How in the world did Xplane get FAA approval???????????

[737NUT]

Every 3 months i give Xplane a try, done this for last 5 years. Now that i have my PPL i loaded up the 172 and attempted to fly it by the numbers. I knew i was in trouble when i was at rotation speed in a few seconds! lol I held my speed at 80knots on climbout and was rewarded with 1800ft a min climb!!!!!!!!!! WOW, now that realistic! LOL I guess the 2007 model i fly has engine problems. The default FSX 172 is so much closer on flying the numbers. Now i will say xplane does a better job with p-factor and slips but how can the FAA consider this for real world training? I'm speechless! Oh well, back to FSX for another 3months. I could list 100 more non realistic qualities but it is a simulation.

[ibennett]

Hi,

I have been using FSX for more than 10 years, I switch to x-plane a year ago. I do not understand your experience.

I am a real VFR pilot so I know what it is like in a real little plan. And x-plane is 500% closer than FSX to the real thing. As soon as you leve groung the way the plans moves around in the air is so real.

Anyway it must be a question of personnel feeling.

As for your experience you must of been using a poor aircraft model. I use aircraft model that are payware and reconized as very good aircraft and I can tell you I can fly by the figures !!

Aslo FSX will not show you as much cockpit info such as AMPS moving when you turn light on etc... Everything is just like in reel.

Having used FS for around 10 years and know FSX for ver a year I will never come back to FSX, that for my feeling

regards,

[Joe Cygan]

How in the world did Xplane get FAA approval???????????

I think Christian Stock from Sim Pilot magazine said it best, "X-Plane is built and marketed as a sim for engineers, but not for the general audience."

[wledzian]

FSX is a game pretending to be a simulator.
X-Plane is a simulator pretending to be a game.

As with any simulation, the quality of the output is directly related to the quality of the model. The training-approved version of X-Plane uses aircraft models which have been carefully tuned to fly like the real thing. Those models are not necessarily included in the general-use version.

The training-approved setups typically have one powerful machine devoted solely to running the simulation at a high rate, while only worrying about world geometry close to the aircraft for collision detection. Each visual channel has its own dedicated computer which doesn't get bogged down by the simulation engine, and can instead put more power towards the visuals.

FSX, on the other hand, has generally nicer visuals (IMO) and a flight modelling system adequate for most use. The flight models are parameter based, and don't handle the edge-of-the-envelope conditions particularly well. (in X-plane, I can fly a Cessna 172 deep into a power-on stall, well into the regime of roll control reversal, just as I've done in a real C172. Try doing that in FSX - things just get mushy, then the nose drops.)

If I'm practicing a flight to get a sense of timing, workload and general landmarks along the way, I'll fly with FSX.
If I'm practicing slips, stalls, slow flight and other flights at specific conditions, I'll use X-Plane.

[No Longer Active]

Heres my shot on this....

I am never going to ever get the chance to fly for real so I wouldnt actually know the difference between the 2 platforms, although I find that fs9 gives me very good realism and I totally go by what I see on my gauges, however, I do tend to make better landings and find the overall flight smoother in x-plane, gfx is smoother as compared to fs9 as you dont get the grainy images in xplane, if you use PM with xplane via xpuipc I find that it works quite well, only turn and slip doesnt work with the IFR panel.

FAA certified it because the CAA wouldnt (just my guess).....

Alex

[Sean Nixon]

I have no experience of xplane whatsoever, so without delving into research mode, can someone quickly let me know if xplane can be used as the basis of a 737NG home cockpit, eg. does it work with PM, is there a good 737NG available, etc.

I've never used FS until building a sim as it's so unrealistic compared to real world flying. I don't expect xplane to be vastly different, but at the price we pay for them, I'n not complaining.

[David Klem]

That's easy. It's called politics. FAA approved it and someone got a kickback.

I do some training at a Cessna Pilot Center. They have a desk flight simulator with X-Plane software and some rather expensive flight controls. I have built a very nice desk simulator at home using FSX, Saitek controllers, switch panels, radios, AP and rudder pedals. I also have 2 flat monitors in front and one on each side. As far as I can see, there is nothing you can do on theirs that you can't do on mine. I also practice at home on my sim and go up in the air just about every week. I believe that FSX has helped me in nearly every area of my flight training.

Politics at it's best!

[Matt Olieman]

That's easy. It's called politics. FAA approved it and someone got a kickback.

I do some training at a Cessna Pilot Center. They have a desk flight simulator with X-Plane software and some rather expensive flight controls. I have built a very nice desk simulator at home using FSX, Saitek controllers, switch panels, radios, AP and rudder pedals. I also have 2 flat monitors in front and one on each side. As far as I can see, there is nothing you can do on theirs that you can't do on mine. I also practice at home on my sim and go up in the air just about every week. I believe that FSX has helped me in nearly every area of my flight training.

Politics at it's best!

I think it's unfair to make that kind of a statement. When getting FAA approval, of an item like a Flight Simulator, there are no politics involved. You have to meet certain criteria and that's that, no short cuts.

As long as I can remember, there has always been rivalry between MSFS and Xplane. I don't understand, they are two complete different programs, each in it's unique way, both have each individual features to offer and both are exceptionally realistic to the real world.

Regarding realism, it really depends on your experience in the real world. If you've had limited piloting experience, you're going to base MSFS or Xplane experience to your limitations (not good). You can jump into two airplanes, same make/type and have two different piloting experiences, particularly flying small planes.

As a past Flight Instructor and couple thousand hours in small aircraft, I'm impressed with the realism with both Flight Simulators and enjoy each one for what they are.

Both simulators serve their purpose and do it well.

So, to me, the bashing of one or another Flight Simulator is irrelevant.

Matt Olieman

[verticallimit]

Without knowing the XPlane I will believe that flight dynamics is better simulated in XPlane than in MSFS.
I've had pilots in my simulator that tells me that the flight dynamics are not as realistic as in the real world.
The great challenge and one of the biggest expenses when developing real flight simulators are getting the right flight dynamics.

[castle]

Perhaps this is one of those urban myths that I see from time to time; say it often enough from several different sources and it becomes truth.

Be careful with the terminology. My understanding is that a while back the FAA approved a Flight Training Device (FTD) at Level 3 (see DOT/FAA Advisory Circular 120-45a for certification details) that used X-plane.

The FAA approves training devices, not software per se. For example, the company ATC Simulators produces FAA certified training devices using the open source FlightGear and a proprietary 6DOF program. In no way would that infer, imply, or otherwise substantiate the claim that FlightGear is an FAA certified flight simulator program.

Regards
JW