X-Plane’s Ultimate Realsim and FAA-Certification Semantics
I ripped off a thread from Yahoo Group X-Plane Features which I stimulated about X-Plane’s Ultimate Realsim and FAA-certification semantics. Lots of hardcore details
Links for X-Plane:
Tangent-Links for Orbiter. Orbiter is as good as X-Plane, but it is for orbital (planetary or solar) space flight.
************************************************************
************************************************************
Hello, guys. I think I need to jump in here and correct some of the
stuff that Matt wrote earlier, in the string that was terminated by
Mally.
There IS an FAA CERTIFIED version of X-Plane. This software has been
reviewed and approved and certified by the FAA, for the following
certifications:
PCATD
Basic ATD
Advanced ATD
The certifications are blanket certifications that require the use of
the Certified software (available through PFC or Fideliety, $500 per
copy) AND the certified aircraft models (come w/ the software) AND
the certified hardware. PFC’s hardware will run between about $4,500
and $60,000 or so. Fideliity’s hardware runs from about $125,000 to
about $300,000 or so. Also, PFC and Fidelity are now working on
obtaining FTD levels 1 though 6 certification. These are the final
steps before you move upto the full Level A – D certifications that
we’ve all heard about.
Randy Witt
X-Plane, Customer Service
913-269-0976
************************************************************
Are there any feature differences between the equivilant versions of
general X-Plane, Fidelity’s FAA approved X-Plane and PFC’s FAA
approved X-Plane version? I would think only additional
interconnectivity with proprietary external hardware and not much else
more more intellectual property red-tape and royalties (possibly on
X-Plane’s end, but definitly if any proprietary hardware needs
interfacing with), but i’m not sure. Wondering why it would be $500
instead of $50.
In all, is there any net difference in features and especially realism
on running generic X-Plane vs running PFC or fidelity’s FAA-aproved
X-Plane on a general PC or laptop (Other than not being actually FAA
approved for training-hours)?
************************************************************
Hello again. The price is because of all the red-tape that we have
to jump through w/ the FAA to get the certification and approvals.
The engineering and flight model is EXACTLY the same. The FAA
Certified version ships with the special aircraft that have been
built to the FAA standards and also have panels that have been
specifically built to be utilized w/ the hardware.
Randy Witt
X-Plane Customer Service
913-269-0976
************************************************************
Excuse me if I interject a little note into this conversation. But, I
think the point is, that if there is another version of X-Plane and that
it is certified due to its differences from the stock program however
minor those differences may be, is that, can it be run by an end-user?
and at what cost? and what availability? irregardless of any special
hardware that may be required to log flight hours. There are those
users out there for whom the expense of a program is far outweighed by
its potential benefits. However slight, those benefits may be. It
appears to me that X-Plane’s customer base is primarily those
individuals seeking the ultimate in realism. And if that ultimate is
not achieved, then they feel that they’ve been shorted somehow. Yes,
and I understand that the flight models are identical as well as the
physics models. But if panels and aircraft are different than those are
the things that should be offered to the end user. Especially the loyal
customers who have been with X-Plane for many many years and to whom
expense would not be as much of a deciding factor to purchase the
software as would be consistency in realism with real-world situations.
For myself personally, X-Plane has been a staple on my computer since
Austin wrote the first version and offered it many many years ago and
I’ve used it to design aircraft. Both radio controlled models [which
have been tested and flown] and experimental home built full scale
aircraft which have yet to take to the sky. The program has never
failed me in that respect.
One last note, sort of a wish list item- may be you could pass on to
Austin. With X-Plane 8.0 and now 8.5. The program has come to the
point where physics, flight model, terrain, road networks, and weather
are really at an ultimate in design and function. But the one thing
that has always been lacking in the software since the first version is
the landscapes and by that I mean. The infrastructure, the buildings,
the bridges, etc., especially in the larger cities. I live in the New
York area, and I cringe every time I fly over New York City in the
software, because nothing is where it’s supposed to be or looks as it
should except in the area of general terrain and the road network, which
in and of itself. I will admit is a huge improvement and something that
the “other flight Sim game” still hasn’t gotten right!. But what a
trump card that could be played. If all the realism of X-Plane to be
merged with the scenery of the other program, which I’m sure you heard
many times. As an aside, I’ll just add that from a performance
perspective having some basic canned scenery built into the Sim.
Especially in the largest cities would lessen the burden on the autogen
scenery engine which would make the Sim run even faster thereby
increasing frame rates.
Just my thoughts.
With regards and respect
Jim Zane
Chief Operating Officer
Typhoon Servers, LLC
typhoonservers.com
************************************************************
On Nov 18, 2006, at 3:21 PM, jim wrote:
> Excuse me if I interject a little note into this conversation. But, I
> think the point is, that if there is another version of X-Plane and
> that
> it is certified due to its differences from the stock program however
> minor those differences may be, is that, can it be run by an end-user?
Yes. Bet even flight schools are, “end users.”
> and at what cost?
500$.
> and what availability?
Simply order it. Laminar is in business to make money, not pilots.
> irregardless of any special
> hardware that may be required to log flight hours.
You mean regardless.
> There are those
> users out there for whom the expense of a program is far outweighed
> and if that ultimate is
> not achieved, then they feel that they’ve been shorted somehow.
It is achieved. You are able to buy the equipment. It is even
advertised on the equipment configuration menu.
I very much want the motion platform for 25,000.
> . But if panels and aircraft are different than those are
> the things that should be offered to the end user.
They are, if you pay the 500.
I paid the 500 for AvioApp and I am very happy. Of course I have to
use both of my computers when I fly.
Point is, -nothing-is preventing you from making as realistic a sim
as you wish.
But if you do, you are going to want hardware, and when you start
buying more than CH Yokes/pedals/Throttles, you are not going to care
much that you have to pay the 500 dollars -if you want to use the
thing to log official FAA training hours.
************************************************************
I believe that Laminar does not actually sell the certified version, you are
buying it off of a simulator manufacturer, and you are paying, in part, the
developement costs of those certified aircraft (much like other plane makers
are doing). I have seen one of the PFC simulators in action at the local
flight shop. Check out http://www.flightmotion.com/newfixed-r.htm I also
think if you were to obtain the software and planes for the certified
version, what you would get at your house using the home computer would be a
nice view out the windshield (ie. there would be no panel). In the certified
versions, the panel is actually a seperate piece of hardware, to mimic a
real panel, from the 1 I have seen.
Also, if I’m not mistaken, the FAA does not certify the software, but the
package, and all must go through the certification process together. Also,
I remember hearing the simulator (software/hardware) had to be recertified
every 4 months, and a full certification every year (could be wrong on this
one).
************************************************************
[Papa Mac taps out] This kinda-sorta correct. How do I know? Because
Shade Tree Micro Aviation (STMA) is one of 2 companies making Precision
Flight Control Inc.’s models. It’s true that the airplanes are built to FAA
standards but then we make all of our models to FAA standards. That’s one
of the reasons that they fly like the real deal. The big difference is in
the panels. They are specifically designed to meet PFC’s needs with
custom-made instruments that have been redrawn at the specific size that
guarantees the greatest clarity on PFC’s monitors and they don’t have any
knobs or handles because those functions are all handled in the hardware;
and multiple models are created with engine MFD panels and/or copilots
panels because the larger simulators run multiple copies of X-Plane so that
the entire cockpit as well as external visuals can be viewed simultaneously.
-Jim
Shade Tree Micro Aviation (http://shadetreemicro.com)
papamac@…
The reason a dog has so many friends is that he wags his tail instead of his
tongue. -Anonymous
************************************************************
Re: X-Plane and FAA Certification
Do the aircraft in the FAA certified (Fidelity/PFC) X-Planes have
substantial extra quality for substantially enhance realism (over the
consumer-version stock aircraft or non-FAA premium-pay aircraft like
air.c74.net) or is it just FAA red-tape with no net realism
improvement and panel code-modules for interacting with proprietary
hardware (XPlaneFreeware’s 737 addon has code modules for enhanceing
realism further)?
************************************************************
Hi again, guys. The aircraft that have been developed for the FAA
have full screen instument panels that have been set up to meet the
FARs. Thus, there is more room to both enlarge the instruments and
also to add and improve the fidelity of supplemental gauges, like oil
pressure, oil temperature and things like that. Yes, the aircraft
have been specifically designed to be more realistic and to offer
better flight experiences than the aircraft that are available for
free or peanuts through the retail chains. Does that mean that ALL
of the FAA Cert. airplanes that are being distributed by PFC and
Fidelity are better than ALL of the retail aircraft that are
available. NO, not at all. There are certainly some very well built
retail aircraft that are commercially available that fly as good as,
or more accurately than the high dollar aircraft.
Additionally, keep in mind that the FAA certification does not allow
the pilot to interact w/ aircraft via the mouse. He / She must turn
actual knobs to tune radios and set his CDI and HSI and barometric
pressure, etc. Thus, the FAA Certified aircraft have been built with
this in mind.
Randy Witt
X-Plane, Customer Support.
913-269-0976
************************************************************
On of the things my brother is constantly saying to me is that, “one
doesn’t fly a plane with a keyboard and mouse. The positioning and
operation of the kobs and buttons is a strict science called
ergonomics, and modern day planes are designed for optimal pilot-
cockpit integration. That is why one must turn the heading knob in
the FAA certified versions instead of clicking the mous on the panel
region on a screen.
In order to get more realism out of x-plane, you have to add hardware
and extra cockpit/scenery screens.
ej
************************************************************
Re: X-Plane and FAA Certification
I realize this doesn’t apply to the FAA certification of x-plane, but
we are actually alot closer to mouse controlled displays then you
think.. This system is currently available in several general
aviation jets….
http://www.honeywell.com/sites/aero/PrimusEpic.htm
http://www.honeywell.com/sites/servlet/com.merx.npoint.servlets.DocumentServlet?docid=DCA007D1D-F0C1-87DB-0AFC-13A4871E622D
************************************************************
The is no false impression.
If you read the text you would have known what at took to be in an
FAA certified version of X-plane which is specially made to be used
in a mock-cockpit, something most customers have no interest in doing.
You can learn to fly just fine in x-plane even if you lock the view
to forward.
On Nov 21, 2006, at 5:46 PM, jimzane wrote:
>
>
> I know that, the greater point is it should come standard !! since
> Austin threw up that big ” hey were certified banner ” on the web
> site. Giving everyone a false impression. only to find out After
> installation that “um hey this ain’t it” Hence that hasty disclaimer
> but no correction made on laminars site.
Once again, most of the customers for x-plane have no interest in
building a mock cockpit, so having the planes with panels which don’t
have mouse click regions because there is supposed to be a real
switch/knob/button/lever would not help most customers to increase
realism.
You are different.
So am I.
We’ have to pay the extra for the bits that the vast majority of x-
plane customers could not use.
Are you complaining that you haven’t yet been allowed to spend the
500 bucks?
I’m sure that Laminar will send you the software if you buy it.
Eric
************************************************************
Sorry to clog up an already busy topic
>I know that, the greater point is it should come standard !! since
>Austin threw up that big ” hey were certified banner ” on the web
>site. Giving everyone a false impression. only to find out After
>installation that “um hey this ain’t it” Hence that hasty disclaimer
>but no correction made on laminars site.
What the banner says is that the “X-Plane flight simulator”, ie. the bit
that simulates aircraft, is FAA approved. The code for the simulator in the
FAA-approved version is the same as in the same retail version. What has
changed is the way it’s displayed, and the way it’s used, so the retail
version is AS REALISTIC as the FAA version. If you want to use X-Plane to
log hours, FAA demands that you use the PFC Motus system, and only then will
you need a change in the display.
The simulator itself does not change!
In fact if you wired up a PFC system to a retail system (using UDP or
otherwise) and changed the cockpit so that it showed the same as in the FAA
approved system (or used an FAA approved plane) you would get exactly the
same as in the FAA approved system.
Except your copy of X-Plane isn’t legally FAA-certified, so you wouldn’t be
able to log hours, even though they both do exactly the same thing!
(p.s. this might not work in reality-I’ve never actually done it myself, of
course)
Snake.
************************************************************
Hi all,
I couldn’t agree with Eric (and a few others) more. It seems like a
few X-Plane customers need to take a chill pill.
I emailed Austin personally about this a few months back. The fancy
version of X-Plane is (or was then) called X-Plane Pro and it was
basically X-Plane 8.3. At that time X-Plane received it’s
certification by the FAA – a lengthy process that makes it unlikely
to happen every time there’s an update to the software – ANY update.
The FAA certification only applies to the exact version, so you can
understand why the newer versions aren’t certified. This however
doesn’t mean X-Plane 8.5 isn’t as good as X-Plane Pro (aka X-Plane
8.3), and it’s possible X-Plane 8.5 will become FAA certified. It
just hasn’t been certified by the FAA yet. The customers using X-
Plane in professional simulators may not care about the improvements
in X-Plane 8.5 enough for them to want it, but I have absolutely no
doubt 8.5 could become FAA certified for use in a professional
training simulator. X-Plane 8.5 is in most respects a superior
product (graphics slowdowns on some hardware not withstanding).
Now, so that it is clear… the differences of the Pro version are
bad for most X-Plane customers. There are no changes in the flight
model. None. Have we got that? The accuracy of the aircraft has to be
of the highest standard (of course) so only two of the best X-Plane
acf designers have virtual aircraft certified for use within X-Plane
Pro. If you want aircraft of that caliber, buy them from the
designers. One of them is:
http://shadetreemicro.com/
I don’t know the other but it’s very possibly Jason Chandler. Even if
it’s not him, his aircraft are superlative. I can’t imagine it being
anyone else actually.
http://www.c74.net/xplane/
As Randy Witt said, the only difference is that Pro uses specific
aircraft with panels designed to work with specific hardware. If you
don’t have the hardware, the panels look weird – nothing like the
real thing for users of a single computer & monitor. So X-Plane Pro
is only for use with a handful of aircraft and they’re difficult to
fly unless you have the right hardware (which costs a great deal of
money). The moment you using a non-certified aircraft in X-Plane Pro,
it’s validity as a recognised training tool is nullified.
So that then leaves us with the logical situation where the std. X-
Plane is sold to most customers and the older (FAA certified) version
is sold for using with Fidelity’s simulator. If you want to blow ten
times as much for a product that will deliver a worse experience for
most users, I’m sure Laminar Research won’t mind. For my money, I’d
rather build a great cockpit and use the latest version of X-Plane
with it. It’s not certified, but why would that matter unless I have
a full motion simulator certified by the FAA, cockpit hardware also
certified by the FAA and aircraft, wait for it, certified by the FAA
(all regularly checked by, you know who)?
Since my name isn’t Rockefeller or Gates, I’m not going to waste
money like that (not to mention I don’t even live within the
jurisdiction of the FAA anyway). Another way to get the Pro
experience is to use X-Plane 8.3 with the aircraft built by the
designers listed above. If you want, learn to make your own custom
panels – it’s not that hard (teenagers are doing it). Then you’ll be
set. Kidding yourself that you’re “doin’ it better cause you’ve got X-
Plane Pro” is nuts. And unless you’re getting your system checked by
the FAA regularly, it’s meaningless anyway.
So there you go. Can we put this to rest? X-Plane rocks. Austin and
the team rock. The aircraft designers rock (esp. the great ones). You
can spend a LOT of money on this hobby if you want. If you want to
waste some, there will always be people happy to receive your money.
Now let’s get back to discussion X-Plane’s features, not its marketing.
************************************************************
Bravo! This last posting is RIGHT ON. Yes, you are more than
welcome to purchase the PFC or Fidelity equipment and just run a
standard everyday copy of X-Plane with them, if you’d like. You’d
have to do a bit of work to move the cockpit instruments around but
you could certainly duplicate the panel layout that ships w/ the FAA
Certified system. Than you’d have the exact same thing (although
with different aircraft files that MAY fly less accurately) for
1/10th the price. Of course you couldn’t log the time since neither
your software or aircraft files are certified but you’d have EXACTLY
THE SAME capabilities and flight model.
Randy Witt
X-Plane, Customer Service
913-269-0976
************************************************************
Actually i was trying to gut out enough information to brag out the
opposite.
If you don’t need the legal credential (being legal is often way too
expensive and labor intensive), The consumer X-Plane is exactly the
same as the FAA approved versions (even in versions used in low-end
full-motion simulators) except for the aircraft and the code
extensions that are imbedded in them. Most of the labor and
extension-code put into the aircraft is for meeting FAA regulations
but some of it is for enhancing realism (much of that overlaps with
meeting FAA regulations). However, the aircraft-level realism
enhancements (both voluntary and FAA-compliance motivated) can be
matched by a minority of the low-cost 3rd-party premium aircraft and a
small speckle of the free 3rd-party aircraft.
Is that right?
************************************************************
(Didn’t post yet)
Area any of these FAA-approved aircraft among the $5 payware aircraft
at Shade Tree Micro Aviation, possibly with the special panels
stripped and the hardware-integration add-on code stripped? If not,
how much are these and their FAA-stripped versions?
Also, which of the 3rd-party aircraft are good enough to be
FAA-approvable (or beyond) with only red-tape modifications (panel
setup optimized for external hardware, etc..)?
************************************************************
Added 11/27/2006 from a Private Email:
Hi, Jesse.
First, a little background. We???ve been building models for the last couple of years for the Medallion Foundation, which is out of Anchorage , Alaska . They use Precision Flight Controls (PFC) simulators to educate and increase pilot safety in that State. Our models were chosen because we take extra care in ensuring that they perform as closely to manufacturer specifications as X-Plane permits. Many the retail aircraft that you see on our website are adaptations of those models.
Our work for the Medallion Foundation brought us to the attention of PFC and we started modeling for them directly in April of this year.
One of our initial tasks for PFC was to start going through their existing fleet of aircraft and to ensure that they are in conformance with our joint standards. We also have been helping them with customer-identified aircraft related problems. We???ve built one entirely new airplane for them which will be premiering within the next month or two; and are currently working on a model which is an adaptation of one of our existing retail aircraft, the Pilatus PC-12.
To answer your specific question, it is doubtful that you???ll ever see the same models that we build for PFC retailed on our website. You will see some that are very similar but they will not be identical. PFC has specific requirements that have to be met in order for the aircraft to mate properly with their software and hardware and these changes may or may not work properly when used with the retail version of X-Plane and other joysticks, etc. Rest assured, however, that the retail models are built to the same high standards and with just as much attention to detail.
Please don???t hesitate to write if you have any further questions,
-Jim
Shade Tree Micro Aviation (http://shadetreemicro.com)
papamac@shadetreemicro.com
************************************************************
February 11th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Hi, Sorry to add 100LL to the fire but…. when it comes to simulating flight , all concerned with xplane seem to be working toward that, simulation. I have worked with pcatd, frasca, AST and I have to say I would not want their software on my box! If I want something that simulates flight the retail xplane product is where it is at.
What would I use it for? Practicing instrument work, running through check lists, x-country training which again goes back to using check lists while practicing using my flight log in dead reckoning. Hmm, emergency procedures, sounds like check lists again. My check lists are real, I hold them in my hand or on a knee board AND they integrate perfectly with my pc and xplane software.
Back to what would I use it for. Oh yes, simulation. I have been having a hard time getting a FAA approved copy of a me163.
There are a lot of planes and panels out there that can be useful for familiarization with an aircraft you intend to fly and even more for the ones you will never get to fly.
One thing no one seems to mention about the FAA certified version and logging time, does it include a flight instructor and what is his name, because without the instructor standing behind you you can not log the time. An instrument instructor flying a sim without an instrument instructor standing behind them can not log the time either (as some think they can for instrument currency). FAR 61.57(c)(1)
Dave CFI,MEI,CFII