4 ms·

This looks about as good as heavily modded battlefield 1942. That's not saying it's bad sim software, but its look is behind the times.

t0mas88 4y ago
It's based on an old version of MS Flight Simulator from around 2009 or 2010 or so. The graphics aren't any worse than most multi-million dollar full flight simulators used for pilot training. Even better compared to some of the slightly older simulators.
- afterburner 4y ago
  Thing about multi-million dollar full flight simulators used for pilot training is, I doubt they're as concerned about having the latest picture perfect beautiful graphics.
  - kqr 4y ago
    This is corroborated by research into training for expertise. Simulations don't need much visual fidelity to be useful. At no point do you need to be fooled into thinking you're doing the real thing. The important thing is that your mind and hands go through the right motions. (This is useful knowledge! I have trained system administrators with simulations that basically amount to pen-and-paper role-playing with some screenshots interspersed.)
  - t0mas88 4y ago
    Indeed, in the older ones the graphics for any enroute flying are even completely missing. They'll by default get you into the clouds at 400 or 1000ft above ground level and come out at similar heights on landing. In between the front windows just turn white. That's fine for learning to fly a 737, by that time it doesn't matter much anymore. But for earlier training it's too easy, because in the real world partial visibility and light effects in clouds cause much more disorientation than zero visibility.
  - choonway 4y ago
    the point of these expensive simulators is such that you can practice all the emergency procedures in the manual.
ramesh31 4y ago
>This looks about as good as heavily modded battlefield 1942. That's not saying it's bad sim software, but its look is behind the times. It's a modified FSX engine. So yes, about the same vintage as BF1942.

t0mas88 4y ago

It's based on an old version of MS Flight Simulator from around 2009 or 2010 or so. The graphics aren't any worse than most multi-million dollar full flight simulators used for pilot training. Even better compared to some of the slightly older simulators.

afterburner 4y ago
Thing about multi-million dollar full flight simulators used for pilot training is, I doubt they're as concerned about having the latest picture perfect beautiful graphics.
- kqr 4y ago
  This is corroborated by research into training for expertise. Simulations don't need much visual fidelity to be useful. At no point do you need to be fooled into thinking you're doing the real thing. The important thing is that your mind and hands go through the right motions. (This is useful knowledge! I have trained system administrators with simulations that basically amount to pen-and-paper role-playing with some screenshots interspersed.)
- t0mas88 4y ago
  Indeed, in the older ones the graphics for any enroute flying are even completely missing. They'll by default get you into the clouds at 400 or 1000ft above ground level and come out at similar heights on landing. In between the front windows just turn white. That's fine for learning to fly a 737, by that time it doesn't matter much anymore. But for earlier training it's too easy, because in the real world partial visibility and light effects in clouds cause much more disorientation than zero visibility.
- choonway 4y ago
  the point of these expensive simulators is such that you can practice all the emergency procedures in the manual.

ramesh31 4y ago

>This looks about as good as heavily modded battlefield 1942. That's not saying it's bad sim software, but its look is behind the times. It's a modified FSX engine. So yes, about the same vintage as BF1942.