On 3/12/2025 at 11:57 PM, efis007 said:

GoranM said:

X-Plane is FAA approved. Can’t get more serious than that

it can get much more serious than that and we all know it. FAA approval does not require "plausible" scenery, ATC, AI traffic, GPS, volumetric clouds, spatial sounds, PBR textures, tire smoke effects, wake turbulence, heat blur, VR, rain/snow, terrain based wind flow ... and so on and so forth.

you can have a basic FTD "flight training device" FAA approved that none of us would ever want to own, yet you can log IFR training hours on it. the label "FAA approved" in our context therefore is only trying to suggest super realistic quality and superiority over other, non FAA approved simulators, to excuse the many deficits that has plagued xplane for years. wasn't already x-plane 8 or 9 FAA approved? I, as a real pilot, use x-plane 12 sometimes for what it is, but "FAA approved" is the least of my requirements. I am glad my real pilot license is "FAA approved" though. 🤣

 

https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nsp/faa-qualified-flight-simulation-training-devices

Edited March 17, 20251 yr by turbomax

ELITE IFT is FAA aproved (and not only) and just look at it's graphics, out of windshield, and at the flight dynamics out of the "Normal IFR envelope"..., ground physics, etc...

3 hours ago, turbomax said:

it can get much more serious than that and we all know it. FAA approval does not require "plausible" scenery, ATC, AI traffic, GPS, volumetric clouds, spatial sounds, PBR textures, tire smoke effects, wake turbulence, heat blur, VR, rain/snow, terrain based wind flow ... and so on and so forth

It is very simple: being FAA approved is a sufficient condition for it being considered serious. There can't be an FAA approved flight sim that can't be defined a serious flight simulator, whether it's a visual-rich product like XP12 or a visual-basic product like ELITE.

If that bothers you, well, it's your problem.

On 3/15/2025 at 8:16 PM, DeltaWho said:

 

 

And with that, I'm somewhat bored of this thread now...

great, can you go back to working on xp12 version of EGKK.  Thanks 🙂 

Who, if anyone, is actually using X-Plane 12 here at avsim or even at the org as an FAA-approved training device? I am going to guess at 2 or less. It is completely irrelevant to most users here. We just want nice scenery and aircraft, with some nice graphics effects, hence the reason Laminar keep implementing them into the game. Then sell said game on that gaming platform called steam. The don't sell it there as an FAA approved training device. If they did, I wouldn't buy it. 

My point is that it's great that it can be used as an FAA device if you go through the rigmarole. Fantastic. However, for most users here, who cares? Not me. For starters, isn't the FAA limited to North America? That makes the feature even more irrelevant here in the UK/Europe/the Rest of the world. 

Edited March 17, 20251 yr by Ianrivaldosmith

2 hours ago, Murmur said:

is a sufficient condition for it being considered serious.

 

1 hour ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Who, if anyone, is actually using X-Plane 12 here at avsim or even at the org as an FAA-approved training device? I am going to guess at 2 or less. It is completely irrelevant to most users here. We just want nice scenery and aircraft, with some nice graphics effects, hence the reason Laminar keep implementing them into the game. Then sell said game on that gaming platform called steam. The don't sell it there as an FAA approved training device. If they did, I wouldn't buy it. 

My point is that it's great that it can be used as an FAA device if you go through the rigmarole. Fantastic. However, for most users here, who cares? Not me. For starters, isn't the FAA limited to North America? That makes the feature even more irrelevant here in the UK/Europe/the Rest of the world. 

These are the typical comments made to diminish that capability of XP. Those comments are usuall being made by (what a surprise) MS-admirers. Bingo. Usually we also see other typical comments like: flying a sim or a real aircraft is not comparable anyway, so why even bother? 😉

I think that is exactly the difference beetween a game and an approved simulator. Of course gamers prefer a nice-looking game. And of course there are much more gamers. The point Goran was making was exactly about those users. And yes simulating an aircraft addon for a certified sim is the most serious we can do when we talk about sims. He may correct me if I missinterpreted what he said.

And indeed I did look into that possibility myself when I started my PPL. I was expecting to be able to spend about 10‘000$ for a certified setting but gave up shortly before my first solo and after having spent around 22-23‘000$, that‘s why I abandonned that idea. But I was interested in being able to train at home and log some hours in a sim.

Edited March 17, 20251 yr by Franz007

2 hours ago, Franz007 said:

These are the typical comments made to diminish that capability of XP. Those comments are usuall being made by (what a surprise) MS-admirers. Bingo. Usually we also see other typical comments like: flying a sim or a real aircraft is not comparable anyway, so why even bother? 😉

What? There is nothing typical about my comment nor am I diminishing the capability of XP. 
 

You’re very assumptive aren’t you? MS admirers? I never once mentioned MS, you did for some strange reason. Just because you don’t like an opinion, you don’t have to assume things and twist it to fit your own narrative. That’s what starts stupid arguments in here. 
 

I simply mentioned that for 95% or so of the user base in here, FAA approval is irrelevant. If you can’t handle that, scroll on by. And I’m not sure what the winking face was about, is that how you stroke your own ego? 

3 hours ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

You’re very assumptive aren’t you? MS admirers? I never once mentioned MS, you did for some strange reason. Just because you don’t like an opinion, you don’t have to assume things and twist it to fit your own narrative. That’s what starts stupid arguments in here. 

Let’s reframe it: it’s the kind of comments usually coming from MSFS-users (and being liked by other MSFS-users), that’s all I am saying. I also added « bingo ». What is strange about that? Just because you don’t like an opinion, it’s not a reason to attack me.

3 hours ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

I simply mentioned that for 95% or so of the user base in here, FAA approval is irrelevant. If you can’t handle that, scroll on by. And I’m not sure what the winking face was about, is that how you stroke your own ego?

What are your source for the 95%? And that was not what Goran was talking about by mentionning developping an addon in a certified setting, talking about the « serious » part. It’s a commercial part that is important for Laminar (as it is or was for P3D). The fact that the sim is being used by a majority of users not interested in that commercial part doesn’t make that part less serious.

4 hours ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

simply mentioned that for 95% or so of the user base in here, FAA approval is irrelevant

 not if we are talking about the thing that a lot purchase xplane for, flght model.

12 hours ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Who, if anyone, is actually using X-Plane 12 here at avsim or even at the org as an FAA-approved training device? I am going to guess at 2 or less.

Here or the org?  I won’t try to guess. Probably very few. Forums are rarely, if ever, visited by high profile entities training under FAA regulations.  They have their own communities.

Factually, based on the information I have? Overall, over 300. And that number was just my last contract late last year.  This doesn't include the airlines using my Saab (Several airlines in the US use it for flight training), or the FBO’s using the 650 and TBM. I even had one pilot ask for a fully customized version of my C23, which he paid a substantial amount of money for.  Are they logging hours under FAA rules?  I can’t say. But I can say, at the very least, they’re using those add ons for serious flight training. 

The total number of people using X-Plane under FAA rules, spread out over all the developers who have done contracts for those corporations is quite significant.  

 

17 hours ago, turbomax said:

it can get much more serious than that and we all know it. FAA approval does not require "plausible" scenery, ATC, AI traffic, GPS, volumetric clouds, spatial sounds, PBR textures, tire smoke effects, wake turbulence, heat blur, VR, rain/snow, terrain based wind flow ... and so on and so forth.

you can have a basic FTD "flight training device" FAA approved that none of us would ever want to own, yet you can log IFR training hours on it. the label "FAA approved" in our context therefore is only trying to suggest super realistic quality and superiority over other, non FAA approved simulators, to excuse the many deficits that has plagued xplane for years. wasn't already x-plane 8 or 9 FAA approved? I, as a real pilot, use x-plane 12 sometimes for what it is, but "FAA approved" is the least of my requirements. I am glad my real pilot license is "FAA approved" though. 🤣

And it’s obvious you completely missed the entire context of the discussion. I’m glad @Murmur explained it to you, though. 

Perhaps the clouds in 12.2 will fix your persistent issue you used to keep posting about.  Although, based on your recent forum activity, it's obvious you likely have no further interest in X-Plane.

Edited March 18, 20251 yr by GoranM

8 hours ago, mjrhealth said:

 not if we are talking about the thing that a lot purchase xplane for, flght model.

For the kind of installation XP is certified for - BATD/AATD - flight model is not the focus.

Transport delays, instructor stations and ability to intervene the sim and inter-connectivity (hardware+ software interfaces) are much more important requirements. EASA:s equivalent would the FNPT II (these are dual control setups, used also for MCC)

For example, EASA requires this for an FNPT II (those you could log time in towards PPL and instrument rating)

• generic ground handling model need only be provided to enable representative flare and touch down effects.
• no requirement at all for wind shear models/recovery procedures
  • Thats means no UPRT...
• no requirement for brake and tyre failure dynamics
• no requirement for stopping and directional control forces on dry/wet/slippery runways 
• no requirement that the aerodynamic model has to incorporate data representing the aeroplane’s characteristics covering an angle of attack and sideslip range.
• what about systems ? Ah, now the requirements are coming. "systems shall be operative to the extent that it shall be possible to perform all normal, abnormal and emergency operations as may be appropriate to the aeroplane or class of aeroplanes being simulated and as required for the training." As in cockpit procedure training. That's why these things exist.

I could go on, but do not believe that the "flight model" is what makes a fixed base simulator approved by the authorities. Quite blunt: you do not need accurate FM for the items you can log in these things.

For instance, you can not log takeoffs or landings. You can not perform upset/recovery training.  You need to enter full flight simulator (FFS) level C/D territory where flight model requirements becomes stringent and actually matters.

You might disagree with this, but this is not my opinion, this is straight from the regulations.

You can argue all day with me, but, I am pretty certain most users here and in the community in general that are using Xplane (myself included) want better graphics. Why? Because flight model alone isn't enough. (And having only flown a C172 and piper IRL, who am I to say if a flight model is good or not? Most of us are armchair pilots) We want pretty graphics. Laminar seem to acknowledge this too, otherwise we wouldn't have things like puddles 🙂 I am pretty certain that companies using it as an instructor station/FAA device etc... could not care less if there were puddles... 

Edited March 18, 20251 yr by Ianrivaldosmith

20 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

For the kind of installation XP is certified for - BATD/AATD - flight model is not the focus.

Transport delays, instructor stations and ability to intervene the sim and inter-connectivity (hardware+ software interfaces) are much more important requirements. EASA:s equivalent would the FNPT II (these are dual control setups, used also for MCC)

For example, EASA requires this for an FNPT II (those you could log time in towards PPL and instrument rating)

...snipped

He didn't say a lot of people purchase it for FAA training.  He said a lot of people purchase X-Plane for the flight model.

I got into it because the first X-Plane video I saw was for JRollons CRJ, and I say moving 3D switches.  A completely new thing I wasn't used to.  FSX had animated textures.  And the VC was mediocre at best.  6 sided dials and 4 sided switches in the VC.  Most of us spent time in the 2D cockpit.

15 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

I am pretty certain most users here and in the community in general that are using Xplane (myself included) want better graphics.

No one is arguing that point.  It's safe to say that 100% of us want better graphics.  That's why almost every developer is helping Laminar with input into every version of X-Plane.  That's why Austin hired Farouk.  Because he's great at what he does, and Austin saw the lighting he made for Enhanced Skyscapes.  

The point is, most of us know that these things take time, and cannot be done in a week.  Looking at the state it's in now, it's very close to where most of us want it, with the technology/hardware we have.  If we integrate Auto Ortho into it, X-Plane can almost stand up against MSFS (watch the flaming following this comment).  

There are still a few issues that need to get looked at, but X-Plane 12.2 (Yes, I do have it, so I can comment on it) is looking very nice, indeed.

I never got xplane for its looks, but because it was far better than fsx, except for the atc, finally huge improvement. Yes graphics are nice but i rarley get out of ths vc to take a look, even at cabins.