2 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

Nope it does not. FAA certification is more about device/hardware usage and compatibility, the fidelity of systems/avionics/physics in a sim are not considered at all.
 

Here is how you make an X-Plane sim FAA certified:

https://www.x-plane.com/pro/

Edited May 12, 20251 yr by alanw2005

I considered buying XP12 when it came out to run alongside MS20, but then MS24 came along, and I now run that exclusively.

The debates of flight models and lighting are all subjective and MS24 wins there for me as well. And even so, who cares if team A has a better quarter back than team B, when team B wins the super bowl every year. The updates, the store, the freeware, the communication, the collaborations…MSFS offers a complete package, and then some. And they have revived the flight sim expo.

Prior to MS20, I flew XP11 exclusively. But in 2025, I have no tolerance for one level ranch homes in dense urban cities, or repeating structures. The plausible world no longer seems plausible in comparison to the real world modeled by MSFS.

35 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

I used almost all the sims before 2020 came along, and the last one before I jumped to MSFS 2020 was XP. Sure, in the initial days of 2020 we only had the the earlier versions of the default aircraft which were rubbish (although most of us knew we really couldn't evaluate until we started getting higher fidelity aircraft). As 2020 matured and high fidelity aircraft started coming out, and as MS/Asobo also ramped up the fidelity on default aircraft then it was a different story for me. The ground handling was still lacking for me though in 2020, and now with 2024 both flight dynamics and ground handling are stellar, when the sim is paired with properly developed aircraft (be they 3rd party like those from Fenix, PMDG, JustFlight, etc or default like the Cessna 172 G1000, ini A330, and some others).

For me, MSFS 2020 and now 2024 even more, completely satisfies my need for high fidelity flight dynamics, high fidelity avionics/systems, high fidelity visuals, array of choices when it comes to 3rd party aircraft and add-ons ecosystem, array of choices in the default fleet and what's included in the sim, etc, etc.
 

Yes, AND variety is the spice of life.

I can't be "completely" satisfied with any single simulator. 🙂

3 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

I get that you dearly wish to equate FAA certification to some great flight dynamics and systems fidelity standard but sorry nope. I remember @SAS443 has chimed in on this topic before, and looking at his posting history lo and behold I find this thread where you were arguing the same thing and had to be educated by both him and others 🙂 

Here, let me quote some from there for your further re-education: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/666536-122/page/8/#findComment-5409302

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

- 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

- 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.

- 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
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.
 

 

I know that you will never want to push another narrative. You find all requirement in great details directly at the source: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/120-40B1.pdf

Just now, UrgentSiesta said:

Yes, AND variety is the spice of life.

I can't be "completely" satisfied with any single simulator. 🙂

Completely get you and totally understood 🙂 I tend to stick to one sim platform as I only care to spend on add-ons and investing in one. It's all a personal choice of course and whatever works for everyone, fly multiple sims or single etc. I prefer to focus on one sim platform that does multiple things well, and MSFS has been it for now.
 

1 hour ago, Noel said:

Do it, then report back into this thread with your opinion once you've delved in deep enough to be sure.  I can't relate at all to the 'hot mess' for 2024.  I use it perfectly along with BATC, Self-Loading-Cargo, AS's CRJ series which are fabulous, A Pilot's Life for routing, and recently picked up Fenix a320CFM and everything is largely flawless with a few modest but significant issues which will be dealt with I'm sure sooner than later, and with that it's mainly LOD as you approach an airport the runway can look less crisp on its sidelines.  But stability and performance are stellar, no kidding. There is no way I would bail into an entirely new platform and all of the inside knowledge required to get something decent out of it.  2024 and 2020 are just way too satisfying to be teased by a few modest differences between the two platforms.  Every time I've installed XP demo and tried to give at least default a whirl was quickly turned off by it, nothing really stood out.  It takes a lot of knowledge in any platform to do them justice and were I anything but still enthralled by MSFS still, 4.7y later, I would be open to XP for sure.

I like the airliner landing challenges. They have been broken for 6 months. You get dropped in at 8,000 feet 4 NM from final. Engines are off and there is no sound. You are scrambling to stabilize the plane. They give you a plane with no livery too.

I just flew the Brisbane challenge. You land the plane perfectly and they say you failed the challenge and record it as a crash. And there are no engine sounds. KMCO 737 challenge half the time has no engine sounds. Why does this take 6 months to fix.
 

 

2 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

I know that you will never want to push another narrative. You find all requirement in great details directly at the source: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/120-40B1.pdf

Great, can you point to where it says that flight dynamics is a key factor and how good that has to be for FAA certification?
 

1 hour ago, lwt1971 said:

From another thread, we looked into V1's conclusions already 🙂 (below) https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/654326-msfs-2024-flight-dynamics-and-groundwater-handling-thread/page/8/#findComment-5265248

That said, as is almost always the case, it comes down to the aircraft developer as to how good an aircraft's particular FM is, and less the sim platform, as long as the sim platform provides the frameworks and tools for aircraft dev (which both MSFS and XP do). It is also very evident that 2024 advances in both flight dynamics and developer tools for FMs compared to 2020, as per numerous reports from both simmers and IRL pilots alike on above thread.


                                              Toliss    Fenix
Acceleration                          10         10
Decel                                      7          10     (IRL is 66secs, Fenix is 64s, Toliss is 84secs)
Control input response          9          9.5    ("dang near perfect, Fenix feels more realistic .. Toliss feels like I'm constantly driving a truck")
Inertia in air                            9          9       ("both felt good")
Inertia on the ground             7          9       ("in MSFS 2020 it's a 7, a straight-up big difference")
X-wind physics in flight         8          9.5    ("Toliss is good but Fenix is more accurate")
X-wind physics touchdown   8          9.5    ("I was that impressed, did my natural inputs as in IRL and it behaved as in IRL")
X-wind physics on ground    6         9
X-wind physics roll-out         7          9        ("crosswind physics in 2024 is awesome")
-----
3D model                               5         10
Sounds                                   7         10
Textures                                 5          9.8
wings flap                              7          10
------
Total score w/o visuals        77%      94%
Total score w/ visuals          73%      95%
 

I just bought the Fenix A321. I am super impressed with it after being frustrated with the inibuilds A320. My proof:

 

Edited May 12, 20251 yr by alanw2005

Just now, lwt1971 said:

Great, can you point to where it says that flight dynamics is a key factor and how good that has to be for FAA certification?
 

You can see that in the table containing all 4 types of certification, A to D. For ex:

"Control forces and control travel which correspond to that of the replicated airplane. Control forces should react in the same manner as in the airplane under the same flight conditions."

or

"Effect of aerodynamic changes for various combinations of drag and thrust normally encountered in flight corresponding to actual flight conditions, including the effect of change in airplane attitude, thrust, drag, altitude, temperature, gross weight, center of gravity location, and configuration."

And can you show me the source, where the FAA says that flight dynamism and acuracy of the flight-behaviour are not important in the FAA-certification?

1 hour ago, flying_carpet said:

Am I hearing some rabid dogs ^TM barking? 😁 (SCNR)

I have gone from MSFS to XP as the physics (on ground and in air) didn't meet my demands in MSFS. If you want more details, please watch my videos (see my signature). I know, many here will again moan that I'm only looking for clicks of my videos (e.g this one), and you don't need to watch them* if you don't want, but I have a teaching assignment to fulfill here 😊.

* I don't make money with them.

Thanks!!!!!!

1 hour ago, Mace said:

Just last week he said he flies X Plane, and now in the first post of this thread he says he's THINKING about getting XPlane.  Something doesn't add up here...or maybe it does.  ☹️

This is not true. Do you have a link to the post that makes you think this? Thanks.

BTW, if you look at all the flight sim videos on my Youtube channel, some as recent as today, NOT 1 IS AN X-PLANE VIDEO.

Edited May 12, 20251 yr by alanw2005

9 minutes ago, alanw2005 said:

I like the airliner landing challenges. They have been broken for 6 months.

There's the difference between us.  You're after gamey type elements which I don't use so am not aware they're broken, and don't care anyway.  I just create realistic complete flights in RW routes and all works perfectly.  You're banging your head against broken elements so good luck with that.  I don't use default ATC/traffic because I'm aware those are not ready for prime time yet either.  But if you're after plausible RW flights from gate to gate and have your piloting skills scored as well you might consider taking on Self Loading Cargo:  in this domain 2024 is going to largely match most of what matters between it and XP.

39 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

@alanw2005

I started with X-Plane in 2017.

Added DCS World.

Added Prepar3D.

Added MSFS 2020.

Added MSFS 2024.

Stopped using MSFS 2020.

Infrequent use of Prepar3D now (+/- 2 addons only)

 

For me, it's not Either OR.

The simulator has always been secondary. It comes down to flying "the best" addon available across ALL simulators.

X-Plane is a great simulator, and you should ADD it to your collection if for no other reason than to expand your perspective AND to have options for when things go haywire. 🙂

A friend told me it is okay to have both. MSFS 2024 for city sight seeing and XP12 for more realistic flying. At $59 for XP12 I decided I am a buyer. I actually bought XP12 this morning. 

34 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

Been running MSFS and XP side by side since 2004. Back when the titles were FS9 and XP7. 

Choice is always good, and they are both great simulators.

I prefer Asobo offering. But it's more a matter of specific addons than core sim tbh.

Also xp has a free demo. Cost nothing to try it.

I have always had a curiosity about X-Plane but thought their planes looked like rubbish. They look really good now.

22 minutes ago, OverTheEDJ said:

I considered buying XP12 when it came out to run alongside MS20, but then MS24 came along, and I now run that exclusively.

 

The debates of flight models and lighting are all subjective and MS24 wins there for me as well. And even so, who cares if team A has a better quarter back than team B, when team B wins the super bowl every year. The updates, the store, the freeware, the communication, the collaborations…MSFS offers a complete package, and then some. And they have revived the flight sim expo.

 

Prior to MS20, I flew XP11 exclusively. But in 2025, I have no tolerance for one level ranch homes in dense urban cities, or repeating structures. The plausible world no longer seems plausible in comparison to the real world modeled by MSFS.

 

I have flown $26 million full motion CAE 787 simulators and their graphics are worse than XP-12. But I hear you about the ranchers.