The Career Mode Certification Exams are Exams in name only. This is obviously for people who want the game-aspect as opposed to the sim-aspect. There should be an option to get a much more realistic training regimen for users of MSFS 2024 who want to feel they have been given the true feel of earning the certifications and endorsements. This would entail creating additional training scenarios to cover things currently ignored, like flight planning, fuel economy, nav tools, automation in the cockpit, a module for each encountered aircraft model when you encounter it covering things like: critical airspeeds, economy cruise settings, etc.
There are aspects of actual certifications that can be relaxed, such as minimum flight hours before you can certify, but there is SO much more that could be added to enhance a sim pilotâs career training experience.
Perhaps it could be made an add-on mod for those looking for a serious sim rather than just a game. If I were a coder, Iâd be trying it myself, but unfortunately my coding skills stagnated after PRINT âHello World!â;
I completely agree, but I think your last paragraph hits hard on the problem. Someone who is not just certificated, but understands how to teach instruments unidirectionally to a sim audience, knows how to code, and understands how to work within (around!) the kludgy framework of the sim, all for the potential of no return, is a unicorn.
To do this right, you have to have a working ATC system, flawless navdata, flawless instrumentation, and you need to be able to observe and correct the student. The sim at this point does none of these well, so all of it would have to be strapped-on to a program.
Oh, and in real life itâs different in different parts of the world - which the sim also does not really differentiate. So you have to either account for that or make it for one country/region.
Otherwise itâs just more âhow-toâ videos, which are fine (better than what the sim offers), but only go so far. A worthwhile idea, for sure, but a major lift to do it right and lots of resources necessary.
as far as the PPL goes, thereâs plenty that could be added, Slow flight, stall recovery, spin recovery, simulated engine failure, simulated instrument failure. my ppl check ride was 75 minutes and encompassed all these things. There should also be some sort of written exam for things like weather, regulations, radio ops etc. a 20 minute land and takeoff exercise that can be completed with the assistance of auto pilot is substandard. The IFR check ride should in the very least be with the windows blacked out and autopilot disabled. IMHO certifications are far too easy across the board.
Iâm worried that the base logic in MSFS 2024 is badly broken. I was just given a Career Company mission starting at KWAL (Wallops Flight Facility). The reported winds (verified by the windsock) were 270 @ 14 kts, yet the assigned departure runway was 10 - the exact opposite of what it should have been. Even when I tried changing the runway in the EFB, the assignment of Rwy 10 stuck. If this was the only instance, I wouldnât be as concerned. However, Iâm seeing a lot of active runways that have tailwinds rather than headwinds.
I had a canned Career cargo mission to an airport in the Grand Canyon that had a noticeable slope, and the canned mission had me fly up the box canyon, turn around, and land downslope. How much of that was the canned mission and how much was Asobo not giving weight to upslope landings, I donât know.
Bottom line, nobody knows what weather truth the sim goes with when we hit âflyâ - not us, not the sim. Iâve had situations in which the briefing showed IFR, the sim graphically showed VFR, the ATIS and ATC stated a different IFR (that was not visible) and the real world weather was marginal VFR with a completely different wind.
But even if you get into the mission and discover the sim thinks itâs IFR, you canât go back and file or get clearance. You also canât get clearance from non-towered airports, anyway. These are core concepts that are utterly broken.
My guess is itâs all tied up with how it nerfs weather pre âInstrument checkride,â how it restricts night flying, and how the 24-hour weather history playback fits in (which nobody really asked for, anyway). Something isnât passing a check, but either way, itâs not giving us enough info, or the right info anyway.
What it should be doing is giving us a straight option to have live weather or not, independent of time of day, no matter what level we are. And for those that want to use live weather, either teaching them or pointing them to reliable weather resources that allow them to make their own decision. Then it needs to have an accurate advisory that warns if the weather is less than VFR anywhere along the route (it kind of has that, but nobody knows what truth youâll get in the sim).
The mix of hand-holding and reliance on a system that doesnât understand itself isnât good.
Having been with the franchise since MS bought it from Sublogic in the 80s, I was hoping that at least the lessons and certifications would be on par with the ones included in FS2002.
FSX had a portion with a large curriculum created by a real-life CFI, so Microsoft has done this in the past. It was included as an extra for people who wanted to learn about how to actually fly a plane with real-world navigation procedures within the limitations of the sim. Loads of pilot YouTubers wouldâve loved to help out (Iâm thinking MentourPilot, who did a full course on how a commercial pilot operates a real 737 for flight simmers).
It was a conscious decision by the developers to go this way; check out the attached link. The developer responds to what a lot of alpha/early testers had recommended, and what quite a few people on this forum are now asking for. Remember, Microsoft advertised this as âthe most realistic flight sim experience ever.â Please watch the interview, as itâs really upsetting to me. He basically says that serious flight simmers simultaneously spend loads of time in the game, but also donât really care that much about aviation in general⊠Weâre just another gamer audience who wants a fun videogame, not reality.
There are a bazillion how-to videos out there regarding real world flying and sim flying, so thereâs no shortage of access to on-demand material. Vetting it for accuracy, applicability and engagement is another story.
The real disconnect is the sim passes off whatever it is giving as âinstructionâ and itâs woefully inadequate. It somehow actually leaves people more frustrated and with poorer flying skills, to say nothing of airmanship, maybe than if you did nothing at all. There was no pedagogical approach to the modules - that would have been better energy spent than all the campy interaction we get in career mode.
Completely agree. Even in 2020 the training modules were pretty useless when it came to actually planning and programming a flight plan, and flying approach procedures. In 2024 they feel like a weird block to access further content, without any real sense of achievement or learning after passing them.
Right thread - was a response to your post.
Yeah, I deleted my question when I realized which post you were responding to.
And one of my favorite challenges was mastering holding patterns in IFR.
They were supposed to have done exactly that; consult with various pilots from all areas to get a good idea of what those jobs would look like. At least thatâs what they said they did.
FSX had King Flight Schools provide flight training video lessons and it very in-depth and practical despite having 0 interactivity.
I have some theories on that; theyâre untested, so take this with a grain of salt. My guess is they canât use something like the King videos because as the basic aviation aspects are universal, applying them to the myriad rules, regs, and standard practices all over the world is not. Using King, for example, would be very US-centric. If this were a US-centered series developed by a US design studio, focused on a US market, like it was in the distant past, maybe youâd see that work out, but we have to take into account the rest of the world is very much an active part of the sim and part of the future success of the franchise.
The best way to do that, unfortunate as some of the results may be, is to make it super generalized. But in doing that, it gets to the point that itâs never really totally right or totally wrong. It lives in an uncanny valley of sounding like aviation speak, but not getting the facts or teaching methods right. Itâs as if ChatGPT was running the show. There doesnât seem to be much of a pedagogical approach to a really complex, technical, difficult, and real-world risky subject.
Thus, I think if you want to reach that level of understanding and real-world application, youâre going to have to get it from third parties that understand how they apply to your locale. And this doesnât even get into the highly technical information youâd get at a particular airline operation or from embarking on attaining a particular type rating - this is mostly just talking about the basics.
I agree that a single, generalized training regimen wonât get you to a complete training syllabus. For instance, even something as basic as whatâs taught in a Ground School is going to be localized. My Ground School covered (among other things) the FARs - which only apply to flying in the United States. There are things like the difference between North American and European runway markings, ATC services, and the very basic âWhy is ATC telling me about a âQNHâ when I want to know what to set my altimeter to?â So even the Ground School aspect of basic flight training is going to have to be made more international in scope. But it SHOULD be done. Iâm watching YouTubers flying Career Mode in MSFS 2024 and making no attempts to fly within the constraints of âcivilized aviationâ rules - not because theyâre being rebels, but simply because they have no clue. This is fine in career mode where youâre the only plane in the sky, but if they ever get on a network like VATSIM, they could get a very negative reaction from the people near them if they continue to fly outside of accepted practices and they wouldnât understand why there was a problem.
Iâve been learning this on the fly when the fuel runs out⊠
Well, this isnât a John and Martha King simulator, itâs a game afterall. With world wide regs different from country to country, itâs unrealistic to expect anything but a representation of what instrument training is like. The goal of a desktop flight simulator/game is to entertain, not train IMO. There are other avenues if you really want your regional regs, and training, along with the cost of hiring a CFII, and renting a certified loggable training device.
Agreed. The older MSFS was better in this aspect. I would like to see a little more in the checkrides too. For a PPL, make me do a 50NM flight with three landings or something similar. For the IFR checkride, make me intercept an ILS instead of a GPS approach.
Commercial, repeat the 50NM with three landings, in a complex aircraft but with some tighter limits or something.
Iâve been mentoring this stuff for years - Iâve dedicated many hours a week to âsimucation.â Youâre absolutely right that itâs the Wild West, but the crux is that it never mattered before because nobody was being held to any sort of standard. Thus, most of the people who engaged were folks that wanted to learn more for their own fulfillment, which is great. However, thatâs changed with career mode - as weâve noticed, people are now being shoehorned into live weather, unfamiliar aircraft, and unfamiliar airports/airspace.
That theyâre being overly penalized for nonsense, but also having some major errors overlooked, along with all the bugs, is another story. Fixing that could help flesh out exactly what would be useful and not. Right now itâs more of an exercise in âthis is what the sim is doing and thinks you should do,â so real-world methods only kind of-sort of apply.
And yep, the regionation really isnât coming into play at this time (and who knows if it will?). Itâs kind of created its own bespoke environment with a lot of silliness.
Eh, itâs what you make of it. The caveat for sure is that it canât be used for official training, and unless you really know the limitations, you shouldnât really use it for anything approaching reality. And you have to be careful, either way.
But thereâs plenty of good that can come from it. If nothing else, it starts a lot of people down the road to interest in becoming pilots. If thereâs an opportunity to enlighten people of some of the differences between the sim and reality, maybe prevent some really bad imprints, soothe frustrations, improve gameplay, and also help the sim devs to overcome the things that are very unrealistic, Iâm here for it.
But back to the point above - people are being held to the simâs standard now with career mode. That standard is loosely based on real-world things (even those it gets completely wrong). Why shouldnât it do a better job training to its own standard? It misses a lot, which frustrates players and causes a lot of noise.