> If it's a game version of the same you don't care about those guarantees because nothing would actually cause the plane to crash. > If you were simulating th

> If it's a game version of the same you don't care about those guarantees because nothing would actually cause the plane to crash. > If you were simulating the real plane then you'd want your simulation to halt at that point so that you could figure out exactly what went wrong. Doesn't this all depend on the point of the simulation? For instance, the simulation could be an integration test of flight control systems. In which case, yes, you'd want the simulation to halt for debugging, as you stated. On the other hand, if the simulation is a networked flight sim trainer for pilots, then you would benefit from having the simulation do exactly what a plane would do in the real world. I think there's some insight in the OP's article, but I think he goes a bit too far. To me, "real time" has a domain specific meaning: there's a greater importance placed on time for this thing over that. That's a legitimate use of the word _in that domain_. If the world we we're living in were actually the Matrix, our use of "real time" wouldn't be less legitimate just because a plane crash is now bits changing instead of an actual plane crash.