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

[The Flight Level 2,114]

Crazy, how this topic resurfaces.

The user defines MSFS as a game or a simulator.

When the user defies logic he is playing a game for enjoyment!

When the user practices ILS landings or flies circuits at a local airport he is playing a simulator for enjoyment or for training in the real world!

[ADamiani 470]

2 hours ago, mrueedi said:

Could it be, that PSX misses the airport?

That's not the point, is it?

Plus, if you use FSX or whatever you prefer as a scenery generator, Saba runway will be there, but rest assured that you won't land the -400 on it.

A.

Edited January 6, 2022 by ADamiani

[Mikeingreen 139]

It's a simulator, it says so right on the box. 

[TravelRunner404 596]

17 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

But in the world of flight training, until MSFS is certified as a simulator on certified hardware by the FAA and/or EASA for use in actual flight training, then it's NOT a simulator. 

I don’t understand why people think Xplane and/or P3D are themselves certified by the FAA. The FAA certifies specific devices for specific training. You could certify a device that doesn’t have scenery. You could use a raspberry pi for a very specific device and situation and the FAA very much  could certify that device for say maximum of 4 hours of training for X situation.  There is nothing stopping anyone from getting a specific device certified by the FAA that uses MSFS. However, yes, if I am running a flight school my guess is the economics don't make a lot of sense to go re-certify something just to swap Xplane/P3D for MSFS. And I am guessing at this stage in development it makes a lot more sense to just pay the pro price for Xplane if I need a device or I am selling one.  As well, MSFS forcing updates, etc might materially change the specific certified device I have set up and thus jeopardize its effectiveness where as the more stable Xplane and P3D would not.

It’s all a bit misleading to think the FAA is certifying Xplane based on some advanced “flight simulation” or “flight dynamics realism”, when it’s certifying specific devices for specific training. All of which, as far as I can tell, are procedural based IFR items that have everything to do with instrument use. No one has an Xplane, MSFS or P3D simulator where they can log cross-country hours, landings, or spin recovery.  Maybe some day though!

[The Flight Level 2,114]

27 minutes ago, TravelRunner404 said:

It’s all a bit misleading to think the FAA is certifying Xplane based on some advanced “flight simulation” or “flight dynamics realism”, when it’s certifying specific devices for specific training. All of which, as far as I can tell, are procedural based IFR items that have everything to do with instrument use. No one has an Xplane, MSFS or P3D simulator where they can log cross-country hours, landings, or spin recovery.  Maybe some day though!

Quite true! We are waiting for Transport Canada to give the final approval for our new simulator at our flying club. The detail in the scenery is nowhere near MSFS. It is used for procedural based training. All student pilots must log time on the simulator. The time logged on the simulator is recorded/logged and counts towards your licence.

[Sonosusto 681]

*Stimulator. 🤪

All of you are wrong. Check your spelling.

 

[Sonosusto 681]

But really. Who cares. I did a lot of unrealistic landings and takeoffs from XP and FSX. The default planes are fairly mediocre.

After getting used to (again) the CRJ, FBW mod, JF Arrow seriews, Kodiak, Milviz Porter and various freeware mods....I'd have to say this game/simulator/STIMULATOR is fairly decent.

In other words....it works. Not perfect. But still pretty good.

If you can buy anything from Steam and install it on your computer. Is that really a simulator or a game?

Who cares. XP and MSFS are fun to fly and they each have different aspects to offer.

 

[Stearmandriver 2,296]

4 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Not sure where you are going with that, but P3D is desktop software (can operate on one or many computers "as one"), has been used with motion platforms, instructor stations, and with flight control feedback and has been called a simulator (a specific package of hardware and software) by the FAA and EASA.

Well... pretty much what I said, is where I'm going.  The "simulators" running X Plane aren't even level A simulators, they're training devices.  Per the president of PFC, the company that sells these devices: 

"In the US, we have the BATD and AATD ratings (Basic Advanced Training Device and Advanced Training Device)."

You can read up on simulator and Training Device classifications here: 

https://www.ast-simulators.com.au/resources/simulator-levels-explained

Unless another company I'm unaware of is stuffing this software into a level A sim (and I don't know why they would), there aren't any actual "simulators" running X Plane or P3d.

You are right that it doesn't matter to any of us as personal users. Just interesting trivia I thought, and perhaps it serves to calm the attitude of some of the "my program is a REAL simulator" folks. 

[mrueedi 702]

These guys used MSFS to brief real pilots about the approach and departure to Saanen airport and called it "flight simulator" (see remark "disregard flight instrument, for flight simulator use only"!)...

[Lord Farringdon 495]

This topic is a hoary chestnut, no doubt about that!! I suspect it will never be resolved. I personally like @Dominique_K suggestion that it is game but in the simulator genre.  Although I don't necessarily agree it is game because, if I bought MSFS as a game to play, I would be sorely disappointed. I'm not sure how I could win or who my opponents are and I'm not sure what the rules of the 'game' are, or how much time I have to complete an activity etc. (excluding elements such as landing challenges, training activities and Reno Air Races of course). The basic elements of a 'game', are simply missing and I can never 'win' per se.   

Of course a game can also be defined as anything which is done for fun or amusement but this goes beyond 'video games'. I sprayed the garden hose on my visiting adult daughter recently for 'fun and amusement' but must have not read the rule about not doing this when said daughter has just had an expensive hair job!! 

In contrast, a car racing simulator is not only a simulator but really is a game. Take the Grand Turismo series for example. This does a fairly good job of simulating actual races conditions (within the boundaries of Desktop PC or Play Station), but also contains all the elements of a game. But is this surprising? Car racing is a sport  which does actually have opponents, rules and a winner in real life. So all sports games are effectively both simulators and games.  Again, MSFS falls desperately short of this mark in terms of a game. 

So this is where I come back to Dominique's suggestion about genre.  Perhaps the problem here is that calling everything a  'video games' and splitting by genre, doesn't accurately reflect what each application actually is. I mean we don't turn on Fox Games do we? We turn on Fox Sports.  Yet EA (Electronic Arts) makes a lot of video 'games' reflecting these sports. Perhaps they should be called video sports? Again MSFS would not find a place in there either. 

One of my office colleagues set up a game of noughts and crosses on his Excel spreadsheet which we could share. It was great little morning tea distraction (that might have gone on a bit longer than it should of), but it had all the elements of a game. I have never seen Excel sold as a video game, but perhaps it it should be 🙂. It was a lot of fun.   

'Video Games' is a very old term especially today when we discuss software and apps. While many gaming applications can fit this description comfortably, there are many others that are either business related software or specialist utility software. Think medical software, budget software, landscaping software, calculators and 1000's of others, many of which can be used for fun/hobbyist, business or both but none of which would ever be sold through video games channels. This is where I think MSFS should probably sit because it simply cant cut it as a game.

But MSFS marketing requirements dictate that it will be available through gaming channels and to reinforce this, the gaming aspects of the application, including specifically Reno Air Races and the upcoming Top Gun addon, have been included, and I suspect they wont be the last! Coupled with the expansion onto the Xbox platform and Asobo's game development background I suggest MSFS are firmly of the view that MSFS will eventually fulfil its MS Flight wishes. In other words, it is not a fully fledged game yet, but it is heading to becoming one.   

Perhaps this raises other questions as to why the SDK seems to be short on development, why developers are having so many issues getting their 3rd party software's to work natively with MSFS, always looking for work arounds and then find the SU's kill them off. Why is weather so much of an issue? Or put another way, why, is it not an issue for MS? Meanwhile, (I might be wrong here) but I think they are preparing some sort activity builder for the 'simulator' where you could make your own adventures. Was that not a Flight capability? 

All food for thought.

Cheers

 

Terry

      

Cheers

 

Terry

      

[109Sqn 1,567]

On 1/5/2022 at 9:57 PM, tpete61 said:

Splitting hairs...so funny.

 

On 1/5/2022 at 10:33 PM, MrBitstFlyer said:

It isn't splitting hairs, its a very important distinction. 

@MrBitstFlyer Thanks for getting the point.

On 1/5/2022 at 10:49 PM, Rob_Ainscough said:

I guess it depends on how one wants to define it.

 

16 hours ago, Lord Farringdon said:

If MSFS is not a game, then is it a simulator and if not, what is it? .

 

15 hours ago, Dominique_K said:

... it is a game which is in the simulator genre and, at the same time, a simulator which can be played as a game.

The problem with this debate that it seems to be black or white for most people who have an opinion - either it's a simulator or a game. To those saying simulator, I believe most think of it as a 'consumer simulator' - simulating reality, whereas those saying 'game' seem to be doing so to point out that it's not comparable to the multi-million 'monetary values' simulators that airlines and air forces use. Well of course it's not tha latter and I doubt any sensible person in the former camp believes it is.

And that is the crux of the matter - simulator means different things to different people. We have flight sims, farming sims, train sims and even The Sims, but none of them really pretend they are a substitute for the real thing. Commercial simulators (such as those made for Boeing, Airbus etc) are very much intended as a substitute for the real thing (as far as that is possible).

I think we need to get away from mixing up definitions of 'simulator' when discussing consumer software. Maybe I've read the wrong forums, but I haven't seen such heated debate on motorsport game/sim forums regarding whether they are worthy of game or sim status. Sure there are discussions about realism of torque, wheelspin, handling etc but people seem to generally accept that what they are using is either a (consumer) sim or an out and out game.

 

So, as already said: "Just enjoy whatever it is one likes to enjoy, don't look for certification or approval" and "go and do some bush wacking, plane spotting, Henrik ship finding, cloud watching, island hopping,  emergency procedure training, St Barts touch and goes, LL fast jet, high level heavy iron, fire fighting, storm chasing, giraffe scaring, reef skimming, float plane spraying, and whole lot of just plain flying, even if it is (heaven forbid) upside down in a B747."😊

[MrBitstFlyer 3,875]

22 minutes ago, 109Sqn said:

 

@MrBitstFlyer Thanks for getting the point.

 

 

The problem with this debate that it seems to be black or white for most people who have an opinion - either it's a simulator or a game. To those saying simulator, I believe most think of it as a 'consumer simulator' - simulating reality, whereas those saying 'game' seem to be doing so to point out that it's not comparable to the multi-million 'monetary values' simulators that airlines and air forces use. Well of course it's not tha latter and I doubt any sensible person in the former camp believes it is.

And that is the crux of the matter - simulator means different things to different people. We have flight sims, farming sims, train sims and even The Sims, but none of them really pretend they are a substitute for the real thing. Commercial simulators (such as those made for Boeing, Airbus etc) are very much intended as a substitute for the real thing (as far as that is possible).

I think we need to get away from mixing up definitions of 'simulator' when discussing consumer software. Maybe I've read the wrong forums, but I haven't seen such heated debate on motorsport game/sim forums regarding whether they are worthy of game or sim status. Sure there are discussions about realism of torque, wheelspin, handling etc but people seem to generally accept that what they are using is either a (consumer) sim or an out and out game.

 

So, as already said: "Just enjoy whatever it is one likes to enjoy, don't look for certification or approval" and "go and do some bush wacking, plane spotting, Henrik ship finding, cloud watching, island hopping,  emergency procedure training, St Barts touch and goes, LL fast jet, high level heavy iron, fire fighting, storm chasing, giraffe scaring, reef skimming, float plane spraying, and whole lot of just plain flying, even if it is (heaven forbid) upside down in a B747."😊

By 'simulator' I agree with you it means 'simulating reality'.  MSFS can be used to simulate a real flight using real documentation and procedures.  MSFS can also be used as a game to fly under bridges etc.  Just because MSFS can't be used to log hours, does not mean it doesn't simulate flight.

[Bobsk8 12,735]

I wonder how many days will go by, before we have another thread just like this one? 

[Adrian123 1,015]

Why does one even start these threads. To be cantankerous?

[Stearmandriver 2,296]

3 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Yes there companies doing exactly that, sorry can't say more and I'm not using NDA as a cop-out.  But don't forget Lockheed Martin is a military contractor and they train at an entirely different level.  There is a reason for P3D Avatar mode and being able to leave and enter different vehicles/aircraft.  LM are probably not too terribly concerned with FAA/EASA rules and regulations and administration for the military aspect.

I'm not even sure what this means. I'm unable to locate any company using either X Plane or P3d in an actual simulator. Training devices, yes. 

The military actually does follow the FAA guidelines on this for the most part, which is why the FAA and DoD recognize the other's training and will convert certificates between civilian/ military.  I'm sure some levels of the military are using P3d, just like they use DCS as an A-10 cockpit trainer. 

But none of that would seem to meet the definition of even a level A sim, and no one in the civilian world seems to be advertising this...