1 hour ago, Franz007 said:

The point was about the importance of an accurate simulated FM

Ok then, since you're articulate in being able to determine that the MSFS flight dynamics engine doesn't hit the spot, why not describe how inertia and movement should be interpreted in the sim?  Give the FDE engineers at Asobo some help.. 😄

It's so easy to critique but the only criticism worth anything, is that which clearly identifies what 'correct' looks like. It's not much use saying that something doesn't hit the benchmark, if you don't know or state what the benchmark is.  So, you've conveyed at length how poor the FM is in MSFS.... so... how should it be?  What would be 'right' to you?  ....and don't dismiss this with some subjective comment like "it should just feel right", because no-one can work with that.

If you can recognise that something is wrong surely you can clearly convey what right looks like?

Edited April 10, 20242 yr by JYW

8 hours ago, andy1252 said:

Using a flight sim is like watching p*rn. It's not real. And no amount of messing around with the system is going to make it real. Or even realistic.

And the first person to mention multiplayer mode  .  .  .

MSFS Multiplayer rocks...no really it does (though it was actually better before about SU3-4 iirc, but that might just be a server saturation thing) 😁

 

6 hours ago, sloppysmusic said:

Flight simulator + imagination = The Real 'Experience' . 

Even if the simulation is on a zx81, Amiga or C64 if you let your brain fill in the gaps the little details don't matter. Dreams seem real because even though they are 100% fake the imagination gets full access to our mind without our logic, reasoning and cynicism spoiling the fun. 

To make it feel 'real' you have to WANT it to be and allow aforementioned imagination to do what it's good at: filling in the gaps.

I KNOW I'm waggling several pieces of plastic in front of a gazillion lines of typed code displaying thousands of tiny dots on a fake window into the world while my neighbour mows his lawn, the kids fight next door and a computer fan drowns out the sample of a Rolls Royce jet engine being played through my 20 dollar Argos /Target desktop speakers but I don't care! For me and thousands of others it's ALWAYS as real as it gets (or ever will lol!). 

Enjoy your flying desktop captains ✈️😁

Yes, that's the operative word: one's own "IMAGINATION".
I said as much in an earlier post in this message thread ie. the definition of reality that is apparently based on science:

"The problem with reality is simply that people have DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS of reality.
Here's an explanation of reality: Do we see reality as it is? | Donald Hoffman | TED (youtube.com) --- worth viewing in my opinion.  Jump to the @7:10 minute mark for a quickie."

Sit under an apple tree long enough and you'll see one fall to the ground, whether you accept that as reality is though entirely up to you😁

Don't what more to say but I'd rather go fishing "and I  do" than flight sim on a XBOX.

On 4/8/2024 at 11:19 PM, fsiscool said:

Train what? No real pilot uses desktop sims to train manual flying. And for all other things (like 99% of the flight is done with the A/P on) the flight model is irrelevant.

Oh, you must've missed this. And remember, there are NO auto pilots in T-6 IIs or T-38s.

On 4/8/2024 at 9:25 AM, UrgentSiesta said:

Whenever this comes up, i.e., "no desktop sim can compare to Level-D, or the real thing, so we can't count it for training time...", I like to drop this in for perspective:

The USAF & USN have extensively tested training IRL .mil pilots using a setup that's very little more than a desktop flight sim, VR goggles and a commercial HOTAS.

No fully enclosed model cockpit, no wrap around screens, no ButtKicker, no 6DoF movement, and not even full flight gear( 😉 ).

They've performed multiple control tests on live classes and find that there is very little proficiency difference between the mostly desktop sim students and the ones who go thru the traditional-only-real airplane course.

Aaaaannnnnndddddd...Guess what simulator they use? Nope, not some proprietary FSim OS, Nope, not MSFS. Nope, not X-Plane...

It's Prepar3D!!! With MilViz addons! (maybe A2A for the Texan II...)

Oh, The Horror!!!

In sum, the realism and effectiveness of desktop simulators has a LOT more to do with the training SCHOOL you're attending than it does with the sim setup you're using.

And I'm so old I remember learning to fly with exactly ZERO simulator time (because they didn't exist!! 🤣)

And let me tell you, I would've KILLED for something like A2A's Piper Cherokee (my IRL trainer), or heck, just about ANY of the Hi Fi addons available today in MSFS, X-Plane, P3D, etc.

The ability to train for winds, weather, and all that other pilot stuff, even on a desktop PC, would've made me a MUCH better pilot, MUCH sooner.

Edited April 10, 20242 yr by UrgentSiesta

6 hours ago, JYW said:

Ok then, since you're articulate in being able to determine that the MSFS flight dynamics engine doesn't hit the spot, why not describe how inertia and movement should be interpreted in the sim?  Give the FDE engineers at Asobo some help.. 😄

This is not a big deal. Simplified: when you are flying a fully loaded A310 and banks from right to left, there is a time-delay due to the higher inertia. If the plane is empty it will react way more faster and with less delay due to inertia. Did you even made any research about « inertia » before commenting? I think this has been discussed many times.

8 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

I'm not a real life pilot but I can imagine that students trying to get familiar with the avionics used in their planes have a huge advantage if they can master the same avionics in the flight simulator. That's why I think the work that Working Title is doing, making the GA avionics in MSFS so high fidelity, is a huge bonus. Not only do the real life pilots appreciate the quality of the GA avionics that Working Title have done, but I can imagine many student pilots are benefiting from Working Title's work.

Since you mentioned XP's avionics, Austin said he wanted to get the G3X in XP 12 in an interview with OrbX almost 2 years ago:

https://www.youtube.com/live/X5sFJu6h-as?si=8th3NqfBqx3dDaXo&t=6176

The irony is, MSFS beat XP at getting the G3X.  This is the testament of the excellent work that Working Title have done! I can imagine if you are a student learning to fly (learning to fly a small plane of course)  and you want to get familiar with the avionics in your small plane, and Working Title has done one of the GA avionics that your plane is using, you would probably benefit by tinkering with avionics that Working Title have done.

 

If you want to put your focus on a very particular instrument/avionic type, sure.

Having said that, in reality, this has nothing to do with IFR training courses that include mandatory simulator hours.

In my club, it's a P3D setup.

XP is certified as well.

MSFS is not, does not mean you can't learn and put some extra hours to gain more knowledge using it, it is a great simulator, but this won't take you any step further as a student.

Also, ironically, while not mandatory, P3D in my school is being used as a VFR navigation simulator as well for those who want/need extras, the conclusion about MSFS that it didn't include anything meaningful in it's scenery to create a new setup for it as all you need for VFR is already in P3D as well, if you've seen a VFR chart, it is pure landclass.

Edited April 10, 20242 yr by Inu

On 4/9/2024 at 9:04 AM, threexgreen said:

In VR with controllers you can, actually, which is another area in which desktop flight sims are a very useful tool. The movement around the cockpit in VR following flows makes it much easier to memorize flows and locations of switches, levers etc. to the point you can perfectly apply that muscle memory in the real cockpit. It also familiarizes you with the dimensions and the height above the ground, etc. If you have some experience in an aircraft in a flight sim in VR it's almost eerie how familiar the real cockpit of that aircraft will be. I experienced this myself a few times now when I got the opportunity to hang around a cockpit at work, and I know of several pilots who use flight sim VR as a training aid.

Desktop flight sims aren't going to replace any required training, but I think many underestimate the value it has as a training aid.

I remember a 757 pilot stating he preferred VR for that reason exactly.

This is years ago and in re FF 757 in XP, but same applies, of course.

There is no question that the XBOX platform will improve flight simulation and fix the bone-head and expensive thinking we had to live with current sim platforms.

sp

On 4/7/2024 at 7:40 AM, Noel said:

quickly discover what it really feels like, how the plane responds to inputs and exterior forces.

Small, cramped, very noisy, vibrate your bones, cold or very very HOT on the ground, extremely sensitive to even moderate winds ... most GA aircraft that is ... my first go in a Helicopter I felt for sure the dash was going to come apart from all the vibration. 

In MSFS it's a peaceful, quiet, rattle free, relaxing experience ... almost completely the opposite from reality 🙂 ... don't know how pilots managed before we had high quality noise cancelling headsets?

On 4/10/2024 at 9:03 AM, bofhlusr said:

The problem with reality is simply that people have DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS of reality

Sounds like something a certain politician would say ... no, there is only one truth and one reality ... what we don't know is what we don't know, nothing more, nothing less.  Perception has no bearing on reality.  Discover truth, don't make it up ... sorta the purpose of human existence IMHO.

Its because it is the year of the cat:

Year Of The Cat by Al Stewart with Lyrics (Best Version) - Bing video

sp

59 minutes ago, CO2Neutral said:

Sounds like something a certain politician would say ... no, there is only one truth and one reality ... what we don't know is what we don't know, nothing more, nothing less.  Perception has no bearing on reality.  Discover truth, don't make it up ... sorta the purpose of human existence IMHO.

Like no shades of grey?  It's all binary on/off, black/white, win/lose and only one truth?

1 hour ago, CO2Neutral said:

don't know how pilots managed before we had high quality noise cancelling headsets?

I've often wondered just how much noise the best headsets can cancel in real life, coz the headphone simulation in MSFS seems to cancel quite a lot.