at 100 knots IAS and stop it in 650 m? Is that even possible? I'm asking.

Because again, I am not pointing out that the default a/c is not "study level" (obviously). But it should be easy to make it respect at least the basic flight model parameters. 

[Dominique_K 10,150]

5 hours ago, 177B said:

before he lost orientation,

This is something which happened to me a couple of times in MSFS but I don’t remember ever in another sim. Complacency and insufficient scanning of the instruments, I suppose. I have the feeling that MSFS is less forgiving (a compliment). Might be me getting old though 😁.

[Lord Farringdon 495]

Hi Guys,

 

I state that simulators are tools, not games.  As said by others, they are used by air forces, commercial airlines, flight instruction centres and a host of other organisations including air accident investigators as well as for PPL students and individual pilots preparing for real life sim check rides and procedure training. For these uses, the simulator is fit for purpose. Like any tool, it can be misused or used badly or incorrectly through lack of knowledge, skill, training or all of these things.  But it can't be used as a game no matter how hard one tries. Let me explain. 

If you were considering coding a game or designing a board game, you might want to look at a few of the characteristics that every game must have to be called a game. In the link below you will see four must have characteristics. I wont detail them (except where noted) since that can be found in the link if you are interested enough, but suffice to say, a game actually requires a lot more constraints and boundaries than are found in a simulator. The following four characteristics could apply to any game.

 

All games have a goal.

'Successfully land a B747 on a small airstrip', might be a goal.  However, there are rules to meeting this goal (explained below) which are not available in this scenario. The goal here is not winning, per se, but it relates more to a situation where players use their skills to achieve a particular end point. Presumably, in this scenario that end point arrives when the B747 stops on or before some defined point on the runway? I would also argue that  a fifth characteristic should exist ie that a player must have an opponent although in some cases that may be just to beating your own score or beating the computer. Attempting to land a B747 on the shortest airstrip, does not really meet this characteristic because there are no other players to beat, there is no technical scoring so you cant tell if one approach was better than  another, and you are not really beating the computer either because it is actually allowing you to misuse the simulation tool. If I used a hammer to beat a bolt into a piece of wood, it would let me do it, no mater how ugly the result.   

 

All games have rules.

Rules provide both descriptive and defining frameworks for how the goal is to be achieved. Think MSFS training activities, landing challenges and of course Reno Air Races. You wont get very far with any of these if the rules are not followed exactly. The 'Successfully land a B747 on a small airstrip' goal  does not meet this characteristic because there are no rules about what constitutes or defines a 'successful' landing. Now before you all climb into me and say I have just contradicted myself buy saying simulators are not games and then identifying at least three things within MSFS which do indeed appear to be games, remember, no one bought Reno Air Races or shelled out for flight training activities and landing challenges. Well, maybe some misguided fellows did but by and large, most have bought MSFS to experience the simulation of real world flight (that simulation being for better or worse depending on your perspective, real world experience or lack of etc). They didn't buy it just for the few embedded 'games'. For example, I bought a pair of ear muffs to protect my hearing while mowing the lawn.  They happened to have a Bluetooth capability incorporated so I could listen to my favourite Spotify music while completing this tedious task. They are fit for purpose and meet all the standards for hearing protection. The Bluetooth capability is a marketing add on (useful and fun) but I didn't buy the muffs just to listen to Bluetooth music. There are plenty of other much more efficient ways to do that if I didn't want the hearing protection I did pay for. So these 'games' are marketing addons to MSFS although I'm not saying they don't enhance the users experience of the simulator. Rather they are adjunct to the flight simulator experience.  

  

All games have restrictions.

A game must have restrictions.  For example if you have completed the VFR Nav challenge in the flight training activities, and if like me you attempted to take the shortest route to the destination airfield rather than remain with a certain distance of the highway, you will have failed to meet the goal. 

To quote one paragraph from the link, " The descriptive and defining frameworks, together with a game's restrictions, make up a game's constitutive rules: those that define all of the circumstances that must be satisfied when participating in a game. That is, constitutive rules delineate the means that must, can, and cannot be employed in pursuit of the goal of the game."

The 'succesfully land a B747 on a small airstrip' goal has none of these constitutive rules and so therefore cannot be considered a game.  

 

All games require acceptance of the rules by the players.

As I said earlier, perhaps another characteristic of a game should be that other players exist but this 4th characteristic kind of suggests that with out actually saying it. "Unless all players are operating from the same set of rules and agree to these, the game cannot exist."

Clearly the goal of 'successfully' landing A B747 on a small airstrip does not meet this characteristic either since there are no rules and no other players. 

 

So, landing a B747 on a small airstrip is not playing a game. It is simply misusing the simulator tool, albeit for a bit of fun, but it is not a game anymore than putting a nail in an air compressor dust gun and firing it at a cockroach running across the shed is not a game. It may be fun, and an air powered duster can act as a gun, but it's just a misuse of the tool (and dangerous one at that).  

 

Conclusion.

In conclusion I support my argument that a simulator (let's say MSFS) is not a game because it simply doesn't have the rules and constraints that are necessary in games. Other online players actually have no effect on what you do. There is no goal except those that may be self imposed, there is no score, there are no restrictions within reason of what you can do. 'Wild' or unusual use of the simulator will simply take the simulator out of the parameters it designed to be used in and this will result in unpredictable results such as incredible landing feats but it doesn't make it a game.   

The embedded 'games' in the simulator are both for instructional purposes ie flight training activities and landing challenges, and for just arcade fun, but with a very real flight experience incorporated to help hone skills such as might be found in Reno Air Races and the forth coming Top Gun.   

If you would permit me one final observation it would be that a game is finite. It has a beginning and an end. You achieve or not, you advance a level or repeat the last level, you win or lose. Whereas a simulator is not like this. Because it more closely imitates real life you can do what you want. You can strive for perfection in all flying skills and navigation/weather and emergency procedures in your chosen aircraft and flying environment, or with crash detection turned off, you can be the most uncoordinated and completely carefree user who bounces off the tops of ridges and has no idea where they came from or where they are going. The simulator will let you do that because it has no game restraints. If you want to do things outside the simulators parameters, just for kicks, it will let you do that as well, although with varying and unpredictable results. 

     

The short link below may explain these things better than me. I am not trying to elevate MSFS above that of a game but rather point out that if it is a game you are seeking then MSFS is a very poor choice.  

https://us.humankinetics.com/blogs/excerpt/all-games-have-these-four-characteristics

 

Cheers

Terry

Edited January 5, 2022 by Lord Farringdon

[G-RFRY 1,712]

Think of the millions airlines spend on simulators for pilot retraining, now according to this thread they just need a PC MSFS and flight controls they could now save millions (cough).

[harrry 322]

Strangely that is what is used for quite a lot of training.  Generally x-plane or p3d but one day msfs2002 will be included

Edited January 5, 2022 by harrry

[MrFuzzy 2,118]

28 minutes ago, Lord Farringdon said:

Conclusion.

In conclusion I support my argument that a simulator (let's say MSFS) is not a game because it simply doesn't have the rules and constraints that are necessary in games.

Oh, now I understand why the achievements system is totally bugged 🙂 

The intention was making MSFS a simulator rather than a game by removing goals but at the same time keeping the gamers interest alive by giving the illusion of having goals.

Machiavellian!

P.S. No reply at all from Asobo on the below, of course.

[G-RFRY 1,712]

6 minutes ago, harrry said:

Strangely that is what is used for quite a lot of training.  Generally x-plane or p3d but one day msfs2002 will be included

The airline simulators do not bother with real world scenery it not important airports yes and procedures in emergency. 

[Lord Farringdon 495]

11 minutes ago, G-RFRY said:

Think of the millions airlines spend on simulators for pilot retraining, now according to this thread they just need a PC MSFS and flight controls they could now save millions (cough).

Hi Raymond,

I'm not sure where you get this view from? Yes, it is true that airlines do spend millions on very sophisticated crew training simulators. And, yes it is true that some pilots do you use PC based flight simulator packages for various uses. (The Captain of MH370 is perhaps a more infamous and widely publicised example.)  In my experience from flight colleagues who I used to fly with, that was in preparation for company sim check rides and mainly focused on approach procedures and emergency checklist procedures. You may also be aware that in the dim dark past, procedure training was done in front of cardboard mock ups with photos of the flight panels. Two student chairs were placed in front of the mock ups and the pilots would run checklists and pretend to activate switches, levers and dials.  For training and refreshing purposes a PC flight simulator does this procedural stuff much better. But it cant and will never replace the company simulators for so many obvious reasons. I'm not sure how this thread, the topic of which is about whether a flight simulator is a game or not, brings you to that conclusion? 

   

[Lord Farringdon 495]

23 minutes ago, MrFuzzy said:

Oh, now I understand why the achievements system is totally bugged 🙂 

The intention was making MSFS a simulator rather than a game by removing goals but at the same time keeping the gamers interest alive by giving the illusion of having goals.

Machiavellian!

P.S. No reply at all from Asobo on the below, of course.

Haha. Interesting take Mr fuzzy 🙂  Hoisted by my own petard perhaps? On the other hand, a game requires the achievement levels to be reached before you can move onto to the next level. The landing challenges are certainly a game as are the flight training activities but they are equally instructive adjuncts to the flight simulator. Reno Air Races and Top Gun? Maybe not so much. More arcade style but certainly games. But as to achieving a certain number of flight hours or becoming a Journeyman or a Wing Commander? As far as I can see achieving or not achieving these points have no prohibitive effect on the use of the simulator. They are more progress markers and do not therefore make the simulator a game! 

 

Cheers

 

Terry 

Edited January 5, 2022 by Lord Farringdon

[G-RFRY 1,712]

17 minutes ago, Lord Farringdon said:

Hi Raymond,

I'm not sure where you get this view from? Yes, it is true that airlines do spend millions on very sophisticated crew training simulators. And, yes it is true that some pilots do you use PC based flight simulator packages for various uses. (The Captain of MH370 is perhaps a more infamous and widely publicised example.)  In my experience from flight colleagues who I used to fly with, that was in preparation for company sim check rides and mainly focused on approach procedures and emergency checklist procedures. You may also be aware that in the dim dark past, procedure training was done in front of cardboard mock ups with photos of the flight panels. Two student chairs were placed in front of the mock ups and the pilots would run checklists and pretend to activate switches, levers and dials.  For training and refreshing purposes a PC flight simulator does this procedural stuff much better. But it cant and will never replace the company simulators for so many obvious reasons. I'm not sure how this thread, the topic of which is about whether a flight simulator is a game or not, brings you to that conclusion? 

   

The FAA found lack off simulator training was the cause off the crash at KJFK after take off the co-pilot was too aggressive with the rudder, and had not had the required time in the simulator when moving from another type of aircraft. Rules have been tightened any changes to an aircraft pilots are required to use the airline simulator before flying.

I may send off for my pilots licence i have been using flight simulators for 20years you don`t need an aircraft anymore???

Edited January 5, 2022 by G-RFRY