23 hours ago, smithte said:

This video showcases some of the graphics and looks like FS2020 would blow it out of the water

Yes, I am a simulator instructor and we have a number of Level D Full Flight Simulators and Level 6 Flight Training Devices. We also have a few Level 4 devices that are used as procedures trainers.

So there are a number levels of visuals. These simulators and training devices are based on the jet liner concept, which means the fidelity of the visuals is greater close to the airport and then they switch over to a low resolution satellite imagery for the enroute structure. The Tropos video you see above by CAE (FlightSafety uses Vital) is close to what you get in and around the airport. Not just the 3D view of the airport and its ground traffic and equipment but the system is also designed to include realistic effects for lighting, atmospheric effects, and weather. While the clouds in the video look a little cartoonish, from inside the simulator they blend into the visuals nicely and have the menacing effect when approaching a thunderstorm. 

The devices however are very limited based on their primary purpose of training pilots. The Level D Full Flight Simulators are the only unrestricted devices in which a type rating and an ATP license can be issued based solely on flying the device (based on the pilot having met basic prerequisites.) There is a chart based on the certification level of the device and even the Level 6 devices had limitation, thus all checkrides are done in the FFS. This is based on the FAA so some variation exists for EASA, JAA, etc. 

The devices have a limited number of detailed airports. The company I work for the device can have 250 out of a selection of over 400 airports. The rest are default airports in that we can put a single runway or a pair of runways, but the airport does not meet the highly detailed qualifications. We do have worldwide navigation database so you can navigate anywhere in the world. There is also worldwide terrain. We had a little extra time one day and my client was a former C-17 pilot who flew into McMurdo, so we loaded up an anytown airport at McMurdo and was able to fly in and land.

The huge difference is once you move onto the low resolution satellite imagery. It is commercial quality satellite and the company paid a hefty fee to get the guaranteed cloud free stuff. I have never once looked out and seen a cloud over part of the satellite imagery. However, the imergary was backward compatible with the older devices. So while the newest device had many terabytes of RAID10 SSD on the scenery server other sims are not nearly as well equipped. (I remember the simtech saying the scenery servers had 500TB of storage. That is 500TB for each device in the center!) 

For the enroute scenery Orbx True Earth and MSFS have much better looking scenery and both P3D and MSFS have better selection of airports.

The newest devices also have a powerful visual processor. As someone already pointed out stutters are NOT allowed. So the graphics processing server is more than capable. The new device has 6 x Quadro R6000 cards tied to 3 speciality UHD projectors that through a prism the image is projected onto a 200 degree by 40 degree mylar screen that cost $1 million. The prism is the real technology which is highly protected corporate secret in how it aligns and projects the image so that each crewmember sees the image at the correct perspective based on their seat position. Even the instructor station is taken into account so when the instructor sees the airplane is below glidepath and right of course it is guaranteed the clients are seeing the same thing. 

The processing power for a Full Flight Simulator is also impressive. It is about parallel computing and there are multiple nodes with each node being a group of blades in the server rack. Each blade contains 2 x modern 32 or 64 core server grade processors. Even the Instructor station has a 32 core processor supporting it. There is a motion cabinet that is about 10' long, scenery cabinet, and the rest of the nodes are in the a third cabinet. That is repeated for each simulator. I am willing to bet there is over a $1 million worth of computer hardware supporting each device. That does not include the avionics which in many cases are a network of specialty computers.

Because of the hardware the devices has always been based on distributed computing so the software is very unique in that respect. There is a master controller that coordinates everything and keeps the simulation moving along in excess of the regulatory requirements. i.e. The scenery server is spitting out well in excess of 60fps but then caps the output to 60fps and the projectors are set at 60hz so everything is 1:1.

I doubt that MSFS will become the visuals for any Full Flight SImulator. The airport scenery has to be certified, which means if they are adding a new airport which does not have certified data the team goes out to the airport, gets official copies of airport and all building plans, then also measures and photographs everything. They are also the specialty systems so it is not like you can just pull out one part of the system and install the visual generator from MSFS. You have three major manufacturers of devices who have spent decades perfecting their equipment. They were doing this well before Bruce Artwick decided to try and make this all happen inside a desktop PC. Finally, no training device is connected to the Internet. They are air gapped by design, each server talks only to its designed device, and one way out is allowed for the debriefing stations. Everything about the devices is strictly controlled.

Thank you for this very detailed description! But I don't understand, why does the airport has to be certified? OK, I know there are some airports that have restrictions, that pilots must have had simulator training to be allowed to land there. For these airports I guess it makes sense. But for other ones that are not meant for simulating the procedures of a specific airport.. why?

@KenG

As the simming community has that discussion on a regular base, could you shed some light on it:

As most of us know, XP is FAA certified. But I am wondering - what exactly are you allowed to train with it. I guess you can log hours for your PPL training. But can it also be used for more? I think the general approximative nature of BET (aimed to simulate a wide range of aicraft) is too limiting when it comes to accurately replicating the flight behavior of a specific aircraft.

If the MSFS model calculates those 1000 surfaces with a table approach - could it theoretically be more accurate, given you feed it with accurate data?

What's your opinion on that?

Edited July 2, 20205 yr by tweekz

I did an 3 hours flight in an 737-800 Level D simulator of Lufthansa last year. The graphic quality was like standard FS 2004. My instructor told me that the new A350 simulators are much better, but I can not tell how they look.

5 hours ago, tweekz said:

@KenG

As the simming community has that discussion on a regular base, could you shed some light on it:

As most of us know, XP is FAA certified. But I am wondering - what exactly are you allowed to train with it. I guess you can log hours for your PPL training. But can it also be used for more? I think the general approximative nature of BET (aimed to simulate a wide range of aicraft) is too limiting when it comes to accurately replicating the flight behavior of a specific aircraft.

If the MSFS model calculates those 1000 surfaces with a table approach - could it theoretically be more accurate, given you feed it with accurate data?

What's your opinion on that?

OK, for your first question. XP is not FAA certified in and of itself. (ESP and P3D are in the same boat.) This is creative marketing in which the developers are not telling the whole truth. 

XPlane Professional can be included as part of the hardware and software combination by a manufacturer that is certified as an Aviation Training Device (ATD) at either the Basic (BATD) or Advanced (AATD) levels. This is done in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular AC 61-136B which provides the specifics on certification. Appendix E provides the checklists on qualifying an ATD to be a certified device. This is done though what is called the Qualification and Approval Guide (QAG.) i.e. the pile of paperwork needed by the FAA.

As a home hobby user that builds a desktop device based on their home computer that is used for multiple purposes, I suspect that meeting the requirements and passing the FAA certification would be unattainable. Not to mention that as a 'new manufacture' you would be scrutinized by the FAA and it with the current backlog of simulator certification it would take nearly a year for them to send an inspector to your home. I am not even sure they would even do it for a one off device. 

Also, realize that the device once certified cannot change its hardware and software combination other than to update aviation databases or minor updates supported by the manufacture. Thus if you build it on XPlane version 11.4x and Austin released Xplan 12 you cannot update to Xplane 12 without getting the simulator reevaluated. You can also not install new aircraft or scenery other than what was certified with the device. 

What you can do with the device is specific in the above AC in appendix D and it is a long list. If it is to be used toward a rating you can only log 2.5 hours toward a U.S. FAA Private rating and 20 hours (AATD) or 10 hours (BATD) toward a U.S. Instrument rating. You can also maintain your 6 month instrument currency. However, these hours may be further adjusted by the Letter of Authorization (LOA) issued by the FAA. So there may be differences per device. Also in a Part 141 school the device has to be specifically listed as part of the training per the syllabus. Thus having an approved device is not a free for all.

Notice the FAA in the above AC does not specify how the manufacture gets to the performance data needed to submit the QAG for approval. Just that it needs to meet the requirements for the training aircraft submitted. It is basically a performance chart comparison from the POH or AFM versus what the simulator software is providing. So the accuracy of the data needed for certification is vastly less than the what Xplane or ESP/P3D are capable of producing. 

If you review the Planemaker and Airfoil maker documents provided by Xplane and the number of videos produced the input of the surfaces is only one step with testing being as critical as step. There is the capability to adjust variables within the Xplane environment to tune to aircraft to meet specific performance parameters. So just like the lookup table guys the Xplane Flight Dynamics engineer is going to tune the model to get book values out of the software. It is like dining at a restaurant and one person ordered the steak and the other the fish. In either case they are still enjoying a meal yet they can both argue who had the better meal. 

I question the 1000 surfaces statement. Did they really mean 1000 blade elements which is much more likely the case. I am not sure the processing power of the XBox One can keep up with with the constant calculations of 1000 surfaces with dozens or more elements per surface. What we see in the videos is market information so until the platform and its SDK arrives and people start building add-ons for it, there will be lots of conjecture on the platforms actual capabilities. Either way it is currently an entertainment platform so it cannot be used as the software part of an ATD.