Hi everyone... I guess it's just a pet peeve of mine but I always cringe when I read/hear people refer to MSFS as a "game". After all it has the word "simulator" right in it title. When you consider how accurately it works to recreate real world flight dynamics, flight procedures, weather conditions, ATC operations, ect.. (especially when used with many of the quality add-ons available) there are many people -even in the media, who still refer to it as a "game"? I can only suppose it's because there are few "simulation" computer based programs on the market that they all get lumped together?Regards,Mark

This is a tired old subject. FSX, like all other versions of MSFS before it, is IMNSHO, purely and simply, a game. This has been argued for years and...it's still a game. Flame suit on....Doug

It's a game because of how Microsoft decided to price it and advertise it. It's perceived as a game by the media, but it can be turned into so much more.Recently I've been a passenger in a full motion cockpit based on "the game" Flight Simulator 9. About 70000 Euros went into construction of that thing - it weighed 500 kilograms. And boy, did it feel cool to feel the acceleration (and even the bumps on the runway during taxiing).

Simply put its a simulation game.

Does it matter? This is a hobby that should bring enjoyment. Many of us are real pilots and use FS as a simulator. Some people who have never sat in a real plane play it like a game. In the end if you're having fun, who cares?

X-Plane bills itself as the most realistic desktop "flight simulator" available. For marketing purposes, it's never called a game. By all accounts, overall, FS9/FSX is certainly just as realistic, if not more. But realism really depends on individual aircraft, and the expertise of the designers.Considering that X-Plane, FS9, and FSX all use real world topigraphical data, nav databases, airport databases, etc., then they're obviously more than a game for those who use these products as realistic simulations.In one form or another, both X-Plane and MSFS products have been used in commercial flight simulators.L.Adamson

It's not a game when you try to fly realistically and/or use complex add ons. It's like a game and a sim because you don't die when you crash. But it's not like a true sim since you don't have an FAA, US Military, or NASA examiner sitting next to you ready to alter your career path. In other words, it's fun.

Simulation is a sub category of game. So yes, it's a game, just a certain kind.

I think the best answer I ever saw to this old question was...."It's a Gameulator". :)

>Simulation is a sub category of game. So yes, it's a game,>just a certain kind.x2

>Simulation is a sub category of game. So yes, it's a game,>just a certain kind.For example, back a few years ago, you had Madden and Blitz for NFL games. Madden was a football simulator and Blitz was "arcade" football. Novalogic's old F-22 series were arcade-type flight game and Falcon 4.0 is a simulator-type flight game.That's how I've always seen it.

It is a game but it also depends on how you approach it. If you use a high quality add-on aircraft and treat it and the world as though you were flying for real then it is a simulation.If you actualy want to know whether FSX is high-fidelity enough to be used as a simulation then the answer would have to be 'yes' because its modelling surpases earlier simluators from at least some of the aircraft manufacturers.It is all in how you approach it. In my opinion :-)

Its a flying game with a built in slider/.cfg/tweeking/stutter/blurfest blood pressure rising/curse inducing/hardware selling/credit card sucking simulation.:-lol

(noun: a machine that simulates the controls and conditions of a real vehicle, process, etc., used for training or testing. http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dic...archtype=exact)Flight Sim is clearly a simulator, there should be no confusion about that. But, as mentioned it can be used purely as a game (as can any simulator), with no crashes or failures, reduced realism and lack of regard for procedures/regulations etc.I see flight sim as a great and versatile platform which is the reason it's still here after 25 years. And with it I can further increase my sense of simulation above and beyond that which comes as standard in the box.Let's not forget that when Aces announced plans to include missions many people were outraged - a clear sign that users (here on the enthusiast sites at least) do not consider flight sim to be a 'game' and such elements do not deserve a place in 'our' simulator. Suffice to say when Aces assured us that many of the missions would remain somewhat true to reality (whilst still being great fun) the concerns began to ease. Many people myself included that mostly like to fly 'by-the-book' now agree that the missions are a great addition and in the right hands can be as real or as fantastical as one chooses (who would have thought throwing a lear jet around the sky trying to beat your best time would be a great way to spend a spare few minutes! ;)). They sum up what flight sim is all about, providing something that appeals to everyone from the newcomer to the full motion, multi-screened, networked, home cockpit builders and beyond...Thus, FS is just that, a platform that can be as deep or as shallow as one wishes within the ocean that is flight. :)

>It is a game but it also depends on how you approach it. If>you use a high quality add-on aircraft and treat it and the>world as though you were flying for real then it is a>simulation.>>If you actualy want to know whether FSX is high-fidelity>enough to be used as a simulation then the answer would have>to be 'yes' because its modelling surpases earlier simluators>from at least some of the aircraft manufacturers.>>It is all in how you approach it. In my opinion :-)>This subject has been bugging me too for a long time, but I'm convinced that it depends on how you deal with it.. That's all.