26 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

Tell a flight instructor or RW pilot about that 😄. 

You realize that @sd_flyer is a flight instructor in real life, right?

31 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

Who decides that and how (on which basis) if it is a gamey entertainment or a simulator? If I now say that XP is FAA-certified, then some people will get upset 😛 and say that this only applies with the appropriate hardware. And that is even true. But the software you have at home is the same (apart from the instructor station in the professional version). So you can also use it as a simulator if you want.

For the record, my response to you does not mean I feel upset 😁 Indeed X-Plane is FAA certified with the right hardware. So you can use it as a simulator at home, I follow that line of thought.

I understand some X-Plane users are very proud of that FAA certification, because it makes them glow with pride they are using an actual flight simulator. How about that? But as said many times before in numerous threads going back a long time, it doesn't mean squat when you buy the simulator for home use, from a gaming platform like Steam for instance. It is indeed the same software as used on FAA certified hardware, however it is the user behind the computer that makes it a simulator, right? I could use X-Plane as an arcade game if I wanted to, just buzzing around, without caring about correct simulation.

MSFS is not FAA certified. But guess what? I can nevertheless use it as a simulator at home! And a very good one I might add. I think MSFS (2024) could also become FAA certified, but I don't think that is what Microsoft intends with the software. Maybe one day history repeats itself and MS sells rights to a new ESP to an external party, but I doubt that will happen.

The question if flight simulator software for home use is 'gamey entertainment or a simulator' all depends on the person sitting behind the screen. One can get very serious with all platforms available right now. Claims that X is better than Y are nothing more than subjective opinions, they are not facts.

P3D is Military and FAA certified ... and it supports damage boxes ... albeit they were a bit crude but that was to do with object design and geometry (trees are really big squares with transparency hence a collision that really isn't).

I'd just like to see damage implementation and more SDK support so as to add challenge to the flight experience ... some like to see cows and birds and sheep, good for them if that makes your experience better the more power to ya and doesn't generate an emotion of hate or being word not allowed off for me (anger management classes might help here 😉 hehe).

Back to weather radar, as it currently stands, even if a weather radar was fully functional in MSFS 2024, the consequence are still NULL when flying into nasty storms and rain ... it visually looks stunning and foreboding, the real world weather in NaviGraph looks positively bad, but the actual influence on flight is barely noticeable (I have turbulence cranked up to max).

Yes please, more accurate weather radar and more consequences please.  I seek out nasty weather, it often defines my flight planning, I like being challenged.

6 minutes ago, SayAgain said:

Yes please, more accurate weather radar and more consequences please.  I seek out nasty weather, it often defines my flight planning, I like being challenged.

Yep, one of many dissatisfactions with MSFS weather. Irregardless of how good / bad it looks, it’s often just inconsequential.

@Rimshot I agree with you, they can be used as a game or as a sim. I will never understand why some are forcing the narative that it is « only » for entertainment. And if coming from a real instructor, that is even more concerning 😀

I have been training for my real flights with such sims and even discussed my trainings with my (real) instructor. But probably this will trigger the « elitist » remark and we should apologize for not only using it for entertainment I guess.

And level D sims are made exactly for that: training failures. If an « instructor » doesn’t know that, I would question him even more than I already did after reading his first remark.

Long story short,  I fully agree with your comment, it depends on the way we use it.

2 hours ago, Rimshot said:

For the record, my response to you does not mean I feel upset 😁 Indeed X-Plane is FAA certified with the right hardware. So you can use it as a simulator at home, I follow that line of thought.

That's why I wrote "some people" 😛 , not you specifically.

 

2 hours ago, Franz007 said:

@Rimshot I agree with you, they can be used as a game or as a sim.

Exactly, that'what I was saying, too.

 

2 hours ago, Franz007 said:

And level D sims are made exactly for that: training failures. If an « instructor » doesn’t know that, I would question him even more than I already did after reading his first remark.

Totally agree. sd_flyer's original statement sounded something like this, that failures occur rather rarely and therefore training them would be somewhat pointless* because in reality you don't always get out of the situation anyway. But with luck and professionalism. Well, in my humble opinion, this kind of training is exactly what you need to rely as little as possible on luck and as much as possible on your professionalism. And where does this professionalism come from? Does it grow on trees and you can pick it like an apple, or does it come from ... the tension rises immeasurably 🙃 ... failure training?

* Then you wouldn't really need any more instructors and he would be out of a job 😁.

3 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

Interesting theory. So you shouldn't even have to train in level D simulators, because there's a lot of luck involved if you manage to get through the situation in real life anyway. Tell a flight instructor or RW pilot about that 😄. 

I actually did some training in Level D. Believe or not I had a lot  emergencies though my flying career pretty much everything mentioned in this thread except prop strike! Got lucky with that! LOL 

In fact I can even evaluate your practical skills you obtained in various sims and endorse your log book right away for practical exam right away. I'm sure FAA will be OK with that after all XP is FAA certified LOL

3 hours ago, Rimshot said:

but I don't think that is what Microsoft intends with the software.

Jorg did consider it but he reached out to the FAA and they told him it would take at least 8 years so he was like....nah. The thing is there's no point because MSFS isn't hurting for cash so they don't need an extra revenue stream from the professional market so it's not worth the headache. 

https://realsimgear.com/products/sr7x-home-package?utm_source=Klaviyo&utm_medium=email&_kx=ueDctm7m3IErxhOwW_CRIbrvtL7zxZNs-rLycs-Aw8U.JBzhuL

 

Add BATD for another $4k=$50k tax included, and you've got yourself a real SIM!

(X-Plane "only" provides the visuals and the instructor panel; all the avionics are custom-made by  Realsimgear)...But don`t forget the(real) Plane ($1.5M), and you`re good to go ;))

Well I just finished one of the most rewarding flight simulation sessions I remember having in a flightsim, on an end of week flight between Lisboa and Glasgow... in the FSLabs A321 and real weather.

Today I used FSHUD + FLTL models and injector. I've been alternating between BATC and FSHUD because I **really** like both!

What a great sensation approaching the Scottland weather this afternoon, all the way down to runway 23 @ EGPF, and the weather radar indications that, maybe not perfect but surelly great and effective!

The bumps were there too, the effects of the gusting winds and of the intense showers.

Could I ask for more? Maybe, but it wouldn't fair...

Edited October 3, 2025Oct 3 by jcomm

44 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

Totally agree. sd_flyer's original statement sounded something like this

A pilot encounters a mechanical failure. The emergency landing is successful partly (not totally) because the wind is calm and the terrain is flat. The calm wind and flat terrain are coincidental — favorable coincidences — and would be considered “luck” in an accident analysis

Change the calm wind into storm and  poor visibility, and instead of flat terrain they hit a concrete building housing the ILS system (like Jeju Air did) as the veered off the runway, resulting in total hull loss and fatalities.
These variables are outcomes influenced by chance, beyond human control.

I just described the 'luck' factors in your A300 missile strike accident.
 

1 hour ago, sd_flyer said:

I actually did some training in Level D. Believe or not I had a lot  emergencies though my flying career pretty much everything mentioned in this thread except prop strike! Got lucky with that! LOL 

In fact I can even evaluate your practical skills you obtained in various sims and endorse your log book right away for practical exam right away. I'm sure FAA will be OK with that after all XP is FAA certified LOL

It was about using sims for training. Practicing failures is literally the main reason of using level D sims during a career. That's even what you had to do yourself as stated above. So how would that be useless in an emergency situation, as you seemed to imply above? Why would we ever bother building level D sims if at the end it was only realy flying skills and luck? And I am not sure what this has to do with the possibility to certify some of the sims you qualify as "entertainment only" and/or how this prevents users to use any of those sims for training real flights as I did myself during my PPL. And my instructor was pretty happy with it 🙂 So perhaps you can explain what you exactly meant?

45 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

It was about using sims for training. Practicing failures is literally the main reason of using level D sims during a career. That's even what you had to do yourself as stated above. So how would that be useless in an emergency situation, as you seemed to imply above? Why would we ever bother building level D sims if at the end it was only realy flying skills and luck? And I am not sure what this has to do with the possibility to certify some of the sims you qualify as "entertainment only" and/or how this prevents users to use any of those sims for training real flights as I did myself during my PPL. And my instructor was pretty happy with it 🙂 So perhaps you can explain what you exactly meant?

 Do XP or MSFS reminds you of any level D sims you used? If not let’s start with what sims you use for you PPL how many hours you logged on what particular emergencies you practiced?

Answering your question why industry is using level D sim. Even with hefty price tag they are cheaper and safer than using real airframe. But I used to fly with pilot who was airline pilot before level D sims were adapted  and his company used real 707 at night practicing all kind of simulated emergencies 

My favorite quote on this specific topic of emergency simulation is that "pilots don't rise to the occasion, they sink to the level of their training."

Between you and me, having emergencies as an optional feature would be pretty neat. Imagine how rewarding it would feel to wrestle a plane to a safe landing after bending metal in a thunderstorm.

2 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

 Do XP or MSFS reminds you of any level D sims you used? If not let’s start with what sims you use for you PPL how many hours you logged on what particular emergencies you practiced?

Answering your question why industry is using level D sim. Even with hefty price tag they are cheaper and safer than using real airframe. But I used to fly with pilot who was airline pilot before level D sims were adapted  and his company used real 707 at night practicing all kind of simulated emergencies 

I didn’t asked you to ask me other questions but to explan why you implied that training failures would not be needed and only matter of luck or skills if doing the right thing during an emergency? Why do you think pilots train failures if that wasn’t needed? It’s not about logging on or whatever but why you think training failures in a sim are not necessary? That’s at least what you implied above.