Again, who CARES if it is FAA approved or not? it is irrelevant to use here in AVSIM. Completely and utterly irrelevant. It is like a school playground argument over who has the best football team...

Edited March 20, 20251 yr by Ianrivaldosmith

1 hour ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Again, who CARES if it is FAA approved or not? it is irrelevant to use here in AVSIM. Completely and utterly irrelevant. It is like a school playground argument over who has the best football team...

Well, in all fairness, we see people going on about pebbles and rocks on the runway in the MSFS forums.  

Some people like discussing FAA certification in here. 

While I agree it's likely a futile discussion, the original mention of FAA was in response to efis who said X-Plane is by no means, a serious sim, in the slightest.  Many of us disagree, as it is being used for flight training in various corporations and flying schools.

You are, by all means, not obligated to take part in FAA discussions.  There are people in here who wish to discuss it.  

Edited March 20, 20251 yr by GoranM

2 hours ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

who CARES

Who? Sorry? I mean....obviously you for one:

 

2 hours ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Again

Which did make me laugh. Obviously you think it should never be brought up. I too don't get why folks like you turn it into:

 

2 hours ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

a school playground argument

 

by bringing it up "again". It's just a fact of life. It's a badge/status that can't be refuted or denied, regardless of how it's interpreted. Is it a measure of quality? Maybe the FAA's standards are low here? Ok. That's a bad thing? Yes? No? Something to argue? A cover up for bugs and Mike's unrequited networking amor and foot stomping? I don't really think so.

I struggle to see how it doesn't point to development goals in general. Tag you're 'it'?

2 hours ago, GoranM said:

While I agree it's likely a futile discussion, the original mention of FAA was in response to efis who said X-Plane is by no means, a serious sim, in the slightest.  Many of us disagree, as it is being used for flight training in various corporations and flying schools.

They really don't get it. I'm stumped.

Edited March 20, 20251 yr by Murmur

4 hours ago, GoranM said:

the original mention of FAA was in response to efis who said X-Plane is by no means, a serious sim

What does "serious" mean?
Define the word "serious" please.
Even toothpaste is a serious product, made by serious companies, compliant with serious quality standards, compliant with serious legal regulations, designed by serious graduates... and so on and so forth.
But if I give it to an undisciplined consumer who uses that product to stain people's clothes or deface walls, that exact same product no longer has anything "serious" IF it is used in that way.
It is the operator who - with his disciplined or undisciplined behavior - decides if and when that product is "serious" or "not serious".

The same thing happens with Xplane.
Xplane is a product similar to millions of other serious hardware or software products, which are bought by consumers to do something.
Something serious or not serious, it is completely irrelevant, XPlane has no power to decide how its product should be used from a gaming or non-gaming perspective, i.e. "serious" or "not serious" use.

Do you remember Germanwings flight 9525?
The co-pilot Andreas Lubitz was a serious pilot, he had trained on serious and certified simulators, he was flying an Airbus A320, which is a serious airplane, with serious flight dynamics.
But on March 24, 2015 that operator decided to throw all his seriousness down the toilet and turned a "serious" flight into an experience of total indiscipline that destroyed the plane and caused hundreds of deaths.
What did those people die of?
They died because of undisciplined behavior of the operator, and NOT because the plane or the simulators were not serious!

So @Larivaldosmith is right.
99% of us, we play with xplane, we don't care about FAA certification.
I don't have an FAA certified Xp12 at home!
Do you have it?
Surely not.
Is there anyone else in this forum who has it?
I guess no one.
So what??
What's the point of talking about something we DON'T have at home?
It would be like talking about Ferrari, and since I have a FIAT car (which is an important partner of Ferrari!) I should be happy about this news. 
Too bad I don't have a Ferrari in my yard, I have a FIAT, so who cares about Ferrari! 😆

The phrase that appears when Xplane starts up "FAA approved simulator" is only displayed for advertising purposes to make a scene and give itself airs of grandeur compared to the competition.
But as I have already explained, if you put at the controls of the "serious Xplane" an undisciplined operator who has every intention of using that product irresponsibly, all the "seriousness" of Xplane loses all its meaning.
Exactly as if I put a piano (a very serious instrument) in the hands of an incompetent who does not know music.
What "seriousness" could that instrument ever express in the hands of an irresponsible incompetent?
It would become a miserable toy that has nothing "serious" about it anymore (except the price).

Edited March 20, 20251 yr by efis007

21 minutes ago, efis007 said:

Even toothpaste is a "serious" product, made by "serious" companies, compliant with "serious" quality standards, compliant with "serious" legal regulations, designed by "serious" graduates... and so on and so forth.

False equivalence fallacy. 
you’re intelligent enough to know exactly what I mean.  It was a direct response to your comment, under your context and definition. 
 

"serious" in this context was probably meant as a tool that can be used for professional flight training, and that is true that is a niche market that xplane has carved out for themselves unlike MSFS, whose target audience is anything but commercial flight training. MS have said that before and it is obvious as they consider their xbox game consoles a major part of their MSFS customers.

yet, my impression is that many xplaners around here abuse xplane's the FAA approval as proof of a certain superiority over non FAA approved simulators, which looks to me like someone with an inferiority complex who tries each and every minor, however irrelevant feature of the commercial xplane version to proof to the world: we are the champions.

and yes, there are a few details that I enjoy in xplane that are sorely missed in MSFS, for example the ability to adjust visibility, as was possible in previous versions and no one understands why they didn't add this, despite many many requests for 5 years.

now forget your FAA and "serious" rhethoric. xplane users made a choice to use this simulator and it has many things going for it, and many missing: a feature complete set of Garmin GPS devices being one of them. the ability to include or drive an external GPS is a requirement of your beloved FAA certification. now what?

enjoy what you have got, but once and for all forget those Sim-OS wars. it won't change anybody's preference a bit.

Edited March 20, 20251 yr by turbomax

9 minutes ago, GoranM said:

False equivalence fallacy. 
you’re intelligent enough to know exactly what I mean.  It was a direct response to your comment, under your context and definition. 

There is no false fallacy.
Do you want me to record a video where I show you how to transform an "FAA certified simulator" into a banal video game?
Tell me and I'll do it, it costs me nothing to start Xplane and use it in a totally improper and undisciplined way.
So, please, let's put an end to this nice little story about the "serious simulator".
Only I as an operator have the absolute power to make Xplane "serious" or "not serious".
And if you want I can demonstrate it to you, just ask me.

17 minutes ago, efis007 said:

There is no false fallacy.
Do you want me to record a video where I show you how to transform an "FAA certified simulator" into a banal video game?
Tell me and I'll do it, it costs me nothing to start Xplane and use it in a totally improper and undisciplined way.
So, please, let's put an end to this nice little story about the "serious simulator".
Only I as an operator have the absolute power to make Xplane "serious" or "not serious".
And if you want I can demonstrate it to you, just ask me.

You're equating a tube of toothpaste to a flight simulator.  

That is literally a false equivalence.

Whatever floats your boat. 
Fact:  X-Plane can be used to log flight hours. 
Fact:  Airlines and FBO’s are using X-Plane for flight training. 
Nothing you say can change those. 
have a nice day. 

Edited March 20, 20251 yr by GoranM

1 hour ago, efis007 said:

So @Larivaldosmith is right.
99% of us, we play with xplane, we don't care about FAA certification.
I don't have an FAA certified Xp12 at home!
Do you have it?
Surely not.
Is there anyone else in this forum who has it?
I guess no one.
So what??
What's the point of talking about something we DON'T have at home?
It would be like talking about Ferrari, and since I have a FIAT car (which is an important partner of Ferrari!) I should be happy about this news. 
Too bad I don't have a Ferrari in my yard, I have a FIAT, so who cares about Ferrari! 😆

There's something called "Freedom of speech".  In avsim, it's bordered by moderator rules.  Seeing as X-Plane is a flight simulator.  And it CAN be used to log flight hours, then you, nor anyone else, can prevent anyone talking about it.  It's a discussion forum.  We discuss elements of X-Plane, WITHIN the X-Plane forum.  

Who cares if none of us have it.  (Well, apparently you care).

I find it mind blowing that the mere mention of something X-Plane has, that other sims don't have, is enough to bring people in here to dispute it...vigorously.  

If it was an opinion, then you have every right to challenge that opinion.  But it's fact.  If that fact is enough to trigger you, I suggest you take time off this forum, and go for a walk.

It's a flight sim.  You're getting this worked up over pixels on a screen, that just so happens can be modified with hardware to be FAA approved.

 

Edited March 20, 20251 yr by GoranM

Fact: the vast majority still prefers another simulator, because it doesn't matter to them what some flight school uses.

Fact: hardly anyone around here would like to spend hours and hours on end in a "serious" FAA approved simulator. for home use there need to be a lot of other ingredients to enjoy a simulator.

Fact: hardly anyone in this forum would benefit from an FAA approved simulator because they don't plan to log a few IFR hours towards an IFR license. most home users struggle with basic aviation challenges, let alone IFR procedures. therefore: forget your eternal FBO/FAA rhethoric to prove to the world xplane's general superiority. for home use it is not.

13 minutes ago, turbomax said:

Fact: the vast majority still prefers another simulator, because it doesn't matter to them what some flight school uses.

Fact: hardly anyone around here would like to spend hours and hours on end in a "serious" FAA approved simulator. for home use there need to be a lot of other ingredients to enjoy a simulator.

Fact: hardly anyone in this forum would benefit from an FAA approved simulator because they don't plan to log a few IFR hours towards an IFR license. most home users struggle with basic aviation challenges, let alone IFR procedures. therefore: forget your eternal FBO/FAA rhethoric to prove to the world xplane's general superiority. for home use it is not.

Maybe because the customer base of that other simulator are interested in gaming, instead of "serious" flight simulators.

Fact.  MSFS sales.  A flight sim made by over 300 people.  According to Asobo, 10 million plus.  

Fact:  Minecraft sales.  A game made by 2 people.  300 million.

Would you like to flex popularity stats some more?

Fact:  You hate X-Plane, yet you still come here, and haven't posted a single positive post.

Fact:  It's people like you that keep pushing commercial developers from X-Plane away from MSFS, due to your toxic rants and mockery.  

Edited March 20, 20251 yr by GoranM

5 minutes ago, turbomax said:

Fact: the vast majority still prefers another simulator, because it doesn't matter to them what some flight school uses.

Fact: hardly anyone around here would like to spend hours and hours on end in a "serious" FAA approved simulator. for home use there need to be a lot of other ingredients to enjoy a simulator.

Fact: hardly anyone in this forum would benefit from an FAA approved simulator because they don't plan to log a few IFR hours towards an IFR license. most home users struggle with basic aviation challenges, let alone IFR procedures. therefore: forget your eternal FBO/FAA rhethoric to prove to the world xplane's general superiority. for home use it is not.

Exactly for the reason that most used sim is being used for entertainment only. XP isn’t. The fact that there are more GTA-users than Airliner-captains in the world, has absolutely nothing to do with each others. Nothing.

46 minutes ago, turbomax said:

abuse xplane's the FAA

Abuse? Oh my. Somebody's having an:

47 minutes ago, turbomax said:

inferiority complex

which is very well demonstrated by posts like:

12 minutes ago, turbomax said:

Fact: the vast majority still prefers another simulator, because it doesn't matter to them what some flight school uses.

and

41 minutes ago, efis007 said:

And if you want I can demonstrate it to you, just ask me.

 

10 minutes ago, GoranM said:

Fact:  Minecraft sales.  A game made by 2 people.  300 million.

A slight correction: Minecraft is developed by an Xbox Game Studio called Mojang Studios. The last I saw, Mojang Studios had over 700 employees.