flying_carpet

That's why I wrote "some people" 😛 , not you specifically. Exactly, that'what I was saying, too. 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 😁.

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. 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 😄.

That reminds me to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Baghdad_DHL_attempted_shootdown_incident If RL pilots only trained to fly from A to B in the simulator, they would be dead in the case described above. Such an extreme case as described cannot/will not be trained, but if only fair-weather flying from A to B were simulated and no emergency cases ... aviation would be much less safe.

It's not about crash detection. It's about failures. E.g., if the rudder fails, can you counter it with aileron (or vice versa)? If there's contamination in the fuel and the engine dies - are you helpless, or can you look for a suitable landing site on the field - at least with GA, it's more difficult with airliners. With the latter, you can also try to land in the Hudson (birdstrike, as that was mentioned further above). Of course, this is not necessary for home use by hobby pilots, but why not give it a try? Of course you can also just fly from A to B without being affected by failures, there's nothing wrong with that. But that's the special attraction, whether I can do more than just fly from A to B and watch the scenery (also nothing wrong with that). Oh ... and real simulators are usually used for exactly that: train beaviour in case of failures, not simply flying from A to B - that's the (relatively) boring part. Agreed ... (why isn't it done yet after more than 5 years?)

Exactly this.

Yes, in 2024 the planes are really "swimming" on the water instead of being way below or above water in high waves as in 2020.

Well ... I know that I'm regarded as disruptor in this forum, hence my statement 😛. But as I also said (several times), I'm holding the mirror. If one party can behave (I mean not accusing other people) then the other one also can, by simply not participating. As we are comparing with this statement to other simulators - in the other "unnamed" 😛 simulator, every default plane can do that. No study level addon required.

So then - that was a misunderstanding from my side. But you can flip it, what I wrote above is things which XP is capable of, whereas ... you know what I mean.

Wrong!! 😁 Otherwise I couldn't post here right-away ... But as you might have learned in physics at school - a force always induces a counterforce. And if the one party can behave, the other one can, too. If you ask this specific : to avoid rage here in this forum 😉, I have responded elsewhere, namely in the thread you mentioned above. And please (!!) don't complain, you have asked yourself for proof 😁. In the end, these endless discussions are tiring anyway, because it always boils down to the same thing - isn't it? Since years ...

If you ask this specific 😉 and it was actually discussed ad nauseam (even with video evidence) - apart from the above mentioned: Braking distance on contaminated rwy - still not there (although it seems they have improved that to a halfway extent) Strong crosswinds behaviour on ground Icing conditions No failures at all (heck - I don't want my plane to fail 😄). OTOH - even 2020 had a few, whereas XP has hundreds. ... to name a few (I haven't checked EVERY aspect on EVERY plane) What they indeed have omproved - e.g. water physics which were laughable in 2020. But, hey ... they are improving slowly. So, you can acknowledge that.

Attention! The following answer may contain traces of irony. Incidentally, we have already ruminated on this topic umpteen times (whereas “ruminating” contains a double irony - whoever recognizes it can keep it 🙂). Other people have already failed with your opinion. Back then it was called 'Hooray! We'll never have to buy add-ons again'. The reality over 5 years later looks different. <irony> But you've given me an idea: I'm going to suggest to my local (gourmet) restaurant that they do it like McDonalds. Their locally limited offer is not a viable business model. They have to sell burgers. Burgers, burgers and more burgers. If necessary, even for a surcharge, so that they sell what 'the market leader' does (isn't he the market leader because he does what he does?) That will make them AND me filthy rich (I will of course demand my share). But wait! Why should people go to the local restaurant and buy what McDonalds already offers, but for an extra charge? And wouldn't all restaurants have to sell burgers, burgers and more burgers because that's what the market leader does? Then we would have clones all over the world, 'because that's the only viable business model'. And we would no longer have any restaurants with a different offer. Not everyone likes to eat burgers. </irony>

THIS!! Exactly my words. Even if he (Bob) would still fly a C172, what does it tell? And thanks for letting us know about what he admitted in the MSFS-forum 😂👍. There are other users in this forum (I won't name names - everyone knows who I'm talking about) citing the YT-channel of a certain - allegedly? - RW airliner pilot, thus they claim what he tells is the truth (the ONLY truth 🤣). The popular old conman trick: "He is an expert!! So he is right!!" Uummm ... but what do the (tens of thousands) other experts say? Everyone knows that trusting only one source, is dangerous. It can even threaten your life, if you trust only the one pitot tube ...

Or in other words - we've already had the analogy: why don't Porsche or Ferrari build a Volkswagen Golf or Toyota Corolla? That's what attracts the masses and they could sell so many more cars. And for those who are bothered by the fact that I chose Porsche and Ferrari as examples - let's make it a little easier and “just” take a Toyota MR2 instead. Some people simply have different preferences. Shouldn't be too difficult to understand ... Why do some people prefer pears? I can't understand that ... 🙂, as the majority of the people eat apples (just as an example). Different preferences? Strawberry ice cream, licorice anyone? 🙂. Blue polo shirts, white polo shirts? Airbus, Boeing? Cessna, Piper? Sneaker, patent shoe?

Didn't you download it already earlier? 😄 And didn't you write earlier stuff like "the C172 in X-Plane flies like sh.t"? How could you judge that 😂? Let's see how long your “flirtation” with XP lasts this time 😁. And don't forget - how long did it take you to get accustomed to MSFS, to learn its in and outs? I bet it wasn't only 1 day or so - thus, give it some time ...

Zero consequences? Without the (virtual) landing lights lit, you will recognize the rwy much less, what might occur in a (virtual) accident. Then, again the (virtual) accident leaves only a few bent pixels, but then we don't even need to play/simulate a flight, because it has no consequences. Then we can also fly against buildings, slam the airplane onto the rwy, ... You can do anything, but what's the point?

You're getting it wrong on purpose buddy, aren't you? I could have described it in a more complicated way, but then there would be complaints again. Apart from that, shouldn't it be `fall_out_of_sky_in_ice=true`? 🥶 But well, let's make it a little more complicated, you wanted it 😛: what if the windshield were to (correctly) display and simulate freezing? No problem, you have (IF implemented by the developer) a windshield heater. But what if the windshield heater fails? So what is the point behind it?

Not only programmers and artists, but several of them are RW pilots and flight instructors themselves - that's what I know for sure, maybe there are also some engineers amongst them (?). That's the reason why they don't know how to build a 'revolutionary' flight sim, but a games company had to take care of it (SCNR). 😁

Well, the developer has to specify SOMETHING (e.g. contours) in order to define the plane. But the fact that each developer has to write things 'into the flight model' (if at all) individually and for each aircraft over and over again, which could also be calculated automatically by the core engine, is a bit silly. 😁

Interesting and exciting reasoning. 🤷‍♂️🤣 So, when I e.g. flip the switch for the landing lights, why do the landing lights do have to get lit in sim? What do I learn from it? It's something I already knew before. So, when I e.g. actuate the landing gear lever, why does the landing gear has to retract in sim? What do I learn from it? It's something I already knew before. So, when I e.g. pull the yoke, why does the plane has to lift the nose in sim? What do I learn from it? It's something I already knew before. I could go on and on ...

It is completely irrelevant how you define/differentiate between flight physics and flight model. You missed the point. Interim remark (and just for the record 😄): YOU brought up X-Plane - just in case that anyone complains that we are talking about it in the MSFS forum. In MSFS as developer you have 'to tell the plane': if there are icing conditions, plase fall from the sky. If you don't, it will fly forever like in sunshine. In X-Plane, as developer, you can't even tell the plane to fall from the sky. There is no switch (or whatever else) in planemaker, to do so. It is the The XP 'core engine' (which acts kind of like the laws of physics) and not the developer which tells the plane to fall from the sky. I could go even fuether with icing conditions and iced windshield, windshield heating, failure of windshield heating, but that would go too far for now. Same (e.g.) for braking distance on contaminated runway. There's no switch (or whatever else) in planemaker to tell the plane 'please overrun the runway' if it is wet or icy. I.e. it is not the developer, who tells the plane what to do, but the the laws of physics (or, in this case the XP 'core engine').

I don't remember anymore where it is. However, I think that also the wind has an influence - in this case coming from the left and kind of deflects the clouds by blowing the warm upstream of air to the right.

A nice example which I have as poster on my wall:

😂 How do you know? Do you have? As you bring up X-Plane: there you do NOT have to build a flight model, the planemaker does it for you. You enter contours and Planemaker calculates the flight model from them. That's the so called 'predictive' approach, or in other words, a simulation. It's kind of like putting a 3D model of a car in a virtual windtunnel, and the windtunnel program calculates the forces on the car. Not the other way round. Alia has used (not only, but still ...) X-Plane for constructing their VTOL. Apart from that, XP is also used e.g. at Airbus for various simulations.

Well, it is like this: it is said here about the MSFS that the developer of the aircraft has to care (e.g.) for implementing icing, failures, correct braking etc. first, so that the aircraft behaves correctly. In reality, however, the aircraft falls out of the sky “by itself” when icing occurs. You don't have to implement this. Easy as that. In other words, the laws of physics simply exist and affect the aircraft. So it is not the case that you first have to build the airplane so that it behaves correctly with the laws of physics.

Well, you also have posting history on this forum, which, of course, you deliberately conceal. I'm just holding the mirror here. Ok, now let's look into the real world out there and do a thought experiment: Two planes start at the same time at the same location and weather conditions - icing. One plane falls from the sky, the other doesn't. WHY? Because the developer of one plane has (intentionally or unintentionally, out of laziness, to save costs, ...) forgotten to implement the feature of falling from the sky due to icing. Which plane would I buy? Of course the one that doesn't fall from the sky. Probably it's even cheaper due to saved development cost. Win, win. Two planes start at the same time at the same location and conditions. One plane falls from the sky, the other doesn't. WHY? Because the developer of one plane has (intentionally or unintentionally, out of laziness, to save costs, ...) forgotten to implement the feature of failures. Which plane would I buy? Of course the one that doesn't have failures. Probably it's even cheaper due to saved development cost. Win, win. Two planes are landing at the same time at the same location and conditions - wet or even icy runway. One plane overruns the runway, the other doesn't. WHY? Because the developer of one plane has (intentionally or unintentionally, out of laziness, to save costs, ...) forgotten to implement the feature of tire friction. Which plane would I buy? Of course the one that has the same braking distance under all conditions and doesn't overrun the runway. Probably it's even cheaper due to saved development cost. Win, win. Two planes ... Two planes ...