21 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

The first time I flew a Level; D  CAE  sim at the Delta Training Center, I only had a PPL with about 600 hours in Cessna and Piper SEL aircraft. The home sim I was flying at the time was FSX, and I had the Level D 767, with hundreds and hundreds of hours on it. The Instructor Pilot in the Delta Sim was a friend of mine. He had me do around 9 takeoffs and circuits around KATL, and landings, hand flying all of them.  The only thing I messed up was a bounced landing  ( and in that sim, you really felt it)  due to my flaring at around 50 feet AGL. The other 8 landings were pretty good ( he said), and I was able to hold altitude, hand flying the 767, within about 200 feet. 

As I finished the session, he said to me " How much turbine time" do you have?  I replied , "none", only in FSX with a Level D 767 aircraft on my PC at home....  He replied "Amazing". So you can't convince me that flying a home sim is a waste of time. http://www.leveldsim.com/sevensix_home.asp

My only experienced with level D sim was Antonov 124/225 for entire week almost 8 hours a day! At the time I also had my PPL and instrument rating (but I was already working toward my commercial ). They also asked me if I flew jets before I said only in desktop sims. So as I said if one knows what they are do it in the sim it only beneficial!

16 hours ago, jon b said:

Why do I fly real world airliners ? Because I have to , I have a mortgage.

Why do I fly flight sims in my spare time ? Because it’s fun

And that's exactly what 99% of simmers do. Have fun. It's just the 1% who whine and complain that the Fenix and other planes flight model is only 98% accurate. It would need a psychologist to explain this phenomena because I don't have an explanation. Do they really think they are flying a real plane? MSFS success is due to its graphics, not the flight model. And that's what the punters really want.

As to which airliner has the best flight model I have absolutely no idea. They all seem perfectly OK for a home sim to me.

Edited August 28, 20232 yr by jarmstro

1 hour ago, sd_flyer said:

After 20 years of flying I finally realized I'm not a "real pilot" since I'm not type rated LOL On the serious note, I was actually long time simmer before I got a shot on my first pilot certificate. I was really hoping that my flight sim experience would shorten my learning or impressed my flight instructor. Well, a brutal reality said hard NO LOL But I did stopped me from using sims, I just started using the differently! Yes there are limitation but there is also a  reasonable scope useful for training. Are sims are useful at all? Yes if one aware of its limitation and what you can or cannot learn. So there is nothing to be upset about it . Sims are great and realism and high fidelity are always welcomed !

As this threads about comparing flying airliners IRL to flying airliners the sim, presumably you’ve got (or had) a type rating if you’re flying or flew an “airliner”? 

Maybe not.

Obviously you don’t need a type rating to be a “real pilot” though. 

10 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

And that's exactly what 99% of simmers do. Have fun. It's just the 1% who whine and complain that the Fenix and other planes flight model is only 98% accurate. It would need a psychologist to explain this phenomena because I don't have an explanation. Do they really think they are flying a real plane? MSFS success is due to its graphics, not the flight model. And that's what the punters really want.

I get the point you’re trying to make. And agree, if the flight models are all at 98% we’re truly into diminishing returns and no one should be complaining.

My question in the OP was merely which airliner is the most realistic of the lot.  I gather you feel there’s not enough difference among them to be a factor?

Ps.  why can’t MSFS also strive to have the best flight modelling on top of its great graphics? 

 

16 minutes ago, g-liner said:

As this threads about comparing flying airliners IRL to flying airliners the sim, presumably you’ve got (or had) a type rating if you’re flying or flew an “airliner”? 

Maybe not.

Obviously you don’t need a type rating to be a “real pilot” though. 

In my world you need type rating is required to fly aircraft with 12500lbs MGTOW or turbojet. So one can still hold ATP certificate, work an airline and fly  Cessna Caravan without type rating 🙂

24 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

 MSFS success is due to its graphics, not the flight model.

I disagree completely! Whether you are simmer or certified pilot you want sim to be as realistic as it can be.  What most of us point out is that even  most ultra realistic sim cannot  be  a substitute for real world flying. I give one good example: there are no level D or FAA approved simulator in the world where you can get your certificate without  0 flying real airplane. Hence, there is no substitute for real flying, but there are aspects that can be trained in the sim. Each sim has own limitations that is it. Hope in make sense  

9 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

there are no level D or FAA approved simulator in the world where you can get your certificate without  0 flying real airplane. 

Now that's a lie! I'm pretty sure you could've been certified to fly the STS Space Shuttle with sim time only. 😄 

15 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

I disagree completely! Whether you are simmer or certified pilot you want sim to be as realistic as it can be.  What most of us point out is that even  most ultra realistic sim cannot  be  a substitute for real world flying. I give one good example: there are no level D or FAA approved simulator in the world where you can get your certificate without  0 flying real airplane. Hence, there is no substitute for real flying, but there are aspects that can be trained in the sim. Each sim has own limitations that is it. Hope in make sense  

I'm sorry? You disagree that the success of MSFS is due to the graphics? 

7 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

I'm sorry? You disagree that the success of MSFS is due to the graphics? 

Yes I do. I was sold by both graphic and flight model. Both aspect made me switched from XP11

Use to be a video in German. A guy with 0 flying time no PPL. Learned in like a month to fly a TUI 737. He had to learn take and landings in a Cessna I believe before doing some training a 737 Sim and had to do a few exams. After he passed he went straight in a real 737 flew it to another airport did a go around followed by touch and go before flying back to origin to land. 

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5wt5sx

 

Edited August 28, 20232 yr by carlanthony24

3 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

Yes I do. I was sold by both graphic and flight model. Both aspect made me switched from XP11

Out of interest in what way do you find the MSFS flight model superior to Meyer's? 

4 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

Out of interest in what way do you find the MSFS flight model superior to Meyer's? 

MSFS flight model is not superior to XP11 or vise versa. I stated before both XP and MSFS FM have their  own advantages and limitations. But in my opinion MSFS has much more potential and room to grow. Plus visuals is another aspect that absolutely NOT useless IRW flying; otherwise ,Harrison Ford wouldn't land on taxiway in John Wayne 🙂 I'm pro both visuals and flight realism. 

I give you one simple example. I used to fly Comanche IRL. I do not have access to this aircraft anymore - by all means it a rare bird. A2A gave me opportunity to fly it again in MSFS and absolutely love it. If Carenado gave me the same opportunity I would probably not buy that aircraft. Just great visuals is not enough for me .

47 minutes ago, WestAir said:

I'm pretty sure you could've been certified to fly the STS Space Shuttle with sim time only.

Actually, no. NASA outfitted a bizjet to fly like the Shuttle. It made in-flight use of its thrust reversers to emulate the rock-like descent profile of the real Shuttle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Training_Aircraft

Having seen videos out the Shuttle's windows during the approach phase, I can't imagine learning how to do this in a simulator alone. Those guys were good!

18 minutes ago, jrw4 said:

Actually, no. NASA outfitted a bizjet to fly like the Shuttle. It made in-flight use of its thrust reversers to emulate the rock-like descent profile of the real Shuttle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Training_Aircraft

Having seen videos out the Shuttle's windows during the approach phase, I can't imagine learning how to do this in a simulator alone. Those guys were good!

That's outstanding! What a great little bit of trivia. Thanks John!

4 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

I disagree completely! Whether you are simmer or certified pilot you want sim to be as realistic as it can be.  What most of us point out is that even  most ultra realistic sim cannot  be  a substitute for real world flying. I give one good example: there are no level D or FAA approved simulator in the world where you can get your certificate without  0 flying real airplane. Hence, there is no substitute for real flying, but there are aspects that can be trained in the sim. Each sim has own limitations that is it. Hope in make sense  

This is definitely true if by "certificate" you mean an initial pilot certificate.  You can actually earn an ATP and type ratings in the appropriate level D simulator though, having never even seen the real airplane.  This is actually what makes a level D simulator level D.

However - and this speaks to the experiences some have had of being able to land a level D sim - while it's good enough for certification purposes, it's not an airplane, and there is no airline in existence that will allow a newly typed pilot to just go fly the line without a check airman.  This flying is called OE (operating experience), and is where new pilots really learn how to land the airplane.  What you get in the sim is just the broad outline; if you're within certain parameters, the sim will render a decent landing, but it's very mechanical.  

If this weren't true, there'd be no need for OE - anyone finished with sim training could just be released to the line.  No airline (or regulating agency) would ever approve that though.

Also if this weren't true, all that OE I've done with new hires over the years would have been considerably less interesting.  😉