I just noticed Aerofly FS 2 has joined X plane 11 as certified simulators by the FAA or EASA?
I don’t recall FSX having been certified.
I understand that it is certified along with a specific hardware set.
This small sim has shown it can be done even by a niche player on what MSFS consider to be very difficult being helicopter physics :
msfs is far too unrealistic for that
MSFS is a scenery or drone or weather simulator but not the flight simulator at this stage:thinking:
No. Definitely not.
Do you mean as in hopeless? I was hoping that a commercial use would create an imperative to get the physics correct.
Apparently, the boss of PMDG said that there are far more physical parameters in MSFS than in other sims, allowing them to more accurately recreate the physics of the airplane.
I would say the focus for now is the entertainment market. The ESP platform came out of FSX so no doubt could be done if deemed profitable.
Certification depends on much more than only the software. It is really all encompassing from visual display system, motion cueing, control loading, and all kinds of fidelity with respect to the cockpit. So no, MSFS as stand alone sim on your PC with a simple joystick is not even getting close to get accreditation for specific training, let alone training to proficiency. However, the simulator works on the same principles as any other, and if you implement a flight model right enough (which can definitely be done, no doubt about that). It can be part of a certified simulator, be it level A-D. I think commercial players are really eager to at least use the graphic representation that MSFS has to offer. Microsoft/Asobo really made a step up for the graphics, so I can imagine these commercial sims would love to use it, as long as they can work with their own flight model, visual display system, cockpit set up, controls, motion system etc.
Hey, remember that Xplane took 9 versions until it was certified. It may happen one day if is interested to the franchise. Today the commercial market is not the focus, just consumer.
I can’t speak from my own experience in real life, but a pilot friend of mine has told me that the flight dynamics really need some work to get on-par with real life.
Things such as stall physics, or the ‘ball’ on the turn indicator not shifting in turns, are things I’d say need fixing before the sim could realistically be certified.
This quote does make me hopeful…
I’ve flown in real life, I’ve flown in MSFS. There’s absolutely no similarity whatsoever between the two experiences.
It’s a bit like asking if doing a few laps in Gran Turismo should qualify towards a driving licence.
i doint think msfs is interested there, why.
and fs 2, now thats a laff, to me its a toy for the vr people, it lacks soo much, no wonder it
has great performance.
I’ll have to disagree on that, i’m also an irl pilot and the flight model on the small GA crafts such as the DR400/Cessna 172 are really comparable, more so than in P3D or XPLANE. I’ve talked with several fellow pilots on this matter and they all agreed that despite a lack of turbulence, the planes i cited felt very life like.
I find the 172 and Dr400 pretty close to life when having the appropriate peripherals.
MSFS if focused on a wide market, and achieving this certification would probably require a very tight focus for the development team for quite a long time. So personally I’d prefer they don’t even try and instead focus on delivering a wide range of enjoyable flight experiences for as many types of users/players as possible. That’s also the way to ensure maximum investment and longevity of the project.
First they have to want to - they would need to step up their physics game. I certainly hope they might, but I’m not holding my breath.
Keep topics on MSFS.