The first flight simmy thing I ever had was US Navy Fighters. (Early 1990s.) You flew an assortment of erm... US Navy Fighters from the deck of the USS Enterprise; you shot enemy aircraft down and bombed their houses and infrastructure. To some extent, the game simulated naval warfare and made an attempt to 'do things properly'.

The game attempted to simulate missions, mission planning, shooting and bombing stuff.

It was fun!

Perhaps presciently, the global scenario was that the USSR had fallen and rogue military were taking over Ukraine. Sounds familiar!

5 hours ago, brinx said:

I am pointing out that they are still a type of game. You cannot develop any of these simulators without knowledge of game development.

 

4 hours ago, brinx said:

You CANNOT make a flight simulator without knowledge of game development. Simple. 
Even if you are developing using 2D sprites, that is still knowledge of game development.

You cannot study psychology without knowledge of statistics (being based on maths). Does that make a psychologist being part of „mathematicians“?

At work we are working with digital twins of our city to make dynamic 3d vizualisations of some topics. This Technology has a lot in comon with the one used for video-games. Does that make this tools video-games?

Many movies with special effects are using animation-software having a lot in comon with video-games. Does that make the movie Star Wars a being part of a video-game?

Edited February 12, 20251 yr by Franz007

4 hours ago, Franz007 said:

It would have been better to just agree on you being wrong, rather than repeating again and again your personal belief and claim that it‘s a fact.

It is not a personal belief; it is what they are. I'll wait here until you explain to me how you can build a flight simulator without understanding game development. It is not possible.

The image below shows two simulators. The left simulator is a racing simulator called Assetto Corsa, which is considered one of the best. The right simulator is a flying simulator(P3D). One is focused on driving, and the other is focused on flying.

What do they have in common: They both use physics to simulate various things, and you require game development to make them because they are a form of game. You can use P3D professionally or call it something else if you want. Pilots train with P3D, and it is used in expensive simulators. Sure, P3D is much more complex and advanced. Call them simulation software or something else. They are still a form of game. This is what you do not understand.

I see you don't want to take my word for it like others. Austin built the Xplane simulator. All you need to do is listen to him. "There's really no concept to me of the difference between a game and a flight simulator. To me, they are both the same thing" - Austin.  He is not just randomly throwing words out there. He understands what I am telling you.

Edited February 12, 20251 yr by brinx

2 minutes ago, brinx said:

It is not a personal belief; it is what they are. I'll wait here until you explain to me how you can build a flight simulator without understanding game development. It is not possible.

Simply because that wasn't AT ALL the discussion we had here.

Just now, Franz007 said:

Simply because that wasn't AT ALL the discussion we had here.

It is relevant because I'm proving to you that you cannot. How can you build a game without understanding game development?

6 minutes ago, brinx said:

It is relevant because I'm proving to you that you cannot. How can you build a game without understanding game development?

Sorry, that wasn't at all what you were asking previously (that already wasn't at all what we were discussing). Changed it again?

2 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

Sorry, that wasn't at all what you were asking previously (that already wasn't at all what we were discussing). Changed it again?

@Franz007 , I have no idea what you are talking about. For several pages, I have been explaining why flight simulation is a form of game.

4 minutes ago, brinx said:

@Franz007 , I have no idea what you are talking about. For several pages, I have been explaining why flight simulation is a form of game.

I never denied that flight-simulators running on a PC were technically in the category of "video-games". But then you tried to convince us that even professional level D flight-simulators used for professional pilots were video-games, by using arguments full of fallacies.

1 minute ago, Franz007 said:

I never denied that flight-simulators running on a PC were technically in the category of "video-games". But then you tried to convince us that even professional level D flight-simulators used for professional pilots were video-games, by using arguments full of fallacies.

Regardless of using P3D on your home computer or in an expensive simulator to train pilots, at its core, the software is still a form of game. It does not magically transform into something else. But of course, in professional settings, you do not say you are playing a game, and you treat it seriously.

The takeaway here is that you can have a serious piece of gaming software (or simulation software if you wish), that can be used for both training and entertainment. Where you use it, does not change what it is.

3 minutes ago, brinx said:

Regardless of using P3D on your home computer or in an expensive simulator to train pilots, at its core, the software is still a form of game. It does not magically transform into something else. But of course, in professional settings, you do not say you are playing a game, and you treat it seriously.

The takeaway here is that you can have a serious piece of gaming software (or simulation software if you wish), that can be used for both training and entertainment. Where you use it, does not change what it is.

That's exactly the point we don't agree with you: a level D sim is not a "form of game". Not at all actually. You elegantly ignored all of our explanations above, as already pointed out, to just repeat yourself without taking our explanations into account. Such flight-simulators are part of what is called "simulation software" and have nothing to do with "video-games". The way you use it has nothing to do with what it is. You can try to make your car fly by adding wings to it. It is still designed as a car. You can use your coffe-machine as a ball and play basketball with it. It sis still the object for what it has been designed for. A flight-sim is still a flight-sim, doesn't matter if it is part of "video games" or "simulation software". It is designed to simulate.

17 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

That's exactly the point we don't agree with you: a level D sim is not a "form of game". Not at all actually. You elegantly ignored all of our explanations above, as already pointed out, to just repeat yourself without taking our explanations into account. Such flight-simulators are part of what is called "simulation software" and have nothing to do with "video-games".

Flight simulation software is a form of game. You, therefore, need to understand game development to build flight simulator software.  It does not matter where the software is used. Multi-million-dollar sim or in your house. Where you run the software has no impact on what it is. This is what you need to understand. Hence: "There's really no concept to me of the difference between a game and a flight simulator. To me, they are both the same thing" - Austin.  

1 hour ago, brinx said:

For several pages, I have been explaining why flight simulation is a form of game.

Not at all. You've been repeating the same statement yes. Zero explanations.

 

1 hour ago, brinx said:

I'll wait here until you explain to me how you can build a flight simulator without understanding game development.

Do you know who Austin Meyer is? He originally built XP without any game development experience or goal in mind. Have you heard of openGL? It was developed by a supercomputer/workstation manufacturer back in the 1980s. No game dev in sight. That's what XP used for many years. SIGGRAPH? That conference brings together some of the biggest brains in gfx and not one of them engages in video game development.

11 minutes ago, brinx said:

Flight simulation software is a form of game. You, therefore, need to understand game development to build flight simulator software.  It does not matter where the software is used. Multi-million-dollar sim or in your house. Where you run the software has no impact on what it is. This is what you need to understand. Hence: "There's really no concept to me of the difference between a game and a flight simulator. To me, they are both the same thing" - Austin.  

Exactly like a psychologist being some kind of mathematician because it‘s not possible to be a psychologist without understanding statistics and maths. Am still waiting for the source for you claim. It‘s just your own fantasy based on fallacies.

2 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

Do you know who Austin Meyer is? He originally built XP without any game development experience or goal in mind.

The fact that you keep saying this tells me you don't understand the subject matter. You can't even build a 2D side scroller using sprites without understanding some very basic video game concept, and you certainly cannot build a flight simulator without understanding game development. You are saying something that is IMPOSSIBLE. 

13 pages of useless back-and-forth on the definition of "game" vs "simulator", just because someone correctly suggested that if one is more interested in the flight simulation aspect, he should use X-Plane, whereas if one is more interested in the gaming aspect, he should use MSFS.