Is MSFS intended to be a simulator or a game?

Sorry, but FAA is nothing. It is like request a ISO or Aenor certification, they aren’t evaluating the flying realism, with not compatibility with training nav devices, etc.

As other user said:

I want to add that X-Plane having certified sim setups for FBO’s isn’t necessarily a testament. The FAA has cardboard cockpit print-outs as certified flight training devices.

I’m just arguing that FAA certification isn’t a measure of realism; Remember, DCS isn’t certified, and it’s probably as real as it gets.

It is for years an argument that x-plane use against other sims, and it does not have to do with the realistic behavior of the aircraft, but with systems such as compatibility with a real GPS in training mode.

You will see that the certification is really for that type of device and has nothing to do with the fidelity of the flight model.

It is for that compatibility with the devices that it is used for professional training simulators, P3D (lockheed martin) have their own version to military training and don’t have FAA certification (I know FAA is for civil).

I mean that as @HeroThanos6 said,

It is both, depending on how you use it.

You can use x-plane for play a game or in a professional form, the certification don’t matter If you don’t use professional devices.

I’m arguing all of this because there are other people who hear about FAA certification and think it means something else and repeat it like a mantra to others who don’t use x-plane saying his sim better than yours.

Just to clarify, don’t take it as an attack on you please.

4 Likes

Is MSFS intended to be a simulator or a game?

You are asking the wrong question.

MSFS is intended to be a Profitable Product and make MS lots of Money.
Plain & simple.

And that’s fair enough, especially if you are a MS share Holder.
Its “Not Personal, it’s Business” – and if you take it personally, you may well be disappointed & upset.

As someone who has purchased MSFS, there may be things happening (or not happening), that are upsetting.
Imagine how much more upsetting these issues are to Developers, whose livelihood depend on successfully (and Profitably) producing products to compliment, and work with MSFS.

1 Like

I am an early adopter of flight sims and have had everyone back to FS98. I have to say that with SU5, this sim for me has tickled my innards. With a lower-mid range system I can now turn up Graphics from Med to High and even Ultra with very good results. This said, I feel that FS2020 is definitely a simulator with games thrown in, for those who choose to game. The games I refer to are the Challenges, Back Country Flying, etc. The Challenges are definitely games within a sim because you are “gaming” for points and to see your name on the leader board. Such are games. As far as the simulator part, I am a Flight Sim instructor with the National Museum of the United States Air Force. We use P3D, but I’ve heard we will be changing over to FS2020 after the brass completes its review. Looking forward to it. Oh, and we fly the Cessna 172 w/ steam gauges for basic, and the Cherokee for advance training.

1000% correct. It’s the exact same game version used, except for a few hardware compatibility settings that are required to meet some FAA training standard. HAS NOTHING to do, whatsoever, with anything flight model related, zero, and doesn’t mean anything at all in the grander scheme. You could probably use msfs2020 for training too, but msfs2020 is legally an entertainment product, so it’s all legal babble, thats why the FAA version costs hundreds of dollars while essentially being the same entertainment game under the hood. Same goes for P3D, which is rated as non-entertainement, making the A2A add-ons cost 40 dollars more in some cases, just because of some legal babble.

why are you guys bashing on other peoples product ! envious on the better flight model ? or are u afraid that people run away from msfs now.

Better flight model? Like landing 737’s on aircraft carriers :wink: haha…

Its in the name, and its not sarcastically like Goat Simulator. Hope that clears it up for you👍

Nobody has tried in real !

That means it’s realistic, right? :wink:

Very good! That’s what I was considering in my comment. Thanks

Not, only clarifying old sentences used since FS2004 against each other simulator than x-plane.

@wombatlemineur @TundraKeks22440

About flight model, you can see a video where is showed this matter, it is a very decent model, nothing to envy if the product was finished.
But I think that there aren’t airplane with high standards to use it, neither others features finished or SDK. To me, is an unfinished sim.

It smells bad, you announced it at E3, you launched it a year ago with just a month of massive testing.
It is missing many things that are taken for granted seen in previous editions or that do not work well.
The SDK is not finished, so third parties cannot fully work with the product or even have to cancel their projects (Aerosoft).
I don’t know if it will end up being an embarrassing game like Microsoft flight (2012) or a worthy simulator successor of FSX.

But it seems to me that it has been quite a race to launch it in the microsoft store and now for xbox without being finished. The next thing, running for release topgun without having basic features implemented? Again running to get sales from movie hype? :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

3 Likes

Initially designed to be a Sim.

Now it’s a Game.

1 Like

They call it and have always called it “MS Flight Simulator” for a reason. Just because it has issues at the moment doesn’t change anything. It is booth a simulation and a game.

That’s the best answer of all !

1 Like

and this////

And that is the problema because most of us bought it to simulate, to be a sucessor of other versions. I had FS9 and stop flying for years. When I came back to the simulation I found out about MSFS so, as FS9 was obsolete (airports, live weather, etc) I thought MSFS would be a simulator at least like that one but with better graphics and some improvements but what I found was a beautiful scenery with a lot of missing things and problems for those who like to fly IFR on Airbus, for example. I always say that is unbelievable that the old PSS A319, A320,… is better than the MSFS Airbus. FBW are doing a great job and I am sure a lot (A LOT) of people was (or are) still flying on MSFS because of them but even with the great job they are doing, some things are impossible to implement because depend on the MSFS.

1 Like

Was FSX a simulator? Guys, the default FSX didn’t have FMC, VNAV, realistic ATC etc… MSFS is so much more a simulator than FSX or the versions before that. Payware products made FSX better. Now we’re getting free updates monthly. Of course MSFS is a Simulator, if you want to use it like a simulator. The hate is unreal.

Doesn’t every company strive for that.

Sigh.

So now when I turn on the taxi-help too early, I also get this landing path thing in view. Why didn’t they separate the two?

Of course we need taxi help, it’s just too difficult to navigate without maps. But that doesn’t mean I want to be guided in like a blind albatross when landing!

It’s a game.

1 Like

Or…. you open your charts and start using them? How about that mate?