My view is XPlane is both a bona-fides flight simulator and a game. To say it is somehow lesser is mistaken. So here are some views from somebody who has been using simulators and computers in real world flight training for decades - it is what I used to do, some line flying but training - type endorsements, instrument rating checks, rating issue and currency checks. Seen all the simulators for real and the concomitent development of the computer for flight training (education and skill development). The issue for acceptance in RW flight training as an approved simulator is simple it must be capable of reproducing and showing the operation not only of the aircraft systems but flight in different configurations or power and attitude changes. Failures must also be implementable! So Full Motion Engineered simulators are the go to for most commercial simulation. 

I have used the PC based programs for years as a teaching aid. Due to various limitations (simulator model performance, weight and balance, fuel use and control and lastly weather depiction. No PC based program gets a full tick to be used for the issue of a license or rating. For basic and other training it can be (think navigation and radio navigation). If you had a well built model with high complexity then you could reproduce the behaviour and systems of the real world aeroplane 100%. Pilatus do that all Pilatus aircraft familiarisation, procedural and systems training is done on a desk top. (via P3D). I found the simulator a very good tool to get pilots thinking and working an aeroplane as per the Operating procedures and flight manual. It is an excellent tool to practice IFR flying and navigation and useful to a point for emergency simulation. The aim of the game is to get pilots mentally and physically dexterous and to know the machine they are flying. Basic flight training is doable but you need the physical sensation of a real aeroplane in the atmosphere to properly learn the craft. 

So thinking about the videos and initial post -- how do I approach the sim and the aeroplanes. First what aircraft? One I have flown or one I would like to have flown or one that is just interesting. Either and for all I need an operations manual that is a flight manual first with complete and accurate systems and limitation descriptions. I need operation procedures which for all operators is given via a company or unit Standard Operating Procedures manual - this provides all the do's and how to's and in what sequence that is how the aeroplane is to be flown. The rest assumes you are already a competent and qualified aviator - if your not then its personal pleasure of reproducing flight. I distill all this down to a card with all the critical speeds and flap sequences power settings etc for all phases of flight. I spend a lot of time with the sim running going nowhere running through checklists and getting to know the cockpit what is what and where. Your also looking to get a standard flow going that is left to right updown whatever so that scans and checks flow as well. Then I go flying, do quite a lot of taxying about and take offs to cruise. I have a look a a few approaches and landings visually. Generally I am working to manage the aeroplane, it systems and do execute sucessfully my intended sorte or flight plan. So yes every flight has to have a plan even Lesson 1 to learn to fly follows a plan. You got to take the machine for a ride not the machine take you for a ride. 

The outcome is I am impressed with a large number of the models in XP and their fidelity and systems reproduction they are demanding but accurate Big Aircraft and GA aircraft are particularly well catered for be it a B747 or a C172. XP Weather, light and cloud is more than satisfactory. So is the basic terrain and node points (airports) between A and B or C. I also collect a lot of models that meet none of the fidelity or accuracy criteria for various reasons say they are close but not any more than that. That is the side of simulation that is both a game and for pleasure - off course for me to simulate flight in a aircraft that no longers exist or for which there is no real airworthy example is but the pleasure of imagination. I can see what it may have been like to fly these aeroplanes but it is a game. 

A quote from an old and bold aviator and teacher - "Think I have been hard on you? Wait till Mother Nature has you by the throat on a dark and stormy night" And my only tip for Flight Directors the dot in the middle is the cat's word not allowed, cover it up with the cross hairs or model or it will ,,,,,,,,,in your face.

 

Edited January 11, 20251 yr by coastaldriver

28 minutes ago, coastaldriver said:

a game

Games usually reward you will kill points or pretty explosions. When you finish something, complete a task,  pretty sounds play . gold coins bounce around and you get a buzz because it looks and sounds nice.

Flight sims are different, there are no gold coins given, no kill points just the shear satisfaction of completing a flight learning something new and having a stressful, happy flight.

4 hours ago, mjrhealth said:

Games usually reward you will kill points or pretty explosions. When you finish something, complete a task,  pretty sounds play . gold coins bounce around and you get a buzz because it looks and sounds nice.

Flight sims are different, there are no gold coins given, no kill points just the shear satisfaction of completing a flight learning something new and having a stressful, happy flight.

True - never been happy describing flight simulation as a Game when it is for fun and pleasure. Certainly engaged in a lot of imagination but it has to be harnessed to doing something (the challenge of a different aeroplane or maybe just cross country scenery or challenging flights in bad weather or difficult geography. Guess I will just stick with flight simulator - covers it really! I remember the early sim type games - Bomber pilot was a brilliant but graphically horrible sim but a great game!

@coastaldriver, excellent post!

I agree, and yes it all depends on the use you give to it, the purpose. 

In my case and since I started using flight simulators, way before the first version of X-plane was announced, unless I am playing a soaring simulator, and I played 4 along my already long history of flight simulation, and presently use Condorsoaring 3, and try to replicate RW tasks I did and recorded, flying with a ghost of my flight and trying to do better, or simply getting familiar with a possible AAT I will be able to fly IRL, I consider what I do gamming, more than training...

 When I "seat" in my Toliss Airbus, with a flight planned in Simbrief these days and start at the gate, do the flows, fill the route, talk to ATC and start pax boarding ((never used GSX or the like, because I feel that having to see actual pax walking in or the marshaller is an unnecessary level of detail, as if I was playing with my Airfix soldiers in the early 70s of the last Century, and can cost performance that I would rather have for other areas of the simulation)), and then do the flight, sometimes from gate to gate, I am playing being an airline captain, or, sometimes, a FO, the profession I dreamed of being able to make my RW profession since I was around 5-6 yo...

It's a game for me, not in the sense of getting awards / points, or competing with some other player, although I confess that one of the most interesting aspects I find in MSF and found in MS FLIGHT are the Challenges and other Activities which I play sometimes addictively 🙂 and it was also in the mood of playing games that I played Air Combat simulators, getting almost addicted to War Thunder!!! which actually had the poorest of the flight dynamics modeling among all I played 🙂 ((most of the time I felt really stupid playing such games... chasing the enemy, dogfighting with my WW2 fighters... and I tried to justify it to myself when playing either DCS or IL-2 that I was there just because they had excellent flight dynamics ...)) .

But, a friend who is an airline pilot, captain, with experience in various types since Citation Jets, L-1011, A310, ... A321LR, who got ill and was forced to leave active flying during a couple years but then started simulator sessions again in order to get back to business, and who before that never paid any attention to flight simulation, started with P3D, and is now using P3D, MSFS and Xp11 with a home cockpit where he does his preparation and as he says "keeps proficient", is certainly not using these simulators as games only. As he says, using P3D and MSFS 2020 and the FSLabs products for both platforms, which he finds way better than any other options including the Tolisses, has helped him keeping familiar with many aspects of successfully pass his full flight simulator test rides.

So, it all depends - but desktop flight simulation is IMHO a game many play, pretending being what they look forward to be, or wanted to be their rw job...

Edited January 11, 20251 yr by jcomm

CoastalDriver, Jcomm,

Thanks for the thought provoking Sunday morning read.

Game ?...Simulation ? I suppose it depends on what you want to get out of it; which may vary with time. A bit like.. life .. I suppose.

Cheers Tim

To me, games reward with points and you strive to reach the top score or get the most stuff. Simulation requires some amount of knowledge and is more in depth, and usually includes following some procedure to achieve success. Skill development is very different in a sim in my opinion.

It irks me when my family says "Dad's in there playing again" which is not true. "Dad is in there simulating" is more correct. I don't play any games and they say I'm no fun. I do play cards now and then.

Simulations. Car/train/plane/boat sims. That is what I'm into. Haven't done much with space sims beyond "Elite Dangerous" (game) and "Space Engine" (learning tool/utility?). I suppose Elite Dangerous could be considered a sim if you use it offline and just mine or explore as it can be as complex as you want it to be.

Good stuff here.

I own Reentry, which simulates the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo (CSM and LEM) into the smallest detail. It comes with a comprehensive tutorial system, teaching you the procedures in details without you ever having to hit the manuals. And you get achievements for passing the academy lessons. Reentry therefore is a game.

In Kerbal Space Program, you get little in terms of handholding and tutorials and the art style is that of little green men trying to get to space. The underlying physics are hardcore and there is the added complexity of the economics of running a space program. KSP therefore is a simulation.

In X-Plane, if I fly an aircraft equipped with Reality Expansion Packs, I get rewards for flying in form of money, despite the underlying thorough simulation of aerodynamics and mechanics. Good landings reward a monetary bonus, which is why one wishes to achieve top score. If I add Mission generator on top, I get experience points that can be spent on skills that unlock mmore difficult flights. In that configuration, X-Plane clearly is a game.

Star Citizen has accurate physics and realistic systems. Food must be bought at vendors, parcels for delivery missions must be picked up from and delivered to terminals scattered around the locations. There is hunger and thirst, one can go to jail, and you must buy a backpack in order to transport food to your spaceship. There is no handholding whatsoever and no reward but money. Simulation, clearly.

In Operation Flashpoint (not sure about Arma), which had accurate projectile ballistics, optics and required realistic battlefield tactics, you got points for each kill. This determined you mission score. Absolutely a game.

 

What I want to say is that a strict "X-Plane, Star Citizen and KSP are simulations because they're down to the core of realism, everything else is a game because they formally reward and inform" is basically BS and is just used for self-elevating purposes over the "unpure" (enjoyers of less complex simulations and gamers). It absolutely does not matter if you get an Apollo CSM into orbit with this week's least deviation from the planned parameters or if you land a 737 single engine during a cat 3 hurricane and get a trophy, XP and payment bonus. The key is that the underlying physics are as accurate as feasible, not the rewards. You can have the most accurate physics down to the vapor droplet in each cloud, but if you do not wrap it in something that provides the proverbial carrot on a stick, some of the player base that does not enjoy the process of handling complex machinery itself will leave.

If you really want a distinction between game and simulation, then ask yourself this:

• Is Joe and Jane Doe playing it on a home computer or console with a variety of input controllers (KB+M, joypad, joysticks, VR controllers) the largest share of the intended market?
  --> Game, but the term "simulation" may be added when the underlying physics are complex and accurate enough.
• Is application in a professional environment the largest market and does it therefore require specialized hardware (cockpit mock-up on hydraulics, room with a VR headset and, say, weapon mockups)?
  --> Simulation.

So yes, X-Plane is a simulation game that happens to be training certified because it models elements like flight physics and avionics well enough. But still, it is a game.

 

Now if you excuse me, I'll go and continue working on an X-Plane tool to provide a carrot on a stick because even flying helicopters gets boring once you got the handling down.

 

Hey, papy... Can you please land your airplane and come play with me? Puleeeze...? 🥴... Used to ask my daughter... many moons ago...