Thank you kindly.I had flownal those sims(BAR COMCORDE-WHICH i HAVE ONLY HAD THE PLEASURE OF SAMPLING IN A MsFS) including a 777-200ER and A320-200 at CAE(Which i AM DEAD SURE ARE LEVEL D TYPES).
You could be forgiven for mistaking my line of questioning by thinking i am trying to correlate aic type with level of realism.I know that Level D sims are fairly recent introductionsI SIMPLY WISHED TO KNOW WHAT REFERENCE CATEGORY THOSE SIMS WERE(assuming little variations there in) as there may be variations of categories within the same type of sim depending on the manufacturere and certifier.The HAWKER 800 AND GIV I flew at CAE are glass cockpit versions.I did a detail at Gatwick for the Hawker and I SAW MINUTE DETAILS OF THE AIRPORT ENVIRONS AS I BROKE CLOUD INCLUDING THE PARKING LOT WITH CAR MOVEMENTS!The feel on the runway at touch down was less than realit felt like touching on canvass!The GIV had more impressive visual displays and had an upto dtae landscaped display of the city of Dubai with a the major real estate revelopments in place.tHERE WAS A SIM PROBLEM AND DEGRADED CONTROLS AND ALTHOUGH THE TAXI WAY SIGN BOARDS WERE IN PLACE NOTHING HAPPENNED COLLISION WISE DURING A RUNWAY EXIT EXCURSION!
SORRY FOR THE FOUL TEXT:I HAVE A KEY BOARD THAT IS ESSENTIALLY READY FOR DE-COMMISSIONING.
Another uninteligent question: How the hell do they transport the SIMS TO THE USER'S SITES?ARETHEY DIS ASSEMBLED AND THEN AFTER RE ASSEMBLED ON CLIENT'S SITE?
MY BEST REGARDS (ARE YOU A SIM ENGINEER?)
Your information AS WAS Mr. None's was thoroughly appreciated for its content and I shall refer to the links you provided me with.Thanks indeed to all those who took their time to respond
Well, you should know that MSFS is NOT a simulator. It is purposefully designed, built, and sold as a game. Ask Mr. Gates. While some of the features contained in those games are relatively accurate, they are not the same below the surface. Most of the material is gleaned from publicly available sources and, in some cases, a flight crew member may have been paid to report on how a particular system works in the cockpit. However, that is not a “simulation.” That is programming a “cause” and an “effect.” It looks great – and it may be “fun” – but, its not a true “simulation” the way that word is understood in the aviation industry.
I don’t know what you think a “fairly recent introduction” truly is. The first simulator qualified by the FAA for what is termed “zero flight time” training was in 1982 and the first simulator equivalent to Level D was qualified in 1983. That’s 24 years ago – is that recent? I guess in some terms it probably is. But it terms of simulation – devices qualified in 1983 are now considered “dinosaurs.”
Simulators are disassembled at the factory after the purchaser has made a preliminary acceptance of the machine and its programming and it is transported to the facility in which it will be permanently housed. It is reassembled, tested, and checked, and then the regulatory authority is asked to come evaluate it for qualification at a specified level. After all of this is completed, it is then approved for use in a pilot training program.
And, no, I am not a simulator engineer.