51 minutes ago, JRBarrett said:

The problem is that data for ASDA, TODA and TORA for a given runway is not contained in any navigation or facility database that MSFS uses - either default or Navigraph. For US airports, that information is contained in the FAA AFD supplement for a specific airport. Obviously, airlines that have their own custom performance apps would have that information in their database, but that info is not contained in any standard MSFS database.

I understand your point. For example, many airlines integrate this data into their operational systems, making it readily available to flight crews at all times. Interestingly, one developer has already incorporated it into their EFB, demonstrating that it can be done. Perhaps others will follow suit to provide an even more realistic and authentic simulation experience.

1 hour ago, Claudius_ said:

As I have said many times, real pilots are not an absolute guarantee of "product" quality. While they are experts on real-life aircraft, which is a very good thing, they usually lack experience with home flight simulators, which are very different from professional flight sims.

Moreover, there is a real conflict of interest: real-world pilots sometimes pretend not to see certain issues affecting the product. Additionally, developers often advertise real-world pilot beta teams purely for marketing purposes.

The best compromise is to open the beta process, at least toward the end of the product's development.

We have seen these closed beta team problems time and again, which is why MSFS opened up its beta process. If you want to sell your product, listen to your customers, and don't treat them as if they're dumb.

Current and qualified pilots bring operational knowledge, procedural understanding, and real-world experience that cannot be replicated through simulator use alone. The most successful developers recognize that pilot feedback is not intended to replace the broader testing community, but rather to complement it with valuable operational insight.

The argument that real pilots "usually lack experience with home flight simulators" is, at best, an overgeneralization. Many airline, corporate, military, and general aviation pilots have extensive experience with home simulation platforms and are uniquely positioned to identify where a product aligns with—or diverges from—real-world aircraft behavior and procedures.

Likewise, suggesting that real-world pilots sometimes ignore product issues does not invalidate the value of their feedback. Every testing group has potential blind spots, whether composed of pilots, enthusiasts, developers, or casual users. The solution is not to diminish one group's contribution, but to combine perspectives from all segments of the community.

Most importantly, nobody is suggesting that customers without pilot qualifications are less intelligent or that their feedback is unimportant. Such an interpretation is both inaccurate and unnecessarily divisive. Customers are the ultimate users of the product, and their experiences matter. However, being a customer does not automatically make every opinion equally informed on highly specialized subjects. In any technical field—whether aviation, engineering, medicine, or software development—expertise remains relevant and should be given appropriate weight when evaluating complex issues.

The strongest products emerge when developers listen to a broad range of users while also placing significant value on feedback from individuals with demonstrated subject-matter expertise. The shortcomings observed in this product illustrate what can happen when critical feedback, regardless of its source, is not adequately incorporated into the development and validation process.

One last point worth highlighting is the significant disconnect that often exists between some desktop sim enthusiasts and real-world pilots.

It is remarkable how quickly individuals with limited aviation training or operational experience can dismiss the observations of professional pilots who have undergone extensive training, accumulated hundreds or thousands of hours in full-flight simulators, logged thousands of flight hours, and spent years and years operating aircraft in real-world environments.

To put it into perspective, it's like a pilot directing a software engineer on how to code during development. Each profession has unique expertise, standards, and knowledge. Professionals depend on experience, training, and evidence, not guesswork.

I also agree that a number of self-proclaimed "real-world pilot" YouTube creators have contributed to the problem by selectively overlooking product deficiencies, spreading misinformation for views and engagement, or acting as unofficial marketing departments for certain developers. While many creators provide honest and valuable feedback, there are certainly some who prioritize clicks, ratings, and access over objective evaluation, and that ultimately does a disservice to the community.

2 hours ago, LRBS said:

last point worth highlighting is the significant disconnect that often exists between some desktop sim enthusiasts and real-world pilots.

It's not the fault of desktop sim enthusiasts. The developers should open up their closed beta teams, diverse experiences make a better product. This is about letting real-world pilots dictate everything, though I do understand their frustration as pilots in real life.

5 hours ago, LRBS said:

Interestingly, one developer has already incorporated it into their EFB, demonstrating that it can be done.

who?

17 minutes ago, chapstick said:

who?

ToLiss, very similar to what we have on our tablets.

38 minutes ago, Claudius_ said:

It's not the fault of desktop sim enthusiasts. The developers should open up their closed beta teams, diverse experiences make a better product. This is about letting real-world pilots dictate everything, though I do understand their frustration as pilots in real life.

This is a completely inaccurate statement. It implies that real-world pilots are attempting to impose authority rather than contribute professional expertise and operational experience. Suggesting that "real-world pilots dictate everything" is both inflammatory and unfair.

Providing real-world operational insight is not the same as dictating decisions. On the contrary, it is simply sharing relevant knowledge and experience that can help inform discussions and improve the end product.

If there is any frustration, it stems from the recurring accusation that real-world pilots are somehow trying to dictate outcomes when they are merely offering informed, experience-based feedback.

Very disappointing.

5 minutes ago, LRBS said:

This is a completely inaccurate statement. It implies that real-world pilots are attempting to impose authority rather than contribute professional expertise and operational experience. Suggesting that "real-world pilots dictate everything" is both inflammatory and unfair.

Providing real-world operational insight is not the same as dictating decisions. On the contrary, it is simply sharing relevant knowledge and experience that can help inform discussions and improve the end product.

If there is any frustration, it stems from the recurring accusation that real-world pilots are somehow trying to dictate outcomes when they are merely offering informed, experience-based feedback.

Very disappointing.

I recently found myself in a similar situation on Discord while trying to advise the developers of a certain product (I’ll keep their name out) that some of their new features weren’t realistic from an airliner perspective. Their fan club immediately started making fun of me, and even the dev joined in. At this point I won’t bother anymore — sometimes it just feels very toxic to give an opinion or state facts.

On the other hand, plenty of developers genuinely appreciate our feedback and value our input. I was a simmer long before I became an airline pilot, so the idea that we “don’t understand simmers’ requirements” is bogus. There are plenty of airline guys who were simmers and still sim to this day. We’re not trying to dictate anything (we just want to help); we want realistic products that simulate things properly. I use FS to prepare for recurrent, and I feel ready when I hit the sim thanks to the realistic simulation products we have available nowadays.

11 minutes ago, RJ_FO said:

we want realistic products that simulate things properly

Yes, but the problem is that often you can't see how and why a simulated airplane is wrong. You're almost only interested in realistic procedures, but often you pilots fail when it comes to the flight model, to say the least. That's because many of you started your careers primarily as airliner pilots, just a little more than bus drivers. But flying is another business. In the famous Sully accident, it was his previous glider experience that saved their axxxx when ditching in the Hudson River. Paradoxically, in the famous Flight 447 accident, three pilots weren't capable of recognizing a stall of their A330. These accidents are very interesting for learning about pilots' experiences and backgrounds. At the same time, we can see real-world pilots who have no idea what a simulated flight model is, yet they can reproduce their MCDU from memory, simply because they are just a bit more than bus drivers. So, no more closed beta. Let's open up to different experiences to create better and more realistic simulated airplanes.

19 minutes ago, Claudius_ said:

Yes, but the problem is that often you can't see how and why a simulated airplane is wrong. You're almost only interested in realistic procedures, but often you pilots fail when it comes to the flight model, to say the least. That's because many of you started your careers primarily as airliner pilots, just a little more than bus drivers. But flying is another business. In the famous Sully accident, it was his previous glider experience that saved their axxxx when ditching in the Hudson River. Paradoxically, in the famous Flight 447 accident, three pilots weren't capable of recognizing a stall of their A330. These accidents are very interesting for learning about pilots' experiences and backgrounds. At the same time, we can see real-world pilots who have no idea what a simulated flight model is, yet they can reproduce their MCDU from memory, simply because they are just a bit more than bus drivers. So, no more closed beta. Let's open up to different experiences to create better and more realistic simulated airplanes.

So I guess you think an airline pilot is only good at playing with a MCDU or FMS uh? You have no idea how many of us started our careers. Many airline pilots come from being CFIs, flying corporate, serving in the military, or other ways. How do you think we build the minimum required hours to make it to a flight deck? You dont start a career flying an airliner, you start flying a Cessna/Piper, etc. and make your way up.

How dare you refer to us as “more than a bus driver.” Next time you board an airliner, feel free to speak to the flight crew that way and see how they react. I find your impression of airline pilots insulting.

Regarding the Hudson river incident, any well trained pilot would have reacted the same (this is basic private pilot skills here, simulate engine failure and find a spot to land). It doesnt matter if you fly a Cessna or an Airbus, find the best glide speed, pick up a spot and land the plane.

If you believe that being a desktop simmer gives you more knowledge than a professional pilot — and it doesn’t even have to be an airline pilot btw — then good for you. I guess you think you know more than an ATP who studied for years and spent 1,500 hours (1200 restricted ATP) flying before even starting a career. Tell that to anyone that had to grind getting to the airlines, corporate, etc., with all the personal sacrifices that comes with this job (as many other jobs).

We train on Level D simulators where we practice multiple failure scenarios, so yes — I know how to recognize a defective flight model or systems, and level D also have bugs, which we can recognize.

From what I see with certain products, even though they had airline pilots on their team, the product came out with bugs (and I am sure these bugs were identified, the developers chose to ignore due to deadlines or other reasons). I am not against open betas, but also realize that this needs to be managed, and most of devs here are small teams and managing a large beta takes resources away from other tasks.

3 hours ago, RJ_FO said:

I recently found myself in a similar situation on Discord while trying to advise the developers of a certain product (I’ll keep their name out) that some of their new features weren’t realistic from an airliner perspective. Their fan club immediately started making fun of me, and even the dev joined in. At this point I won’t bother anymore — sometimes it just feels very toxic to give an opinion or state facts.

On the other hand, plenty of developers genuinely appreciate our feedback and value our input. I was a simmer long before I became an airline pilot, so the idea that we “don’t understand simmers’ requirements” is bogus. There are plenty of airline guys who were simmers and still sim to this day. We’re not trying to dictate anything (we just want to help); we want realistic products that simulate things properly. I use FS to prepare for recurrent, and I feel ready when I hit the sim thanks to the realistic simulation products we have available nowadays.

Yes you want realistic simulation, but having a working toilet for instance will make more people buy than a non working one even a well detailed cabin.

2 hours ago, Claudius_ said:

Yes, but the problem is that often you can't see how and why a simulated airplane is wrong. You're almost only interested in realistic procedures, but often you pilots fail when it comes to the flight model, to say the least. That's because many of you started your careers primarily as airliner pilots, just a little more than bus drivers. But flying is another business. In the famous Sully accident, it was his previous glider experience that saved their axxxx when ditching in the Hudson River. Paradoxically, in the famous Flight 447 accident, three pilots weren't capable of recognizing a stall of their A330. These accidents are very interesting for learning about pilots' experiences and backgrounds. At the same time, we can see real-world pilots who have no idea what a simulated flight model is, yet they can reproduce their MCDU from memory, simply because they are just a bit more than bus drivers. So, no more closed beta. Let's open up to different experiences to create better and more realistic simulated airplanes.

Well you are incorrect the one pilot noticed they were in a stall but the other pilot didn't let go of the controls and misunderstood what the one pilot said when they mentioned controls to the left let alone proper phraseology was not used, spatial disorientation being a critical aspect because it was dark.

1 hour ago, RJ_FO said:

So I guess you think an airline pilot is only good at playing with a MCDU or FMS uh? You have no idea how many of us started our careers. Many airline pilots come from being CFIs, flying corporate, serving in the military, or other ways. How do you think we build the minimum required hours to make it to a flight deck? You dont start a career flying an airliner, you start flying a Cessna/Piper, etc. and make your way up.

How dare you refer to us as “more than a bus driver.” Next time you board an airliner, feel free to speak to the flight crew that way and see how they react. I find your impression of airline pilots insulting.

Regarding the Hudson river incident, any well trained pilot would have reacted the same (this is basic private pilot skills here, simulate engine failure and find a spot to land). It doesnt matter if you fly a Cessna or an Airbus, find the best glide speed, pick up a spot and land the plane.

If you believe that being a desktop simmer gives you more knowledge than a professional pilot — and it doesn’t even have to be an airline pilot btw — then good for you. I guess you think you know more than an ATP who studied for years and spent 1,500 hours (1200 restricted ATP) flying before even starting a career. Tell that to anyone that had to grind getting to the airlines, corporate, etc., with all the personal sacrifices that comes with this job (as many other jobs).

We train on Level D simulators where we practice multiple failure scenarios, so yes — I know how to recognize a defective flight model or systems, and level D also have bugs, which we can recognize.

From what I see with certain products, even though they had airline pilots on their team, the product came out with bugs (and I am sure these bugs were identified, the developers chose to ignore due to deadlines or other reasons). I am not against open betas, but also realize that this needs to be managed, and most of devs here are small teams and managing a large beta takes resources away from other tasks.

Don't worry about this guy some of the things they've come out with are wild.

Edited May 31May 31 by carlanthony24

1 hour ago, carlanthony24 said:

Well you are incorrect the one pilot noticed they were in a stall but the other pilot didn't let go of the controls and misunderstood what the one pilot said when they mentioned controls to the left let alone proper phraseology was not used, spatial disorientation being a critical aspect because it was dark.

Yes, it was the infamous closed beta of real world pilots.

3 hours ago, RJ_FO said:

So I guess you think an airline pilot is only good at playing with a MCDU or FMS uh? You have no idea how many of us started our careers. Many airline pilots come from being CFIs, flying corporate, serving in the military, or other ways. How do you think we build the minimum required hours to make it to a flight deck? You dont start a career flying an airliner, you start flying a Cessna/Piper, etc. and make your way up.

How dare you refer to us as “more than a bus driver.” Next time you board an airliner, feel free to speak to the flight crew that way and see how they react. I find your impression of airline pilots insulting.

Regarding the Hudson river incident, any well trained pilot would have reacted the same (this is basic private pilot skills here, simulate engine failure and find a spot to land). It doesnt matter if you fly a Cessna or an Airbus, find the best glide speed, pick up a spot and land the plane.

If you believe that being a desktop simmer gives you more knowledge than a professional pilot — and it doesn’t even have to be an airline pilot btw — then good for you. I guess you think you know more than an ATP who studied for years and spent 1,500 hours (1200 restricted ATP) flying before even starting a career. Tell that to anyone that had to grind getting to the airlines, corporate, etc., with all the personal sacrifices that comes with this job (as many other jobs).

We train on Level D simulators where we practice multiple failure scenarios, so yes — I know how to recognize a defective flight model or systems, and level D also have bugs, which we can recognize.

From what I see with certain products, even though they had airline pilots on their team, the product came out with bugs (and I am sure these bugs were identified, the developers chose to ignore due to deadlines or other reasons). I am not against open betas, but also realize that this needs to be managed, and most of devs here are small teams and managing a large beta takes resources away from other tasks.

Very well said.

Unfortunately, @Claudius_ appears to have a rather adversarial approach to the discussion and seems unfamiliar with the level of training, experience, and operational knowledge required to become and remain an airline pilot.

What is even more concerning are statements suggesting that "real-world pilots have no idea what a simulated flight model is." Such remarks are both inaccurate and dismissive of the extensive experience many professional pilots bring to these discussions. Real-world pilots are often uniquely positioned to evaluate how closely a simulation reflects actual aircraft behavior and operational procedures, making their input a valuable part of the conversation rather than something to be discounted.

6 minutes ago, LRBS said:

Real-world pilots are often uniquely positioned to evaluate how closely a simulation reflects actual aircraft behavior and operational procedures, making their input a valuable part of the conversation rather than something to be discounted.

It seems you are confusing a professional sim with a desktop one. And you are wrong: because you are ignoring the valuable input of the unreal world desktop pilots, yours is a typical closed beta vision. It's a sort of NTSB of the real world pilots version\corporation.