2 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Why don't you tell us all how much money the FAA approved sim costs including cost of equipment needed, you can round it off into approximate thousand dollars?

Why don't you check for yourself, provided you have internet and tell us what you found? But cost and optional additional hardware was not the issue here.

https://www.x-plane.com/pro/certified/

Edited May 17, 20233 yr by turbomax

12 minutes ago, turbomax said:

Why don't you check for yourself, provided you have internet and tell us what you found? But cost and optional additional hardware was not the issue here.

https://www.x-plane.com/pro/certified/

Well you were the person that claimed that another sim  was "FAA" approved, so you are comparing something that costs a small fortune compared  to a sim that sells for around $100. 

The Red Bird TD and TD2 are FAA certified BATD's and can be used to log hours.  They run from 8 to 9,000 usd.    

Does anyone know what sim the Red Bird is compatible with? As far as I can tell,  it's certified when used in combination with Lockheed Prepar3D. 

I'm not aware of any technical reasons why Red Bird couldn't certify MSFS with it,   if they possessed the desire.

https://simulators.redbirdflight.com/products/topic/batd

https://files.redbirdflight.net/hubfs/Certification/10-24-18/Redbird TD TD2 BATD Revised LOA v3.0C signed (10-24-2018).pdf

 

 

 

Scenery that looks like 2023 , not 2006

Clouds and weather. big time

 

FAA certification for training devices is all about the hardware reqs and those being up to spec. A sim being FAA certified for use with such hardware as training devices is not that big a deal that some make it out to be. If MS/Asobo wanted to, they could pursue such certification too, but it's likely not a big priority or need right now.

As for lighting, the overall lighting engine in MSFS far surpasses any other sim's IMO, considering light bounce from surface to surface, diffusion, reflections, etc and also ambient and atmospheric lighting. If some feel the other sim's atmospheric lighting is better, and maybe they're talking about rendering tones/etc but even there I've seen that other sim's ridiculous colors when the sun is at certain positions in the sky, or certain times being too blue or too dark, and the sun looking like a LED bulb when high and a nuclear blast when low, etc 🙂 Ya, not even remotely convincing me that MSFS lighting is worse.

As to the OP's question, what does MSFS do best... hard to pinpoint one thing since it does a lot of things well. But I guess it's the overall immersion factor that is just hard to beat... given a properly implemented aircraft using the sim's FDE (whether it be CFD or non-CFD), combined with MSFS's atmospheric airflow modelling, and of course the world visuals/rendering and weather simulation the overall simulation effect and immersion of flying is nothing I've felt in any other sim before. Of course all the posts so far about individual features that stand out I agree with. And to get such fidelity in all aspects of flight simming in the *default* sim (aircraft, avionics, systems, visuals, etc) is unprecedented and something that I'd never imagined a few years ago.
 

Edited May 17, 20233 yr by lwt1971

8 hours ago, turbomax said:

ambient lighting looks much better in another x-perimental simulator.

I installed XP and do not see the acclaimed superior ambient lighting at all!

Enhancement of realism due to satellite imaging technology and refined avionics with an increasing list of features that are bang on to the real thing! Many screenshots taken at dusk or dawn are at times very difficult to discern whether they are real or simulated. I often wonder whether Bruce Artwick surfs these forums?

Bruce Artwick wrote the code for the program that debuted in early 1980 as Flight Simulator, initially for the Apple II (photo from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum)

8 hours ago, turbomax said:

ambient lighting looks much better in another x-perimental simulator.

Subjective. I am able to tell when I'm looking at footage/screens of that sim because the lighting just isn't as convincing. I also have to concur with Bob by saying FAA Certification means nothing to us as desktop simmers and it is not an indicator of one having an advantage over the other. Also, how could you not tell that that post was laced with sarcasm? lol.

6 minutes ago, The Flight Level said:

I often wonder whether Bruce Artwick surfs these forums? ... Bruce Artwick wrote the code for the program that debuted in early 1980 as Flight Simulator, initially for the Apple II (photo from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum)

Have wondered the same!, not sure what the latest about/from him is, but have a look at this thread and the video linked in there (I guess we're going off topic here 🙂

 

14 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Been simming for almost three decades. MSFS 2020 is the best I could have ever imagined. 

Even with its poor flight dynamics? 

17 minutes ago, Krakin said:

I also have to concur with Bob by saying FAA Certification means nothing to us as desktop simmers

That's right of the 1-2 million MSFS users about 4 are hoping for FAA Certification 🤣

2 hours ago, Doug47 said:

Even with its poor flight dynamics? 

Ya this is often quoted and absolutely was true when all we had were the initial default planes when MSFS released to evaluate the sim's flight dynamics, but definitely is not true any longer. Fast forward to now, it's more a question of what particular aircraft have good flight models or not.  And when talking about the default iniBuilds A310 or Longitude, or the payware PMDG 737, Fenix A320, Milviz C310, FSW C414, Kodiak, Sting S4, etc etc their flight dynamics are pretty darn good (iniBuilds themselves have said how their A310 flight model/dynamics are at par with their XP version, and that's noteable since it's the only aircraft I know of written by a reputable developer for both sims). I certainly don't see any issues when flying these aircraft compared to my experience in other sims I flew for decades, and actually feel the overall flight experience is better when these aircraft's flight models are combined with MSFS's atmospheric airflow & weather simulation, and just more alive.

The key is how the aircraft developer implements and fleshes out the flight model for their particular aircraft using the MSFS core FDE's various capabilities and also using the various FM parameters to tweak them.

The one area I feel is in need of improvement in the core FDE is ground handling and the transition from ground to air and vice versa... even there, with the interim fixes/features MS/Asobo put into SU10, that situation has been greatly improved with aircraft like the Fenix and PMDG and others taking advantage of it. A more broad rework of ground handling is coming in the future from MS/Asobo.
 

Edited May 17, 20233 yr by lwt1971

39 minutes ago, Noel said:

I installed XP and do not see the acclaimed superior ambient lighting at all!

I agree. Yet "lighting" is their new "flight model."

Well. I've had some really insane WOW-moments in MSFS that no other sim simply comes even close to. 

One of them is at the beginning of MSFS. I loaded a flight in a small GA aircraft (208 I think) in an airport in the northern part of Norway. It wasn't a large airport but I was absolutely gobsmacked by what I saw. Using real weather I was spawned in in front of a hangar. The weather was atrocious and I could hear the rain pounding on the airframe and see runnels of water streaming down the window. The reflections of the light in the puddles outside and the overall realisation that I could go to a small airport in the middle of no-where and still be blown away by the sheer believability of it all actually gave me goose-bumps. On top of all of this was stellar performance. Any other sim with these visuals would make my computer beg for mercy. Yet, there I was, enjoying pay ware-quality visuals in a remote airport in the middle of Norway using only a default sim. I've done some comparisons between the competition in more or less remote areas and it is akin to comparing a renaissance painter to my six year old. Sure, the six year olds painting has its charm, but there really is no comparison. 

That was, I believe, on a 3900X with a 2080Ti. These days on a 7950x3d paired with a 4090 it is nothing short of unbelievable. I did a flight in the Fenix the other day where I was going ESNU -> BIKF. The weather was atrocious on arrival to BIKF (and perfectly correct per the official METAR). Performance and visuals in combination with the likes of the Fenix and PMDGs is *really* hard to beat. 

+1 to the accessibility aspect. I only dabbled in flight sim on my friend's computer in the late 90's, but never really did much with it. Fast forward to adulthood and I spent a few years before MSFS glancing at various sims, but never being drawn in by them. I had a mild interest in the more technical aspects of aviation, but what I really wanted was a way to explore the world, especially out of the box at a reasonable cost. I assumed based on current offerings that we were a long way off from this.

When MSFS was announced I was ecstatic and it hasn't disappointed. A side effect is that I've become interested in deeper parts of aviation that I wasn't expecting. I'll never become a pilot and I certainly am still extremely word not allowed of most aspects of flying, but this has been such a huge leap forward for people like me. MSFS really can and does attract a much wider variety of simmer, and that's a good thing for the hobby.