11 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

You keep sinking more and more because you simply cannot admit being wrong. I linked the clear source contradicting your wrong statements and the requirements are pretty clearly explained.

And „And no, I don't have to show that the FAA certification goes out of its way to say flight dynamics and systems fidelity are not important to meet the certification“ simply because you can‘t provide that. You have zero evidence for your claims.

P3D and FSX got a certification for being used in a certified setting, simply because those requirements (including those related to the flight behaviour mentionned in the linked source from the FAA itself) were assessed as being enough for a given aircraft-type for that certification. 

Said the one who keeps sinking (after already being sunk and proven wrong in this thread 😂 https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/666536-122/page/8/#findComment-5409302)

Let me make it real simple for you:

• I said that the *fidelity* and quality of flight dynamics and systems in a flight sim is not material or requirement for the FAA certification that XP/P3D/etc are certified for
• What the FAA certification lists as requirements bares this out, as does numerous others including experts who tried to educate you on the same point
• Just because the FAA certification doesn't explicitly state what criteria is *not* required for the certification means.. nothing. It also doesn't talk about various other things, so what? Silly logic to try and prove your misinformed take
• FAA certification does not mean that the sim has high quality flight dynamics (read that again multiple times)
• XP's FAA certification is not due to its flight dynamics (the fact that said dynamics are good or bad or whatever is immaterial)
   

 

Edited May 12, 20251 yr by lwt1971

26 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Said the one who keeps sinking (after already being sunk and proven wrong in this thread 😂 https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/666536-122/page/8/#findComment-5409302)

Let me make it real simple for you:

• I said that the *fidelity* and quality of flight dynamics and systems in a flight sim is not material or requirement for the FAA certification that XP/P3D/etc are certified for
• What the FAA certification lists as requirements bares this out, as does numerous others including experts who tried to educate you on the same point
• Just because the FAA certification doesn't explicitly state what criteria is *not* required for the certification means.. nothing. It also doesn't talk about various other things, so what? Silly logic to try and prove your misinformed take
• FAA certification does not mean that the sim has high quality flight dynamics (read that again multiple times)
• XP's FAA certification is not due to its flight dynamics (the fact that said dynamics are good or bad or whatever is immaterial)
   

 

Not sure why you cannot simply stop when being wrong. I linked the original source, no pseudo-expers from avsim. Again, where is that evidence that you are still unable to provide?

3 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

Not sure why you cannot simply stop when being wrong. I linked the original source, no pseudo-expers from avsim. Again, where is that evidence that you are still unable to provide?

Yup, as expected you can't quite come to terms with how wrong you are 🙂 And the linked original source, once again, does not translate to wishful-thinking takes like "having FAA certification = high fidelity flight dynamics". But keep believe whatever makes you secure 🙂 
 

37 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

"Flight dynamics of the ATD should be comparable to the way the represented training aircraft performs and handles. However, there is no requirement for an ATD to have control loading to exactly replicate any particular aircraft"

Obviously any high fidelity addon , regardless of simulator, would have no problems passing those rather lenient requirements.

I never stated that an of the known desktop-sims couldn‘t pass that certification. I corrected the wrong statement saying that flight behaviour had no importance in that process. It obviously has. It just doesn‘t have to be 99.9% acurate. Still important otherwise it could never be „comparable“.

3 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Yup, as expected you can't quite come to terms with how wrong you are 🙂 And the linked original source, once again, does not translate to wishful-thinking takes like "having FAA certification = high fidelity flight dynamics". But keep believe whatever makes you secure 🙂 
 

I quote „flight dynamics and systems fidelity are not important to meet the certification“. This is still wrong, otherwise ot could not necesarely be „comparable“.

Show me the source that confirms what type of certification one of these sims did pass and link me the requirements related to that type. Not only empty words and repeating what you may have read somewhere.

1 hour ago, alanw2005 said:

I have watched a lot of X-Plane videos and have been reading about its high fidelity aircraft. I haver been reading about flight simulators running it and it being FAA certifiable.

I have now bought X-Plane 12. It finally installed. I took a quick flight in the 172. A lot more realistic than the 172 in MSFS 2024. You have to use rudders for a co-ordinated turn or it slips or skids. Wow!!

I post my flights on Youtube to learn from mistakes. Not one of my videos to date is on X-Plane. That will change soon.

Thanks for your note. Happy flying.

Unless something has drastically changed, the C172 in both sims are actually pretty close. Been directly compared a number of times across the interwebs (and seems like I personally end up doing reasonable cross-sim comparos every couple months) 🤙

The Asobo 172 is their "Reference Model" (along with the Cabri G2 for helos). They've gone to great lengths to ensure it performs in a realistic manner. Including real-world flights, with instrumentation, to compare, inform, and update the MSFS general aerodynamic model.

The Default C172 in X-Plane is also good, but has some limitations of its own. IMHO it's too forgiving during landings and touchdowns.

But hey, both models are included FREE with their simulators, so we can't expect them to be "perfect".

Edited May 12, 20251 yr by UrgentSiesta
Clarification

46 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Unless something has drastically changed, the C172 in both sims are actually pretty close. Been directly compared a number of times across the interwebs (and seems like I personally end up doing reasonable cross-sim comparos every couple months) 🤙

The Asobo 172 is their "Reference Model" (along with the Cabri G2 for helos). They've gone to great lengths to ensure it performs in a realistic manner. Including real-world flights, with instrumentation, to compare, inform, and update the MSFS general aerodynamic model.

The Default C172 in X-Plane has some limitations of its own. IMHO it's too forgiving during landings and touchdowns.

But hey, both models are included FREE with their simulators, so we can't expect them to be "perfect".

I have my MSFS 2024 settings set to max realism and the only time I have ever used rudder pedals in the C172 is when taxiing or landing in a crosswind. The MSFS 2024 makes smooth turns everytime without pedals.

XP12 requires rudder pedals for every turn or else you will slip or skid the plane, just like in the real Cessna. I have never ever looked at the turn coordinator dial in the MSFS 2024 C172. I am now. So XP12 is an instant hit for me.

And yes, scenery/building graphics are terrible compared to MSFS 2024. In any event, I am happy I have both sims. MSFS 2024 graphics are incredible when frame rates are good.

Edited May 12, 20251 yr by alanw2005

3 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

I quote „flight dynamics and systems fidelity are not important to meet the certification“. This is still wrong, otherwise ot could not necesarely be „comparable“.

Once again, key in on the word "fidelity", let it process, spend some time thinking about it. And then come back to the original point I responded to which was:

And then hone in on my quote again and focus on the word "fidelity"... i.e. the fidelity of a sim's flight dynamics cannot be gleaned from the fact that it has an FAA certification. I responded to above and my original quote in this thread was "the fidelity of systems/avionics/physics in a sim are not considered at all."... Of course you tried to paint my quote as GTA V therefore being FAA certifiable, which is silly, but par for the course I guess.

Once again, FAA certification does *NOT* confirm a sim is "study level and has excellent flight physics" (i.e. high fidelity flight dynamics).

Despite all the education you got on previous threads including on the XP forum, this point still doesn't seem to be quite dawning on you for some reason. Well no, I know the reason.. as others have said, certain XP enthusiasts always seem to misunderstand what FAA certification means or does not mean, understandable I suppose 🙂 
 

6 minutes ago, alanw2005 said:

I have my MSFS 2024 settings set to max realism and the only time I have ever used rudder pedals in the C172 is when taxiing or landing in a crosswind. The MSFS 2024 makes smooth turn everytime without pedals.

The C172 (G1000 version) in 2024 and its improvements in flight dynamics and ground handling was covered a lot in a previous thread and this particular review (among various other IRL C172/GA pilots) was quite detailed and useful: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/654326-msfs-2024-flight-dynamics-and-groundwater-handling-thread/page/8/#findComment-5262959
 

Among the 2024 default fleet, The C172 G1000 variant best exhibits the improvements in flight and ground physics over 2020. Of course now we're starting to get various 3rd party GA and airliner aircraft that also exhibit the same.
 

23 minutes ago, alanw2005 said:

I have my MSFS 2024 settings set to max realism and the only time I have ever used rudder pedals in the C172 is when taxiing or landing in a crosswind. The MSFS 2024 makes smooth turn everytime without pedals.

XP12 requires rudder pedals for every turn or else you will slip or skid the plane, just like in the real Cessna. I have never ever looked at the turn coordinator dial in the MSFS 2024 C172. I am now. So XP12 is an instant hit for me.

And yes, scenery/building graphics are terrible compared to MSFS 2024. In any event, I am happy I have both sims. MSFS 2024 graphics are incredible when frame rates are good.

Well, it's been awhile since I directly compared the 172's, so perhaps another quick session is in order.

BUT, I did recently give the newly upgraded Just Flight Piper Arrows back to back flights in both MSFS and X-Plane. And I've had earlier versions of each one for both XP and MSFS for years.

So this is perhaps an even more valid comparo, as it's the same publisher across both sims.

Lemme tell you 100% for sure: you MUST use rudder & yoke in both sims for coordinated turns.

P.s., I just wanted to ensure you know I'm an avid fan and supporter of BOTH sims, so my observations are in no way meant to criticize either sim.

Edited May 12, 20251 yr by UrgentSiesta
Clarification

43 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

The C172 G1000 variant best exhibits the improvements in flight and ground physics over 2020.

Did they improve it further for v2024...?

I haven't spent any time in it since v2020, mainly because A2A and other Hi Fi add-ons that made the jump early on (and I just prefer retract gear 😆)

And TBH, they did a good job on it in v2020 in any case.

So if it's even better in v2024, well that's definitely cause for a re-flight. 😁 

ETA: I read that linked article - YES they've improved it for v2024 😁

Edited May 12, 20251 yr by UrgentSiesta
Clarification

5 hours ago, joby33y said:

I fly sims to stay current (not certified, just my own procedures).  I use VR and found Xplane 12 to be lacking in VR support.  And the graphics are very dated.  For now, MSFS20 is the best option.   

BS. You can get XP looking just as good as MSFS. In fact the night lighting effects in XP are way more superior to any versions MSFS 

25 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Once again, key in on the word "fidelity", let it process, spend some time thinking about it. And then come back to the original point I responded to which was:

And then hone in on my quote again and focus on the word "fidelity"... i.e. the fidelity of a sim's flight dynamics cannot be gleaned from the fact that it has an FAA certification. I responded to above and my original quote in this thread was "the fidelity of systems/avionics/physics in a sim are not considered at all."... Of course you tried to paint my quote as GTA V therefore being FAA certifiable, which is silly, but par for the course I guess.

Once again, FAA certification does *NOT* confirm a sim is "study level and has excellent flight physics" (i.e. high fidelity flight dynamics).

Despite all the education you got on previous threads including on the XP forum, this point still doesn't seem to be quite dawning on you for some reason. Well no, I know the reason.. as others have said, certain XP enthusiasts always seem to misunderstand what FAA certification means or does not mean, understandable I suppose 🙂 
 

Read again, take your time and look at which of your comments I quoted you. I never denied the first part of what you said, that’s why I quoted the second part where you were wrong. It does actually matter but doesn’t have to be especially high. For any reason (but to be honest I am not that surprised by looking at your post-history, trying again and again to play the big-sheriff and never agreeing when being wrong) that still don’t get in your head. You even contradicted yourself by answering my extreme example with GTA V, so without noticing you confirmed my point that of course the behaviour of the flight isn’t completely unrelevant. Have a nice day, I am done with that discussion, since you will never stop.

1 minute ago, Franz007 said:

Read again, take your time and look at which of your comments I quoted you. I never denied the first part of what you said, that’s why I quoted the second part where you were wrong. It does actually matter but doesn’t have to be especially high. For any reason (but to be honest I am not that surprised by looking at your post-history, trying again and again to play the big-sheriff and never agreeing when being wrong) that still don’t get in your head. You even contradicted yourself by answering my extreme example with GTA V, so without noticing you confirmed my point that of course the behaviour of the flight isn’t completely unrelevant. Have a nice day, I am done with that discussion, since you will never stop.

Except, I never said it isn't completely irrelevant but nice try at misquoting and moving the goal posts again (hint: I said the *fidelity* does not matter).. on that other thread when others were telling you how wrong you were it was was hard for you to accept then too huh, oh well... Ya anyways,  you believe whatever you have to believe to make you feel better and more secure 🙂 
 

XP12, XP11, MSFS2020, MSFS2024, Aerofly FS2/4, FSX, DCS, P3Dv4. All on my system. And a few others whose names I can't even remember now - odd little things that popped up and died in the couple of years before MSFS launched - still kept for curiosity's sake.

99% 2024 now, occasionally 2020.

Even more occasionally (less often) XP12.

Others, hardly at all.

Have just put P3D back on as I remembered a few planes I thought I'd like to see again, but have forgotten so much about using P3D that I don't know I'll persevere. Might do, might not.

I really, really, really don't understand why folk feel the need to defend their personal preference and attack others' choices. None of this, repeat - NONE of this - actually matters. Nobody would (or at least, I can't imagine it) declare their favourite book and then fly off on one about how all other books are rubbish. So what is it about flightsims that cause this, I wonder?