I see people still don't get the point about the "FAA approved" argument that originated in this thread.

It's obvious that for most users, XP being FAA approved or not is basically irrelevant.

In this thread though, all started when someone ironically defined XP as a "serious simulator" (therefore suggesting that it isn't, after all, a serious simulator).

Hence, @GoranM correctly observed that the simple fact that XP is FAA approved, defines it ipso facto a serious simulator, whether or not it's relevant for XP home users. But still people don't get it and go on rambling about what the requirements are for being FAA approved, etc.

(Yes, I agree with @peroni that discussing these things over and over is boring, and that I'm contributing to it as well).

17 hours ago, SAS443 said:

we are not debating anything MSFS. You keep mentioning that title repeatedly.

We are "debating" how the flight model is relevant to an FAA approval (BATD/AATD/FNPT)

I have shown the requirements. But still some people feel it "must mean something".

The answer is still "no", Franz.

 

We were debating the „serious“ side. And the result is still that XP offers it.

Looking forward to XP 15.2 beta,

3 hours ago, Murmur said:

I see people still don't get the point about the "FAA approved" argument that originated in this thread.
......
But still people don't get it and go on rambling about what the requirements are for being FAA approved.

Here's the thing.
The most common consensus is that Xplane is FAA approved because of its flight dynamics.
That's not true.
Flight dynamics are not part of FAA certification, so the equation "xplane=accurate flight dynamics=FAA certification" makes no sense.
This false belief that "flight dynamics=serious simulation=FAA certification" continues to spread like wildfire on all the forums instead of being debunked.

Furthermore, the word "serious" is also misused.
What does "serious" mean?
A piano, for example, is an absolutely "serious" instrument, it is used by thousands of world-famous concert pianists, it was also used by Chopin and other great historical artists to compose "serious" music of the highest accuracy.
But if I hand a piano over to an undisciplined person, this exact same "serious" instrument will only produce disjointed sounds that have nothing to do with "serious".

A simulator is similar to a piano.
It only an instrument.
And like any other instrument, it requires a disciplinary approach for its correct use.
If I use it in a disciplined way, it becomes a "serious" instrument, i.e. a simulator.
If I use it in an undisciplined way, it becomes a "non-serious" instrument, i.e. a game.
The much chatter "FAA certification" does not have the power to transform an instrument into "serious" or "not serious".
It is always the operator who decides whether to use that instrument in a "serious" or "not serious" way, and therefore to transform that instrument into a serious learning tool or into a banal pastime game.

Edited March 19, 20251 yr by efis007

I have to side with @efis007 here.

I cringe every time that my fellow X-Plane fans field the "FAA approved" argument as a means to achieve domination in the "sim vs sim" debate.

Ultimately, the "professional" version of X-Plane allows to use X-Plane in a commercial way - to make money with it. Much like the infamous "licensed by Airbus/Boeing" badges that third-party airplane devs like to slap on their models, this says next to nothing about the fidelity or accuracy of the model, it simply states that those companies allow their name to be used to "make money" with it.

I am explicitly not going to touch on the subject of which flightmodel is more accurate or which sim is better here.

To my knowledge, historically X-Plane was used to drive training devices that were "FAA approved" to log hours towards flight training - but in a very limited way, basically only to practice IFR procedures like VOR or NDB navigation - not to learn how to operate an aircraft´s systems or even how to "fly".
As far as I know, this was done using X-Plane 9 or earlier versions, and probably X-Plane 9 was used because it offers an easier way to couple custom hardware than the contemporary other flight simulators.

But I am convinced that most of the other simulators currently out there could easily be used to make a training device that is FAA approved, as well. All you need is a way to hook it up to realistic enough hardware.

tl;dr: Don´t use the "FAA approved" argument anymore when trying to achieve my-sim-is-better-than-your-sim dominance - it can be dispelled easily and carries little weight.

1 hour ago, efis007 said:

Flight dynamics are not part of FAA certification, so the equation "xplane=accurate flight dynamics=FAA certification" makes no sense.
This false belief that "flight dynamics=serious simulation=FAA certification" continues to spread like wildfire on all the forums instead of being debunked.

FAA approval preferably discussed on the xplane forums to make their users feel superior in light of its many deficits. many xplane users celebrate the fact that another, $ 500 version of xplane, not the version/configuration they are actually using, "could" be used together with additional FAA approved hardware, which they usually also don't have, to make it an FAA approved FTD which is usually not entertaining at all and not suitable for the home entertainment market, the majority has never flown a real airplane, let alone under IFR conditions and struggle with IFR and advanced avionics procedures. otherwise why don't we all use those "serious and professional" versions?  as SAS443, efis007 and others have pointed out, FAA approval is a meaningless placebo for the xplane12 version we are discussing here.

Edited March 19, 20251 yr by turbomax

7 minutes ago, turbomax said:

that another, $ 500 version of xplane, not the version/configuration they are actually using, "could" be used

I would have to correct this - the "professional" version of X-Plane is identical (except for some licensing stuff) to the "regular" version. The one major difference is the price and the fact that you can make money with it legally.

Edited March 19, 20251 yr by Litjan

18 minutes ago, Litjan said:

I would have to correct this - the "professional" version of X-Plane is identical

and I would have to correct that again 🤣

"It unlocks features of the simulator not available in X-Plane 12 Global. Specifically – the ability to use cylindrical and spherical projection (as found in large simulators).

It provides hardware and frame-rate checks required for FAA certification of the simulator,"

and it costs between $ 500 - $ 1.000.

https://www.x-plane.com/pro/#:~:text=What makes it "X-Plane for Professional Use"%3F 1,simulator not available in X-Plane 12 Global.

Edited March 19, 20251 yr by turbomax

Again, and as @Murmur hinted, bringing more ashes to the fireplace 🙂 I can only compare this whole question of seriousness / accuracy to the way a simulator I have used since version 6, even as a beta tester for Elite Flight Simulations for versions 7, 8 and 9 - ELITE IFT.

Scenery wise it was as basic as FS5...

Systems wise, and IFR instruction wise it was the best available at that time, when X-Plane was already being commercialized too, but not with detailled aircraft avionics and operational features that could make flying one of the specific GA aircraft included in the ELITE fleet a very close to the real thing model.

Flight Dynamics wer OK the moment one left contact with ground, until landing and getting again in contact with ground, because ground physics were a pure joke...

Inflight it was "rather on-rails" even with nice turbulence effects... but it flew to the numbers, each of the aircraft, and users could make use of their real aircraft operating procedures and performance tables to obtain the exact numbers in the sim.

Some major aerodynamics effects associated with prop aircraft, some powerful, some twins, were there too, and it was possible to bring an aircraft to the "out-of-normal-envelope" state, but the moment it reached it, all evolved in a rather "pictoric" form, as far from reality as it could be since stalls were simply not modelled in the post stall range.

Yet ELITE had it's FNPT versions, FAA / CAA / EASA /... aproved

2 minutes ago, jcomm said:

included in the ELITE fleet

wrong forum

48 minutes ago, turbomax said:

Specifically – the ability to use cylindrical and spherical projection (as found in large simulators).

It provides hardware and frame-rate checks required for FAA certification of the simulator,"

That is why I said "major difference". The points you highlight will have next to no impact to most users (except for those with a desire to project the picture in a cylindrical and spherical way).

But I don´t want to get into a "splitting hairs" fight with you here.

I think we agree that for what is usually connected to the "FAA" argument - that X-Plane provides superior flight dynamics and physics - is not the reason for FAA certification and most other simulators out there could achieve it with very little effort by the developers, too.

Edited March 19, 20251 yr by Litjan

48 minutes ago, turbomax said:

wrong forum

No @turbomax, it was meant as comparison to what was called a "Professional and FAA certified IFR traning platform"... Yet it was very basic scenery and ground physics wise, only 2D panels, basic lighting, acceptable FM within the normal "IFR envelope" and very good systems wise.

Simmers would run away from it though...

1 hour ago, turbomax said:

FAA approval preferably discussed on the xplane forums to make their users feel superior in light of its many deficits.

You're making it sound as though LR is using the FAA cert card as a marketing cover for bugs and known deficiencies. Or maybe there's some lost-in-translation there? If anyone's struggling with a superiority complex, it's those trying to reconcile a slathering of logos of a major video game console, with 'serious'.

Though the FAA card may not necessarily equate to the simulation fidelity level that some hope, it certainly does allude to development goals.

Also, where are you seeing $500 on LR's website? I only see $1000-1250. That $500 option only appears as part of the hardware combo from the 3rd party vendors.

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

Simmers would run away from it though...

ok, if you say so then lets talk about Elite, everybody else please scroll by. 

I didn't run away from it, I actually used it a lot, it was the best "serious" 🤣 IFR procedure trainer, ran on Windows NT (hence "serious") 🤣, developed by 2 swiss airline captains. they contacted us and asked if we couldn't develop a "bridge" plugin to drive another "not so serious" simulator in full screen scenery only view mode because they didn't know how to develop something that would even remotely look like "plausible" scenery.  I suggested they should add at least engine sound to the otherwise totally silent simulator, but I was brushed off: "serious pilots training towards their IFR license don't need sound" 🤣 and only used it as a silent movie IFR sailplane simulator.

That was some 40 years ago, just before the first "Sound Blaster" card with synthetic voice and music capabilities was "invented" for the IBM pc.

ehem, cough, what was the question again?

oh yes, on came another, not so serious simulator WITH sound, and the rest is Elite-history.

Edited March 19, 20251 yr by turbomax

54 minutes ago, turbomax said:

ok, if you say so then lets talk about Elite, everybody else please scroll by. 

I didn't run away from it, I actually used it a lot, it was the best "serious" 🤣 IFR procedure trainer, ran on Windows NT (hence "serious") 🤣, developed by 2 swiss airline captains. they contacted us and asked if we couldn't develop a "bridge" plugin to drive another "not so serious" simulator in full screen scenery only view mode because they didn't know how to develop something that would even remotely look like "plausible" scenery.  I suggested they should add at least engine sound to the otherwise totally silent simulator, but I was brushed off: "serious pilots training towards their IFR license don't need sound" 🤣 and only used it as a silent movie IFR sailplane simulator.

That was some 40 years ago, just before the first "Sound Blaster" card with synthetic voice and music capabilities was "invented" for the IBM pc.

ehem, cough, what was the question again?

oh yes, on came another, not so serious simulator WITH sound, and the rest is Elite-history.

Ah! 

And yet later they went MS ESP and then P3D for the visuals, which I was eager to test up to their latest dektop version, v9, unfortunately discontinued...

And there was yet another internal visuals scenery, developed in-house but never finished 🙂

I used ELITE up to v9 with P3D up to v5 and it was a nice experience 🙂

Up to v5 though it was still missing some really important, specially for it IFR training purpose, features, like a correct modelling of VHF signal reach, for instance from VOR / TACAN stations, but not only. I made a list of such limitations and some bugs, and they were taken into consideration in the next version 🙂

Good old times 😉