On 1/13/2025 at 10:23 AM, ATRguy said:

There's never been a better time to be a serious simmer, and it's because of MSFS.

This is amusing ... you hear that Lockheed Martin, you better go tell all those USAF pilots to start using MSFS or else they aren't serious.

7 hours ago, Daube said:

Oh boy, now you're trying to divert from actual replying... great

I am?  I actually looked at your silly link to an XPlane 11 video, how is that diversion?

7 hours ago, Daube said:

Yes, you need a joystick, throttle and pedals too, thanks. And that was not the point.

You tell me, you're the one that said "by itself" ... a ridiculous statement, of course you need hardware to support the software.  Do you know what DIS is in P3D?  And why it exists?

7 hours ago, Daube said:

The problem I have is with people saying that MSFS is ONLY a game and not a simulator, and that XPlane and P3D are only simulators and not games.

I don't care what you or anyone wants to think of MSFS/P3D/Xplane as game or sim, doesn't change the fact that P3D is used by USAF for training and P3D is FAA certified and used by RedBird and other simulators as training that counts as hours (up to a certain point, 14 hours as I recall, may have changed).  You even admitted MSFS doesn't support multiple computers that can be operated as a "workstation" to be used by training captains.  P3D can and does operate upto 256 Monitors and supports server/client configurations (don't recall the limit but I think it 32 connected computers usually on 10G or 100G network) with genlock capable devices with each computer rendering their own series of monitors all connected via a master genlock device so as to keep all the frames in sync on the displays.  MSFS isn't FAA certified and never will be and it's nothing to do with "haven't tried" (whatever that means) and it's all to do with lack of feature support for FAA approval.

16 hours ago, ATRguy said:

So there you go, real pilots using MSFS.

Good for you, go chat with USAF pilots using P3D. 

Edited February 5, 20251 yr by CO2Neutral

3 hours ago, sloppysmusic said:

I drink Coke because it's newer than Pepsi, the dinosaur drink

lol, actually Pepsi is the newer drink by about ten years. Pepsi was an aid for digestive ailments while Coke was, well you know, let’s just say a feel better drink.

But your point is made😊

2 hours ago, Daube said:

You forgot 'I drink Coke because Pepsi is not for real drinkers, it's not even a real soda, it's more suitable for baby bottles" 😄

 

Hey, I retired from PepsiCo. Don’t dis my pension 😉

1 hour ago, CO2Neutral said:

I am?  I actually looked at your silly link to an XPlane 11 video, how is that diversion?

You were the one mentioning the landings of 747 and questioning if a simulator that allows it is realistic or not, weren't you ? The video was just showing that not only P3D, but also XPlane can do it, which answered your question: yes, in a realistic simulator such as P3D, XPlane, you can land a heavy in St.Barth just like in MSFS. It's not a diversion, it's a direct reply to your question.

1 hour ago, CO2Neutral said:

You tell me, you're the one that said "by itself" ... a ridiculous statement

You're the one who said "P3D is FAA certified". No it's not. There are however some professional simulators consisting of specific hardware and P3D inside that are FAA certified. Which statement is the most ridiculous now ?

1 hour ago, CO2Neutral said:

...

I don't care what you or anyone wants to think of MSFS/P3D/Xplane as game or sim, doesn't change the fact that P3D is used by USAF for training

...

Good for you, go chat with USAF pilots using P3D. 

Yes, we understood your argument 😄

1 hour ago, CO2Neutral said:

MSFS isn't FAA certified and never will be and it's nothing to do with "haven't tried" (whatever that means)

Means that no company has tried, simple as that. And the reason is simple: there is no professional licence of MSFS, so nobody is even allowed to try to get a simulator set based on MSFS certified by the FAA and sell it.

1 hour ago, CO2Neutral said:

and it's all to do with lack of feature support for FAA approval.

Now, when it comes to features that are actually needed by a simulator to get certified by the FAA, that would be an interesting thing to bring to that discussion. And before you try again to talk to us about your USAF pilots fetish, I want to say that I have no doubts that some features might be missing for an eventual FAA certification, most of which are probably about the controller's ability to manipulate the sim remotely. That being said, does that mean that MSFS is an arcade game ?

2 hours ago, Patco Lch said:

actually Pepsi is the newer drink by about ten years

I DID know that hehe, I was craftily wondering if I could get a discussion started .

1 hour ago, Daube said:

You're the one who said "P3D is FAA certified". No it's not. There are however some professional simulators consisting of specific hardware and P3D inside that are FAA certified.

“P3D inside” … haha … you’re cracking me up … is that like “Intel Inside”.  I listed some of the “things” needed for FAA certification and you just ignored them or it went over your head.  Best of luck with your game or your serious game, whatever you want to call it.

Didn’t one of MSFS word not allowed suggest fuel consumption relative to weather isn’t an important tool for training?  Yeah …. okaaaay.  Do you know the death count on pilot error for instrument approaches where the correct decision was to divert to another airfield (something you plan for prior to flight) and ATRGuy considers fuel consumption not relevant?  A real pilot???  

This guy clearly need more training and MSFS sure as heck can’t simulate it:

MSFS will let you takeoff with 10 foot waves

1 hour ago, sloppysmusic said:

3 hours ago, Patco Lch said:

actually Pepsi is the newer drink by about ten years

I DID know that hehe, I was craftily wondering if I could get a discussion started .

Ok, I'll bite 😁

 

1 hour ago, Daube said:

That being said, does that mean that MSFS is an arcade game ?

Well... if it's only available for gaming entertainment purposes then logically it has to be a game, what else can it be but than an entertainment product for the masses to consume ???

Of course MS could turn that around but I surmise they would need to provision private commercial usage servers with guaranteed data rates and uptimes with selected software reliability and data KPI targets 99.99% of the time, all along with the requirements for whatever the FAA or [insert Countries name] authority mandates.

Additionally including manageable update methods and timing, with ablity to separate UAT (User Acceptance Testing) systems from the current live system and the option to not update the system should it not meet UAT, just as are applied commercially for software in the business world.

Plus programmatic creation of scenarios, including full saving and inject that's operator manageable and the ability to network multiple managed systems together under the control and management of the operator themselves.

My thoughts are that it sounds like a lot of $$ to spend to raise the bar to commercial usage.... whereas gamers are not subject to requiring minimum KPI standards,  plus they eventually start suffering a form      of Stockholm Syndrome , but all of which equals a path to a quicker ROI for MS perhaps ?

My Sim 😉 Cheers

On 1/13/2025 at 8:23 AM, ATRguy said:

What are you talking about?  

There's never been a better time to be a serious simmer, and it's because of MSFS.

Leonoardo, Fenix, PMDG, FSLabs, JustFlight, etc.... I could go on, they all deliver fantastic, BETTER products than you got in P3D, with PMDG finally supporting RF legs, etc...  

You can talk about P3D all you want, and it's definitely NICHE these days, but saying things like that about MSFS is blatantly false.

I'm gonna say that most of "better than you got in P3D" really comes down to what the devs put into their add-ons. E.g., your own e.g. of RF Legs. Certainly not a sim limitation.

One could argue about flight dynamics, too, but there are quite a few P3D add-ons who have excellent flight dynamics, and more than a few in ToS that don't. Again, it mostly comes down to developer vision, skill, and effort moreso than the sim itself.

IMHO the biggest current limitation to "Serious Simming" in P3D is the lack of native real time weather in any way, shape or form.

On 1/13/2025 at 9:53 PM, Daube said:

Hmm I would need to check the timelines again so I'm not 100% sure, but I remember they declared something like that in the past, and it was valid up to P3Dv5. However, V6 was released well beyond the MSFS release, so they had already lost the FSX customers at that moment. Yet they released the sim anyways. Then I thought their professional market was enough to drive them forward, which could lead to a v7 being released in close future.

That being said, the lack of updates for the v6 since one year seems to tell the opposite, so I don't know what to think about this 😕

Total supposition on my part, but I believe v6 was about getting rid of the embedded 3rd Party Enhanced Atmospherics (same system used in IL2 Sturmovik game), as well as the sorely needed lighting update.

Both would be important to their mil/gov/com customers in multi-domain (i.e., multi-player) scenarios.

Though I do stand to be corrected...

On 2/4/2025 at 8:08 AM, CO2Neutral said:

So why is MSFS unable to get FAA certification as a training tool that counts towards hours?  P3D is FAA certified

They haven't tried.

P3D, in and of itself, isn't FAA certified, either (nor is X-Plane).

THIS is a pro sim. Will this close that particular argument? 

😉

https://proflight.com/en/Exclusive-narrow-body

I'm seriously tempted actually. 75 min briefing and one hour exclusive solo simmage. They have wide body and a380 /747 too. 

 

8 hours ago, sloppysmusic said:

THIS is a pro sim. Will this close that particular argument? 

😉

https://proflight.com/en/Exclusive-narrow-body

I'm seriously tempted actually. 75 min briefing and one hour exclusive solo simmage. They have wide body and a380 /747 too. 

 

I actually had a go in the A320 sim in Munich a month ago. Graphics were pretty primitive, like FS9, but I was there for other aspects. It was fun, the hour I spent in the sim felt like 15 minutes.

3 hours ago, d.tsakiris said:

Graphics were pretty primitive, like FS9

Oh I'd expect that, but all the important stuff is there I'm sure. Did it have rumble too and turbulence? If I make another trip to Germany I'll do this. Last trip was 2 laps of Nordschleife for 400 euros in a track car. Maybe I should do both next time! 

15 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

Didn’t one of MSFS word not allowed suggest fuel consumption relative to weather isn’t an important tool for training?  Yeah …. okaaaay.  Do you know the death count on pilot error for instrument approaches where the correct decision was to divert to another airfield (something you plan for prior to flight) and ATRGuy considers fuel consumption not relevant?  A real pilot???  

It’s because you misunderstand what Redbirds are USED for.  Nobody is learning how to fly on them.  Nobody is planning cross country trips on them.  
 

Redbirds are used for learning holds, and how the instruments react to instrument stuff, like ILS landings, how VORs work.  They aren’t a “here’s how to fly an airplane” device.  You already know how.  It’s a sim for cheaply learning how to fly instruments and how they react.  Nobody is monitoring fuel consumption in their Redbird.  
 

Want to know where else ground handling sucks?  Level-D sims.  It’s atrocious.  

Edited February 6, 20251 yr by ATRguy