1 hour ago, eslader said:

The snooty "it's a simulator, keep the unwashed gamer masses off of my simulator" garbage is what's objectionable....A full motion level D 747 sim is awesome, but no one would think that I was training to fly a 747 in the thing. For me, it was a fantastic video game because that's how I was using it....

That's the sense I had when I dared show a few screenshots of 2020 way back when to gamers on the XP forum--the snooty, elitist piece, and it came down like this:  "What we care about can't be seen in screenshots..."  Okay, sure, understood.  But it didn't take long to learn just how much effort by those same folks, and indeed that product line itself as it advanced to version 12, was almost 100% focused on improving the visuals.  Why?  After all as is known in more advanced pro simulators graphics play a relatively minor role.   IOW, the focus on visuals has much more to do with the 'entertainment' aspect, not the 'aviation simulation' piece.  Arguably now both platforms, or all three platforms including P3D, all provide comparable experiences as simulators to RW aviation such that anyone using any platform for 'training' will find very similar value amongst the three.  So it's really down to the other element:  entertainment.  Which platform of the three would be found to be more 'entertaining'?

4 hours ago, eslader said:

As I've said, yes, MSFS is a simulator, but it's also and arguably primarily a game because it was designed to be and is sold as an entertainment product. Kerbal Space Program is an orbital mechanics simulator, and a surprisingly good one, but no one denies that it is a game. Gran Turismo is a racing simulator that everyone understands is a game.

Again, it's both. I think we don't need to argue about that again. Everyone also understands a sim as a sim, although it may be entertainment. I fly in real for entertainment but I don't see it as a game neither. Entertainment doesn't automatically mean game.

The guys I know @ MS play this on Xbox. Not gaming rigs.

1 hour ago, Franz007 said:

Again, it's both. I think we don't need to argue about that again. Everyone also understands a sim as a sim, although it may be entertainment. I fly in real for entertainment but I don't see it as a game neither. Entertainment doesn't automatically mean game.

Once again it comes down to how it's used though to qualify as a 'game' it needs to meet some rough criteria.  Looking at this from the Oracle it seems pretty easy to see how flight sims can and are used as 'games'.  What I find odd are people who *need* to distance themselves from the concept of game or gaming as in their minds it clearly has a negative connotation.  Once I got the basics of flight and flight sims down decades ago I found myself looking for ways to make the activity more meaningful, more interesting to do over and over, and it took some of the following gaming elements to do that.  Flying for score using APL and SLC work very well for that.  Now in the RW survival and doing things as close to perfectly per protocols clearly doesn't depend on external 'game' elements per se--it's built in--do it right or risk real consequences.  In a flight sim this piece is severely lacking as there are no meaningful consequences.  So we bring in gaming elements to help offset that.  One doesn't need to have a scoring element like APL/SLC have, one can internally make note of how well they are performing what they need to.  So in that regard, it's also functioning as a game...."I'll see if I can do this perfectly...."

What are the basic elements to qualify something to be considered as a 'game'?

ChatGPT said:

Great question! While definitions can vary depending on context (e.g., psychology, game design, or law), most scholars and designers agree on a few core elements that define something as a game:

1. Goals – There must be a clear objective or set of objectives for players to achieve.

2. Rules – The game operates within a structured set of rules that guide player actions and create constraints.

3. Feedback system – Players receive feedback (scores, progress, consequences) that shows how well they are doing.

4. Voluntary participation – Players choose to engage; a game must be entered into willingly.

5. Challenge or conflict – There should be some form of opposition, difficulty, or uncertainty that players must overcome.

6. Decision-making – Players must make meaningful choices that affect the outcome.

7. Artificial environment – Games create a system or world separate from everyday reality, even if it's abstract.

@Noel

That's what I said. It's both and is down to the way a user wants to use it and not about the software itself. While users can incorporate game-like features (challenges, scoring, skill tracking), these are optional additions rather than built-in mechanics defining it as a game. MSFS 2024 fundamentally exists to simulate aviation as closely as possible, not to function as a structured game (chat GPT).

Well, I certainly haven’t read all the posts in this thread. Easy to see it is the same old terminology re-hash. Does it matter whether it is a PC, XBOX, PS or Switch and the user referred to as a gamer, a simmer, or flight enthusiast. NO. We are all enjoying flight at home and we use the program in different ways for aviation enjoyment in our lives. For this user, Flight Simulator provides avenues of learning well beyond the imagination of a game! Here is a video that formed the background for an article to soon appear in the COPA Flight magazine. The COPA Flight magazine is the largest aviation subscription magazine in Canada.