This thread is for intelligent debate about whether Flight is a Sim or not.

If you believe that Flight is a Sim please post a reason why.

If you don't think Flight is a Sim please post a reason why.

So basically if you have an opinion please have an intelligent Statement to back it up.

If you are just going to post things like Flight Isn’t a Sim & not have a Statement to back it up then don’t post just vote in the poll.

I voted 'not sure'. I don't really want it, so I haven't tried it yet. Most simulators I know of, in professional use, are things you actually climb into. Defining simulation might be a good start as everyones point of view will vary.

andy190 wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 6:21pm:



I was being a little fess.. fec.. fecicious. ( facetious? )
I know what you mean. I can speak to FSX and FS9. When you can navigate across counties, countries and oceans you have a simulator!    

Hi Andy

Interesting Poll and I voted NO...

Reason:

Microsoft does not make Flight Simulators.
They make programs to run certain flight training devices but Microsoft does not make a Flight Simulator.

From FS98, FS2000, FS2002, FS2004, FSX and Flight are just programs to work with a few Flight Training Devices or games to be used on a home computer.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_Simulator

The below information was taken from the above Link which should be read in it's entirety before commenting...


Qualification and approval

Procedure

In order for a Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) to be used for flight crew training or checking, it must be evaluated by the local National Aviation Authority (NAA), such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the United States. The training device in question is evaluated against a set of regulatory criteria, and a number of both objective and subjective tests are conducted on the device. The results of each test, along with other significant information about the FSTD and its operator, are recorded in a Qualification Test Guide (QTG).[citation needed]

The result of the initial evaluation of the FSTD, called the Master QTG (MQTG), details the baseline performance of the device as accepted by the qualifying authority. A periodic re-evaluation, called a recurrent qualification, is performed regularly, generally in one year intervals (although the interval can be as low as six months for some FAA evaluations and as high as three years for some European evaluations), and the performance of the device is evaluated against the MQTG. Any significant deviations may result in the suspension or revocation of the device's approval.

The criteria against which an FSTD is evaluated are defined in one of a number of regulatory and/or advisory documents. In the United States and China, FSTD qualification is regulated in 14 CFR Part 60. In most of Europe as well as several other parts of the world, the relevant regulations are defined in JAR-FSTD A and JAR-FSTD H. The testing requirements vary for the different levels of qualification, but almost all levels require that the FSTD show that it matches the flight characteristics of the aircraft or family of aircraft being simulated.

The main exception to the above process is the evaluation of an ATD by the FAA. Rather than other FSTD, where each device is evaluated on an individual basis, ATDs are evaluated as an entire model line. When a manufacturer wishes to have an ATD model approved, a document that contains the specifications for the model line and that proves compliance with the appropriate regulations is submitted to the FAA. Once this document, called a Qualification Approval Guide (QAG), has been approved, all future devices conforming to the QAG are automatically approved and individual evaluation is neither required nor available.

Until the publication of Part 60, qualification was called certification, and QTGs were called Approval Test Guides (ATGs). The terms certification and ATG no longer have any regulatory meaning other than for FSTD that remain qualified under FAA AC 120-45 or any other legacy standard.

Flight Simulator "levels" and other categories

The following levels of qualification are currently being granted for both airplane and helicopter FSTD:

US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Flight Training Devices (FTD)[7] FAA FTD Level 4 - Similar to a Cockpit Procedures Trainer (CPT), but for helicopters only. This level does not require an aerodynamic model, but accurate systems modeling is required.
FAA FTD Level 5 - Aerodynamic programming and systems modeling is required, but it may represent a family of aircraft rather than only one specific model.
FAA FTD Level 6 - Aircraft-model-specific aerodynamic programming, control feel, and physical cockpit are required.
FAA FTD Level 7 - Model specific, helicopter only. All applicable aerodynamics, flight controls, and systems must be modeled. A vibration system must be supplied. This is the first level to require a visual system.
Full Flight Simulators (FFS)[8] FAA FFS Level A - A motion system is required with at least three degrees of freedom. Airplanes only.
FAA FFS Level B - Requires three axis motion and a higher-fidelity aerodynamic model than does Level A. The lowest level of helicopter flight simulator.
FAA FFS Level C - Requires a motion platform with all six degrees of freedom. Also lower transport delay (latency) over levels A & B. The visual system must have an outside-world horizontal field of view of at least 75 degrees for each pilot.
FAA FFS Level D - The highest level of FFS qualification currently available. Requirements are for Level C with additions. The motion platform must have all six degrees of freedom, and the visual system must have an outside-world horizontal field of view of at least 150 degrees, with a Collimated (distant focus) display. Realistic sounds in the cockpit are required, as well as a number of special motion and visual effects.

European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA, ex JAA)
Flight Navigation and Procedures Trainer (FNTP)[9] EASA FNPT Level I
EASA FNPT Level II
EASA FNTP Level III
MCC - Not a true "level" of qualification, but an add-on that allows any level of FNPT to be used for multi-crew cooperation training.
Flight Training Devices (FTD)[9] EASA FTD Level 1
EASA FTD Level 2
EASA FTD Level 3 - Helicopter only.
Full Flight Simulators (FFS)[9] EASA FFS Level A
EASA FFS Level B
EASA FFS Level C
EASA FFS Level D

Credits

The training or checking credits allowed for an FSTD are based on the level of qualification and the operator's training curriculum. For some experienced pilots, Level D FFS may be used for Zero Flight Time (ZFT) conversions from one type of aircraft to another. In ZFT conversions, no aircraft flight time is required and the pilot first flies the aircraft (under the supervision of a training captain) on a revenue flight.[citation needed]

Manufacturers

Notable full flight simulator manufacturers include:
AXIS Flight Training Systems (Austria)
CAE Inc., (Canada)
FlightSafety International (FSI) (United States),
Frasca International, Inc.
Havelsan (Turkey)
Indra Sistemas in Spain
L-3 Communications - Link Simulation & Training Division
Mechtronix Systems (Canada)
Rockwell Collins
Thales Training & Simulation (France and UK)

Here is another interesting Link which should be read...


http://www.bruceair.com/msfs/fs_in_training.htm

The below has been taken from the above Link which should be read in it's entirety...


FAA Approval of PC-Based Simulations

Questions about FAA approval of Microsoft Flight Simulator pop up as often as, say, inquiries about logging flight time (see below).

As noted above, the experiences of many individuals and organizations over the years demonstrate that PC-based simulations, including Microsoft Flight Simulator, can make your training or proficiency flying more efficient and less costly, even if time spent using the tools doesn’t count toward the minimum logged flight or simulator time required for a certificate, rating, or currency. As I often say, "It’s about learning, not logging."

No one doubts the utility and value of many training aids, such as GPS simulators, online courses, and training DVDs, none of which are "FAA approved" (with the exception of some courses that may be used to meet requirements for the FAA pilot proficiency program or the flight instructor renewal process).

Using PC-based simulations effectively is all about learning, not logging.
But to the main point: As I explain in detail in my book, the FAA doesn’t approve flight simulation software. It approves flight training devices (FTDs) and simulators, devices that include software plus displays, controls, and other features.

For more information about Basic Aviation Training Devices (BATD) and Advanced Aviation Training Devices (AATD), see Advisory Circular AC 61-136, "FAA Approval of Basic Aviation Training Devices (BATD) and Advanced Aviation Training Devices (AATD)." That AC was issued July 14, 2008, and it supplants AC 61-126, "Qualification and Approval of Personal Computer-Based Aviation Training Devices" and AC 120-45, "Airplane Flight Training Device Qualification."

To learn more about joysticks, yokes, rudder pedals, and other accessories for Flight Simulator, visit the Flight Simulator page here at BruceAir.

The Flight Model Myth

One of the most common misconceptions about flight training devices (FTD) and aviation training devices (ATDs) is that FAA (or other agency) approval is based primarily on flight models.

In fact, the FAA approves several levels of training devices and in many cases, a generic flight model--even one based on fictitious aerodynamic data--is sufficient. The FAA is much more concerned about whether a training device has controls such as flap and landing gear levers—no point-and-click mice allowed—than it is about the fidelity of a flight model.

To learn more about FAA approval of ATDs and FTDs, see:
•For ATDs: Advisory Circular AC 61-136
•For FTDs: 14 CFR Part 60 (60.1—60.37 and appendices)

The website of the FAA National Simulator Programs also provides additional information.

If you’re interested in a technical details about the flight model used in Microsoft Flight Simulator, see the article “Aircraft Simulation Techniques” on the FSInsider website. The document, written by one of the aeronautical engineers on the Flight Simulator team, is available as a .pdf file.

That said, Microsoft Flight Simulator, X-Plane, and other products have been included in approved ATDs and FTDs in the U.S. and other countries.

Logging Simulator Time

On August 21, 2009, the FAA published revisions to 14 CFR Part 61 (the rules that govern the certification of pilots and flight instructors), including the use of FTDs and flight simulators for training and to maintain instrument proficiency. The new rules became effective in October 2009, and the FAA published a revision to the original notice at that time.

The new rules (specifically §61.51) offer greater flexibility in the use of FTDs (including ATDs) and flight simulators in training for certificates and ratings and to maintain instrument currency. The FAA's comments in the Federal Register in the October update also clarified the agency's interpretation of the regulations.



For example, §61.51(b)(2) and §61.51(a) require that an authorized instructor must be present in the flight simulator, FTD, or ATD when instrument training time is logged for training and aeronautical experience for meeting the requirements for a certificate, rating, or flight review. The instructor must sign the trainee's logbook and verify training time and session content.

The FAA's comments on the rules, however, clarify several points. First, the FAA explains what "present" means in this context.

Examples of situations in which an authorized instructor will be considered present would be where an authorized instructor is seated at a center control panel in a flight simulation lab and is monitoring each student’s performance from control panel display. Another example would be a situation where an instructor assigns a student several instrument tasks and then leaves the room. In such cases, if the flight training device has a monitoring and tracking system that allows the authorized instructor to review the entire training session, the instructor need not be physically present. Another example would be a situation where one authorized instructor monitors several students simultaneously in the same room at a flight simulation lab.

The new rules also change §61.57(c) "to allow use of aviation training devices (ATD), flight simulators (FS), and flight training devices (FTD) for maintaining instrument recent flight experience."

The FAA is allowing different means to maintain instrument currency. The pilot may use whatever method best suits his or her needs to maintain instrument currency by using the actual aircraft, flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device, or a combination of all.

The FAA's comments elaborate thus:

Subject to certain limitations, a pilot may choose completing his/her instrument experience requirements in an aircraft and/or through use of an FS, FTD, or ATD. The simulation devices must be representative of the category of aircraft suitable for the instrument rating privileges that the pilot desires to maintain. Under new §61.57(c)(2), a person may use a flight simulator or flight training device exclusively by performing and logging at least three hours of instrument recent flight experience within the six calendar months before the month of the flight.

Furthermore:

Under new §61.57(c)(3), a person may use an ATD exclusively by performing and logging at least three hours of instrument recent flight experience within the two calendar months before the month of the flight. We have deliberately established differences between the use of an ATD, FS, and flight training devices because use of an aviation training device to maintain instrument recent flight experience is a relatively new concept. The FAA wants to further evaluate its use before we allow use of ATDs equal to that of flight simulators and flight training devices. Under new §61.57(c)(4), a person could combine use of the aircraft and FS, FTD, and ATD to obtain instrument experience. When a pilot elects to combine use of an aircraft and simulation device, we will require, under new §61.57(c)(4), completion of one hour of instrument flight time in the aircraft and three hours in the FS, FTD, or ATD within the preceding 6 calendar months. Under new §61.57(c)(5), a person may combine use of an FS or FTD flight training, and an ATD to obtain instrument recent flight experience. When a pilot elects this combination, we will require one hour in a flight simulator or flight training device, and three hours in a training device within the preceding six calendar months.

Finally, the FAA clarifies the use of flight simulators and FTDs for accomplishing an IPC:

The revision to §61.57(d) concerning the instrument proficiency check does not prohibit the use of a flight simulator or flight training device for performing an IPC check, nor did the proposal in the NPRM propose eliminating use of FS or FTDs for performing an IPC. An FS or FTD may be used for accomplishing an IPC if the training device is approved for performing an instrument proficiency check. The content of an instrument proficiency check is addressed on page 16 of the Instrument Rating Practical Test Standards.

Andy, I did not touch on Transport Canada or other Commonwealth Countries and their regulations as it would make this article very lengthy...

Just my humble opinion Andy...

Steve M wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 9:06pm:


Steve you put it vey nicely.

I forgot to vote the first time I responded to this but this time around I voted yes.

The question is whether or not Microsoft Flight is a Flight Simulator.  Does it or FSX for that matter,  quote "artificially re-creates aircraft flight and various aspects of the flight environment. This includes the equations that govern how aircraft fly, how they react to applications of their controls and other aircraft systems, and how they react to external environmental factors such as air density, turbulence, cloud, precipitation, etc." unquote. I took this quote from a source in the previous lengthy response for voting no

I believe the answer to this is yes. When you add FSX or FM software to run on a PC,  the total system assumes the role of a  Flight Simulator. The purpose is familiarization to the real environment of flying and just plain or plane fun.

Good morning all...

Just an add on to my above post.

Let us take for example the Douglas DC3 which is just one of the old piston pounders I flew, tested and instructed on.

When Carburetor Ice was overlooked for too long of a period the affected engine would lose power without much warning and very quickly.  The aircraft would roll.

One had to be quick on the controls (rudders) if they did not want to buy the farm.

Who ever was flying the aircraft had best have their seat belt on as the aircrafts deviation from level flight could throw one out of their seat.
Especially at Max Load.

When something goes wrong it is usually followed by several other problem all compounding the work load in the cockpit.  Motion is required for this in a Flight Simulator although the Procedures can be exercised on the Training Aid which may not have motion.

Smoke in the cockpit for example followed by a sudden loss of an engine on a heavy twin can only be replicated by a Motion Simulator.

Please don't get me wrong, I am not knocking the Games that Microsoft marketed (FS98, FS2000, FS2002, FS2004, FSX and Flight) and they work well in many Training Aids but as my above post shows they are not a Flight Simulator.

That said they could be used as a Program for a Motion Simulator but used without motion they can best be described as a good program for a Non-Motion Flight Simulator or Training Aid...

Again interesting subject Andy...

Flying Trucker wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 9:50am:



The below detailed description of  Flight Simulation is taken from your source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_Simulator).

"Depending on their purpose, flight simulations employ various types of hardware, modeling detail and realism. They can range from PC laptop-based models of aircraft systems to simple replica cockpits for familiarisation purposes to more complex cockpit simulations with some working controls and systems to highly detailed cockpit replications with all controls and aircraft systems and wide-field outside-world visual systems, all mounted on six degrees-of-freedom (DOF) motion platforms which move in response to pilot control movements and external aerodynamic factors. "

It points outs,  that a flight simulator has multiple purposes. It goes on to say  that if it is used for flight crew training, it must comply with the requirements set forth by the National Aviation Authority (NAA) such as the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA).

I agree with your lengthy description of why MF and or FSX does not qualify for flight crew training, however the purpose of MF or FSX is not for that. It's, as I mentioned before, their purpose is the familiarization to the real environment of  flying and having fun doing it. As a retired Master Army Aviator, I get much pleasure in setting up my weather and then making a simulated ILS approach to a given airport in an aircraft I am use to such as a Charley 47, DH4 Caribou, or twin Beach.

In response to your statement "Please don't get me wrong, I am not knocking the Games that Microsoft marketed (FS98, FS2000, FS2002, FS2004, FSX and Flight) and they work well in many Training Aids but as my above post shows they are not a Flight Simulator.", all you verified is that the Microsoft Flight Sims are not qualified for flight crew training.

So it seems there are *six degrees of simulation.  I hope Andy didn't get mad at some of us. (me) What is simulation, though, is fairly close to the topic above.   



*Six degrees of seperation.  

andy190 wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 5:47pm:



Thanks Andy. 

Alrot:
I agree.


A better question would be:

Is flight as close to training simulators as FSX etc?

Flight Ace wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 9:18am:

I mean:
FSX is more realistic than flight and has the abiility for ATC.
Motion simulation is also possible as has been done before.(I am pretty sure)
Full replicas would ALSO possible,the coding is there...
Both have the ability for a 45 degree horizontal field of view and a 30 degree vertical field of view.

I thinks it's a game for people who just want to fly, and not use systems

alrot wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 1:07pm:


FS2000 simulates all the functionality of the Flight planes, realistic physics, as well as visuals such as reflections, high poly models, water reflections, 3D fog, and all kinds of real time shadowing? Wow, I did not know that! I'll have to go start up FS2000...

</sarcasm>

I know Flight is no FSX replacement, but really?!! 

Another thing to make me think: Why did I even come back here?

andy190 wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2012 at 6:35pm:



Actually, a lot of these comments were not about Flight specifically, and it has been a nice clean discussion about simulators for the most part. Maybe not totally on topic, but if you ask which one is a simulator, another may ask what is a simulator? I have enjoyed reading most of the comments on this thread.
  I believe the fans of Flight, FSX, and FS9 could sit at a round table and banter until the cows come home, same as religion and politics, I think. But.. no one should go away mad. Hundreds of people can express their opinions, but hundreds of people can never make a single unified decision.     

Steve M wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2012 at 8:12pm:


+1

Ah but Doug you forgot the Golden Rule:

All Simulators are Games BUT,

Not all Games are Simulators.

Flight simulator .... PC flight simulator ..... different.

One crucial point -- Lockheed Martin haven't adopted FSX (renamed prepar3d) as a game.

Quote from their main page

Fozzer wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 1:11pm:

I think that proves Pete's point.

Quote:

Not necessarily. The Academic licence is $49.95. Once you have it on your computer I see no reason why you can't use it for whatever purpose you want. http://www.prepar3d.com/prepar3d-academic/

Hi Flight Ace

"Here is an interesting Link indicating why motion in a simulator used for flight crew training is required by the Government", I would agree with you

Okay I can agree with what you think my statement should have been typed out as...no problem there...

However using a desk top computer with the Microsoft Games installed does not make it a Flight Simulator.

I found that in most definitions of Flight there was mention of motion...
ex.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flight

We can not duplicate flight without motion and it is as simple as that.

Unless the Microsoft Programs such as FSX and FS2004 are installed on a system with motion then the best they can be is Training Aids or a Game for personal enjoyment...

Flying Trucker wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 7:39pm:


A piece of software for the desktop computer can simulate motion, but perhaps not in the tactile kind of way unless it is geared for that purpose . 

The most simple definition of a simulator is trying to simulate an environment, usually to serve a purpose such as training.  In a sense, I think programs like FSX, X-Plane, and MS Flight can each serve as a simulator to a certain extent.  The merits on how much of a simulator it is, however, is in my opinion gauged by how realistically the software is designed to do so.  Here, MS Flight seems to be more geared towards a casual audience, and the game likewise delivers scenarios that are somewhat borderline fantasy. 

As for other software, like FSX, or even X-Plane... well, I've seen them make their way into commercial flight training institutions as sims that are in fact, recognized by the government as "flight simulators," for the training of civilian flight crews (usually instrument work).  My very first commercial sim I've jumped into utilized a pretty simple yoke and throttle system and ran a primitive and modified version of x-plane with no motion whatsoever other than force feedback on the controls.  It was still recognized as a flight simulator and I could still log sim hours in my log book. I've also jumped into a sim that ran some derivative of FSX, though it is situated on a moving platform that responds to command inputs.

Software like FSX and FS2004 may in many ways be considered "games," but they are no less simulators than some of the stuff I've seen.  I consider my desktop version of FSX a simulator--especially with some of the addons I use--for it portrays the aspects of cruising the air with a set of wings to a satisfying level and has also helped me train and prepare for real flights as well.  It certainly doesn't simulate everything (I don't think any simulator can take into account every variable that exists in real life), it still accomplishes it's goal of simulating something that is real.

jetprop wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 5:08pm:


Actually FSX has. It was called Microsoft ESP I think.

Then MS sold it to Lockheed Martin who renamed it Prepar3D (also known as P3D).