2 hours ago, martinboehme said:

Joel Spolsky has an article on this called Camels and Rubber Duckies that I really like.

THAT was quite an informative read!

I think this is a look at the airbus equivalent?

 

Edited November 8, 2025Nov 8 by HiFlyer

13 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

It’s a very, very thin line…

There’s no inherent difference between Prepar3D/XP/DCS vs MSFS. 

It's not a line at all; there is no difference.  None of these are being used to train airline pilots, is what I'm saying.  They're consumer grade software.  Fun, as games tend to be.

15 hours ago, Noel said:

Ever since discussions of XP's certification for some level of flight training I maintained if you itemized everything one can learn from ANY desktop sim, you'd quickly learn MSFS will supply a huge amount of this even w/ its aeronautical fidelity being less than XP's--far far more than from just flipping switches in the correct order.

The software this thread is about is indeed "just flipping switches in the correct order" practice.  It is procedures training, a way to practice flows... Nothing to do with flying, is what I'm saying.

But also, note that this is a pervasive misunderstanding in the sim community that XP has been "certified" for any kind of training.  It has not.  A company sells a certified training device that uses XP for visuals and I believe some base flight modeling, that is then modified as necessary by the device's proprietary software until a control feel with the built in hardware is deemed adequate.  XP itself hasn't been certified for any level of real world training.

9 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

That reminded of this article talking about how MSFS helped them with pilot training and passing their checkride on the C172: https://fsnews.eu/using-msfs-for-flight-training-helped-pass-private-pilot/ ... From late 2023 when they used MSFS 2020 (and the C172 has since improved even more in terms of flight dynamics, especially in MSFS 20204). An interesting and long read.
 

Also, MSFS has been used by a sea plane airline to help the pilots familiarize themselves with the environment:

Quote

My last airline before where I am now used MSFS as an in-house sim because we needed the visuals for seaplane flying, so that’s what we used. The visuals in the ATR sim that I got my type rating in were terrible in comparison.

And the landscape in MSFS 2024 looks even more realistic, and many places look even closer than what is was before in MSFS 2020, to what it actually looks like in real life:

I can totally see as the MSFS franchise advances, it can become more and more useful for real life pilots, especially if the geography becomes more accurate in MSFS with respect to the geography in real life.  And I don't doubt that for MSFS 2028, MSFS 2032, MSFS 2036, etc, the geography in MSFS is going to become more accurate.  This is because the MSFS team can take advantage of Microsoft's resources, including the Bing satellite data, and AI.  Just having access to the Bing satellite data and AI is huge, it allows the MSFS team to recreate a more realistic looking world (unfortunately, if you are a small company, you don't have easy access to satellite data and AI, because it costs money).

And I have to emphasize that having the 2D satellite data isn't enough, you need to blend in the 2D satellite data with the ground and surroundings, and this requires the use of AI, which they did with MSFS 2024.  

Edited November 8, 2025Nov 8 by abrams_tank

11 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

It's not a line at all; there is no difference.  None of these are being used to train airline pilots, is what I'm saying.  They're consumer grade software.  Fun, as games tend to be.

Incorrect. 

Prepar3D has long been used to train .mil pilots, as is DCSW. 

XP is presently in use for commercial flight training as part of “certified” AATDs. 

there’s nothing special about airliners that would preclude their use in that vertical, either. 

12 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

None of these are being used to train airline pilots, is what I'm saying.  They're consumer grade software.  Fun, as games tend to be.

GAMES???

Sacrilege good sir, sacrilege! 

10 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Incorrect. 

Prepar3D has long been used to train .mil pilots, as is DCSW. 

XP is presently in use for commercial flight training as part of “certified” AATDs. 

there’s nothing special about airliners that would preclude their use in that vertical, either. 

No, you're talking about PROCEDURES training.  Flows.  This is the point I'm making.  No one is using any of this software to train a pilot to fly an airplane.  They aren't practicing maneuvers, or approaches.  They aren't running TEM or CRM or any other kind of human factors scenarios.  They aren't used for anything we would really consider training.  They're used for cockpit familiarization and, as I said earlier, "flipping switches in the right order" practice, what we call flows.  There isn't any actual flight training occurring with them.  We, no kidding, used to do most of this by sitting in front of a poster taped to the wall.

Again, XP isn't certified for anything.  As you said, it's used in some flight training devices.  But it's the entire device that is certified, not XP.  XP just provides visuals and some base physics that is then modified by the device's own software as necessary to create a control feel the FAA was willing to certify.  They could just as easily have used any other software for that, as they're modifying it anyway.

There is actually something unique about the airline world: it operates under a different portion of the regulations than other aspects of aviation.  In the US, this is part 121 of CFR 14; I'm unsure what the designation is in other countries but the impact is the same.  If you read 121 training requirements you'll find that using any sort of desktop software for flight training wouldn't come close to meeting the requirements of a training or simulation device.

1 hour ago, Stearmandriver said:

Again, XP isn't certified for anything.  As you said, it's used in some flight training devices.  But it's the entire device that is certified, not XP.  XP just provides visuals and some base physics that is then modified by the device's own software as necessary to create a control feel the FAA was willing to certify.  They could just as easily have used any other software for that, as they're modifying it anyway.

Wow, that’s interesting. Here I thought all the time that the value of the simulator was just as important as the device, to obtain the FAA certification.

But would it be fair to say, the device is actually more importantly than the simulator, with respect to the FAA certification?

For a simulator system to become certified to actually log hours on towards real pilot training (as opposed to just help you off the record to learn and that way "perform better" in your real training), you need a combination of software and hardware and then certify that by the FAA.

I see nothing that would preclude MSFS to also achieve that - but X-Plane already has and is used in that way... but when people think that "utmost flight control realism" is a necessity here, they are wrong. X-Plane has been used in that respect since XP9 (or possibly even earlier), when the flight model was considerably less refined than it is now.

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

https://flypfc.com/

To "use a flight simulator in pilot training" could mean as little as showing a screenshot of a 737 and then saying "lookey here, these are the engines, this is the stabilizer". There you go, soon-to-be-pilot learned something, the software was "used in real pilot training" (ergo it must be super realistic, right?) 😆

All I am saying is don´t get all huffed up about which sim has "FAA approval". Just like the vaunted "this third-party A320 was certified by Airbus itself!!" it means nothing. It does not mean that Airbus engineers and test pilots "verified its authenticity" - it simply means that Airbus gave the go-ahead to use it´s name and logo. And if a simulator/hardware combo got "FAA approval" this also does not mean that FAA engineers tested and certified the used simulator´s "flight model" at large - it simply means that it passed basic tests to make it more or less faithfully represent that aircraft´s performance and handling - often within a narrow envelope of operation (i.e. no stalling, etc.).

Edited November 9, 2025Nov 9 by Litjan

In the end, all these things only serve to convince ourselves that we are using the best. The best in our context is what you enjoy most. Whether or not it has professional uses should not be important to those of us who see simulation as a hobby.

X-Plane, MFS, Falcon BMS, DCS, P3D, etc. are all fantastic training programmes with high-quality add-ons. We are fortunate to be able to enjoy them all.

There's an overview here of the various kinds of simulators and training devices that exist under US regulations:

https://www.njaeroclub.org/post/the-different-kinds-of-simulators-explained-batd-aatd-ffs-ftd

I believe the product that Boeing is introducing now doesn't fall into any of these categories. A piece of software that runs on an iPad (without any additional hardware) never could. As @Stearmandriver points out, it's a procedures trainer - and as such still has an important role to play. You don't want to use the expensive Level D simulator to practice flows.

And here's the thing: You can use any desktop flight simulator as an aid to flight training, you just can't log the time or use the experience to tick any of the "boxes" required for a certificate or rating.

And, of course, there's a right way and a wrong way to do it. If you're trying to use a desktop sim to practice manual flight, you're not doing yourself any favors. A better use of a desktop sim is for cockpit and procedure familiarization or, for example, to practice holding entries (with the autopilot in heading mode), maybe under the supervision of a flight instructor. Done right, this can help cut down on the time you spend in the actual plane.

The way simulations have grown across the board in recent decades has no doubt helped aid the learning process of it's users, I take my experience as an example; Before MSFS2020 I never knew what a G1000 unit was let alone how to work one and I'd never started an aircraft on the ground, through mere trial & error (I don't read manuals!) I eventually learn't how to use most of it and in the meantime successfully start aircraft from Cold & Dark. For sure I'm not gonna pass any FAA tests or anything, but if the apocalypse happened and I had to fly a C172 from EGKA to the IOW to escape the zombies I dare say I could do it!

The very same way that after years of racing simulations when I sat behind the wheel of a real race car I was very quickly pulling fast lap times, to the amazement of the instructor who didn't believe that I had no prior real life experience.

That's where both Flight & Racing simulations on home computers can help aid any wannabe Pilot or Driver, just look at the sheer number of racing sim drivers who've gone onto to become real race car drivers and no doubt there's a fair few flight sim people who've done the exact same. That's the beauty of having all these sims at our finger tips, they may not and probably never will be the answer but they will get us to a point whereby we can learn enough to be ready for the real thing where that learning continues.

These programs by Boeing and others are no doubt more detailed and in-depth than simply "firing up MSFS and having fun", but at the end of the day they're the entry point to a career for users to go on and learn the real thing, which is great.

@MarcG Agree completely except we all know the zombies would be coming from the I.O.W.

...or Fratton...🫡