Nomen Nescio writes:

Then you don't have a simulator.
MSFS is not a "simulator" as you define it.
I'm glad you finally got the point that it's a toy.

I understand why you are doing this, but you'll find that I have a lot
of patience.

"Just like the real thing" means within the context of the simulator's
objectives. Many simulators qualify when used as intended. The
various NASA simulators to which you've alluded each simulated some
aspect of flight in a way that was "just like the real thing";
however, they all failed to match real life in one or more other
respects (which they also have in common with all other simulators).

Only real life perfectly matches real life. But many aspects of real
life are not important for certain well-defined tasks. One can learn
to perform these tasks perfectly from a simulator if the simulator
perfectly simulates all the important aspects of the tasks.

One can learn to use a GNS530 GPS perfectly inside Microsoft Flight
Simulator, because simulations of the unit available for the simulator
precisely duplicate its real-life functionality. You can go directly
from the simulator to the real thing without missing a beat, and
perform the task of operating it perfectly with no previous experience
in using the real thing.

The simulation of the unit does not include the three dimensional
appearance of the unit or the texture of the control knobs and
buttons, but these are unimportant to the task of operating the unit,
and so the lack of simulation is irrelevant to the simulator's realism
in context.

And since your "flying experience" all comes from a toy
that does not " behaved just like the real thing", you don't have a clue
as to what "real" flying is like.

Following that line of reasoning, the astronauts had no clue how to
land on the moon, since they could only use simulator toys before
actually attempting it. Many of their simulators were far less
comprehensive than a typical PC simulator today.

And since you don't have a clue as to what "real" flying is like, you have less
of an understanding of flight that a 10 yo kid that got a Young eagles flight
because they have been in something that "behaved just like the real thing".

As you'll see from the above, I've invalidated this assertion.

Therefore, if you want to learn about real flying, STFU and listen to people
who have been in something that "behaved just like the real thing". Even if
it's that 10 yo kid.

I don't share your emotional investment in this debate, which allows
me to remain objective and clear-headed. The role of simulation in
all types of man-machine interfaces is vitally important today, and
its importance is increasing. I've no doubt that the time will come
when people will learn to fly at least commercial airliners without
ever actually touching the real thing prior to a summary checkride, or
even prior to actually carrying paying passengers. I don't see any
technical obstacle to this. The only obstacles are psychological and
emotional.

Indeed, even today, someone with 5000 hours of intensive simulation
experience covering a very wide array of in-flight possibilities would
probably be a better pilot than someone with 5000 hours of real-world
experience spent sitting idle in a cockpit watching the figures change
on the FMC and trying not to fall asleep.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.