17 hours ago, The_Flying_Potato said:

I suppose X Plane could be called an aerodynamics' simulator.

If we are looking for an "aerodynamics simulator" we should all fly with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FlightGear
Instead we fly with XP12 simply because it has the nicest graphics.
After the release of XP12 there was nothing but graphics for months.
"The realistic lighting"... "the pbr reflections on the metal sheets"... "the reflections of the sea"... "the sound of the wind in the woods"... "the volumetric clouds instead of 2D"... "up to the most bizarre things like the simulation of the pupil that dilates/constricts and makes the sky overexposed and the panels black, or the crazy camera that simulates the head shaking".... and all the other things typical of video games and that have nothing to do with the "aerodynamic design tool".
Those who design airplanes do not need Hollywood effects to design a plane that flies well!
All those graphics and those XP12-style effects are video game stuff, everyone knows that.
And everyone bought XP12 just for the new graphics.
Because graphics make you have more fun and play better.
If it weren't like that, we would all be on FlightGear (which is also free) 🛩️ 

12 hours ago, mSparks said:

A video game cannot do this because every aspect and interaction in a video game is deigned for entertainment purposes, emergent behaviors are generally considered or manifest as bugs, rather than new knowledge.

There are different types of video games. Our hobby falls under "simulation video games".

"Simulation video games are a diverse super-category of video games, generally designed to closely simulate real world activities. A simulation game attempts to copy various activities from real life in the form of a game for various purposes such as training, analysis, prediction, or entertainment."

Notice: "TRAINING, ANALYSIS, PREDICTION, ENTERTAINMENT"

Fun fact: 90% of the games I have installed are simulation games. 

Another fact: You cannot make a flight simulator without knowing how to make a video game because flight simulators are video games based in reality, using physics, among other things, in the 3D world.

Example of video games:

Video Games
│
├── Shooters
│      │
│      ├──Battlefield
│      └──Call of Duty
│
├── Adventure
│      │
│      ├──Zelda
│      └──Red Dead Redemption
│
├── Simulation
│      │
│      ├── Flight Simulators
│      │      │
│      │      ├──Xplane
│      │      ├──P3D
│      │      └──MSFS
│      └──Driving Simulators
│             ├── Assetto Corsa
│             └── Forza Mortorsports
├── Arcade Racing
│       ├── Forza Horizon
│       ├── Need for speed
...
│

1 hour ago, brinx said:

diverse super-category of video games

But also preceded by:

On 2/9/2025 at 9:47 PM, brinx said:

Flight simulation is just a sub-genre of video games.

You are all over the place here aren't you. At least give us some wikipedia links for all those quotation marks you're inventing?

 

1 hour ago, brinx said:

Our hobby

Yes, yes, we all know how you treat this.

2 hours ago, efis007 said:

If we are looking for an "aerodynamics simulator" we should all fly with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FlightGear
Instead we fly with XP12 simply because it has the nicest graphics.
After the release of XP12 there was nothing but graphics for months.
"The realistic lighting"... "the pbr reflections on the metal sheets"... "the reflections of the sea"... "the sound of the wind in the woods"... "the volumetric clouds instead of 2D"... "up to the most bizarre things like the simulation of the pupil that dilates/constricts and makes the sky overexposed and the panels black, or the crazy camera that simulates the head shaking".... and all the other things typical of video games and that have nothing to do with the "aerodynamic design tool".
Those who design airplanes do not need Hollywood effects to design a plane that flies well!
All those graphics and those XP12-style effects are video game stuff, everyone knows that.
And everyone bought XP12 just for the new graphics.
Because graphics make you have more fun and play better.
If it weren't like that, we would all be on FlightGear (which is also free) 🛩️ 

I think you deserve an award for the biggest BS I’ve read here since a long time. Congrats 👍

2 hours ago, brinx said:

There are different types of video games. Our hobby falls under "simulation video games".

I'll repeat/embellish, because I was talking very specifically about the difference in design philosophy for software, of video game vs simulation.

for a video game, every action and interaction is "designed" - everything that happens is strictly controlled and tested for, at least as far as they can.

That is very different to building a simulation, for a simulation nothing is designed, its all about a recreation of "real world" interactions and plugging them into each other.

simplest flight sim example I can think of is a humble avionics switch.

under a "game design" philosophy, you flick the switch, and the avionics toggle on and off - someone complains you can switch the avionics on without the master power on so extra logic gets added to only toggle the avionics if the master power is on. "job done".

under a "simulation" design philosophy, the avionics power on when there is power to its simulated electrical bus, the avionics bus has power when it is connected to a power source, the avionics switch connects the avionics power to the master bus, the master bus is powered when it is connected to a power source, the master switch connects any power sources to the master bus... breakers disconnect them.

from a "user" perspective they look identical, but what you will notice is in the "simulation" philosophy the "behaviour" of the master and avionics switch was not "designed", - the behaviour "emerges" from how the entire system is simulated and "hooked up".

This means a simulation philosophy requires significantly more effort to get the same result even for something as basic as a humble avionics switch - but it also means the simulation is capable of manifesting things not considered at "design time" - e.g. exactly when breakers trip when too much power is pulled through them is "emergent behaviour" rather than something coded in at design time.

Edited February 11, 20251 yr by mSparks

15 hours ago, mSparks said:

Probably the most important distinction between a simulation and a video game [CUT]

Excellent post! The best definition of simulator vs video game I've ever read in my life. 

16 hours ago, mSparks said:

- is a simulation has the capability to tell you things about the real world you either dont or even cannot know before, whereas a video game is not grounded in the real world, so there is little/nothing to be actually learnt from it.

Great Post!!!!,, Well said!!!!

3 hours ago, blingthinger said:

At least give us some wikipedia links for all those quotation marks you're inventing?

I love quotes. "Computer Gaming World initially used three categories in 1981—arcade, wargame, and adventure—but by 1989 had expanded its genre list to strategy, simulation, adventure, role-playing adventure, wargame, and action/arcade." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_genre

You try to diminish the sources from efis007 as if Wikipedia articles are not cited with credible sources(ex. Scientific Journals) that are easily verifiable.  Scientific journals are peer-reviewed by experts in the field. Yet, you have not given a single credible reason backed up by facts as to why I am wrong.

"Simulation Games: One More Tool on the Pedagogical Shelf" was published in 1989 by American Sociological Association in one of their scientific journals. It discussed the use of simulation games as a learning tool. You know, like the simulation games we use in our hobby.  Examples are MSFS, Xplane, P3D, etc

It amazes me that a simple fact as this is even a debatable topic. Please try to build a flight simulator without understanding game development. I'll wait.

Abstract from "Simulation Games: One More Tool on the Pedagogical Shelf" by American Sociological Association - source https://www.jstor.org/stable/1317920. 

Quote

This article presents an extensive review of the literature on simulation games for teaching and learning, with a special emphasis on sociology. The key features of simulation gaming are discussed by addressing the following questions: What are simulation games? What are they designed to teach? On what learning theory are they based? How effective have they been? What are the problems involved in using them? How should they be used properly? 

 

The wise man in the video below understands this because "A simulation game attempts to copy various activities from real life in the form of a game for various purposes such as training, analysis, prediction, or entertainment." I wonder if he understands this simple concept because he developed a successful simulation game, and you guys have not.

 

Edited February 11, 20251 yr by brinx

1 hour ago, brinx said:

try to build a flight simulator without understanding game development

You really jumped head-first into that one didn't you. Austin's university degree was in...what? Remind us all?

 

1 hour ago, brinx said:

"Simulation Games: One More Tool on the Pedagogical Shelf" was published in 1989

Good job! Let's see... XP1 was published in '95 so no, I wouldn't expect to see it listed in that article regardless of how much you want it to be in there. What's also interesting there is the placement of the words. Simulation comes first. They classify "game" as a subset of "simulation". Much like various species are subsets of a genus.

 

1 hour ago, brinx said:

Wikipedia articles are not cited with credible sources

Often times they aren't. But even when they are, they do get deleted. In fact the XP article itself recently underwent various back and forth attacks that has whittled it down to it's current stub status which included various legit sources. Wikipedia is chock full of opinions and armchair warriors.

 

1 hour ago, brinx said:

I'll wait.

But why?! All you need do is open your eyes and use the google! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIGGRAPH 

No trace of the word 'game' in that article. (like really not there this time 🙂 ok there's one...but for a conference unrelated to gfx dev, which it's most famous for)

Edited February 11, 20251 yr by blingthinger

35 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

Wikipedia is chock full of opinions an

And people actually believe it as if it has any authority.

SMH, it like you just glossed over everything I said.

6 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

You really jumped head-first into that one didn't you. Austin's university degree was in...what? Remind us all?

What does a degree have to do with anything. You don't need a degree to learn game development. You just need the drive and motivation.
People that have created amazing things without a degree includes Bill Gates(Microsoft), Mark Zuckerberg(Facebook), Jack Dorcey(Twitter). 

You've been discussing flight simulation long enough. You should understand that you cannot build a flight simulator without understanding game development because flight simulators are a category of games.

7 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

Often times they aren't. But even when they are, they do get deleted.

Wikipedia sources are cited. Anyone can verify the content by looking at the sources. Sources like scientific journals are trusted sources that are peer reviewed and used in academia and I provided you with an example.

 

10 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

Good job! Let's see... XP1 was published in '95 so no, I wouldn't expect to see it listed in that article regardless of how much you want it to be in there.

What does xplane being published in 1995 have to do with anything? I know when xplane was published. P3D didn't exists in 1989 either. The reference is meant to inform you about "Simulation Game" and their application in teaching and training.

Professional use does not mean it is suddenly not a game anymore. It just means it is being used in a professional setting for training. This seem to be the difficult part that a few of you guys are not understanding.

Quote

This article presents an extensive review of the literature on simulation games for teaching and learning, with a special emphasis on sociology. The key features of simulation gaming are discussed by addressing the following questions: What are simulation games? What are they designed to teach? On what learning theory are they based? How effective have they been? What are the problems involved in using them? How should they be used properly? 

You still have not said anything to disprove what I have said. Just a bunch of deflections. The issue is that it is hard to disprove a fact.

34 minutes ago, mjrhealth said:

And people actually believe it as if it has any authority.

No, you don't have to believe it. You just need to verify.

1 minute ago, brinx said:

Wikipedia sources are cited.

Sometimes they are. Valid sources get deleted all the time simply because someone doesn't 'like' it. Wiki isn't fact. Sometimes it contains them though.

2 minutes ago, brinx said:

said anything to disprove

Sure have. Tons of things to disprove it. Game = Recreation. Simulation is not necessarily recreation. Video game is a subcategory of simulation. Not the other way around.

4 minutes ago, brinx said:

1995 have to do with anything

You are really struggling with this. The article was written in 89. Why would they (sociologists mind you, not engineers or even wiki knights) include XP when it hadn't been created yet?

6 minutes ago, brinx said:

What does a degree have to do with anything.

Struggling hard. Austin wrote XP without any knowledge or association of how to create a video game. You checked your wiki article on that one, right?

4 hours ago, mSparks said:

That is very different to building a simulation, for a simulation nothing is designed, its all about a recreation of "real world" interactions and plugging them into each other.

@mSparks, you are correct that the philosophy of developing a video game for a non-flight simulation genre differs from that of a flight simulation genre. The philosophy of developing a sports game is different from the philosophy of developing a car racing game. The problem you are trying to solve is different so you'll attack it from a different angle.

I don't see people arguing about whether a racing simulator is a game. It simulates tire traction, wet/icy roads, suspension, engine wear among many other things. For some reason there are users in flight simulation that think flight simulation is somehow special.

The one thing they all have in common is that they are video games.

Edited February 11, 20251 yr by brinx

2 minutes ago, brinx said:

flight simulation that think flight simulation is somehow special

Special? Where are you getting that from? That's a rather emotional response. 

I've lost track of the number of times I've dug into XP to test something out (often aside from flight simulation element even) that I then use for IRL work. Very much not recreation/game.