Doug Spencer writes:

Places like FlightSafety International spend a lot of money getting
certification on their full motion, level-D flight simulators. That
testing includes verifying the flight model, controls, sounds, motion
response, and visual representation is as close to the original as a
simulation can be. Even things like screen vibration from the sound
harmonics in the Osprey simulator have held up certification.

I'm glad to hear that. What are the specific flaws in MSFS?

Certification doesn't mean the closest possible approach to real life
overall. It means an acceptably close approach to real life in
certain domains for which certification has been sought.

I seriously doubt Microsoft puts anywhere near the effort required to
represent true flight characteristics in their consumer products.

Microsoft didn't invent Flight Simulator, and it has a long tradition
of gradually improving simulation.

What are the specific flaws in the MSFS simulation?

If the flight characteristics were correct in MSFS, then why doesn't
FlightSafety just run MSFS on the back-end and certify that way?

If MSFS has flaws, why can't you name them?

I'm certain it would cost less for them to leverage the consumer product
pricing than to write new software in-house.

I don't see why they have to write their own software. For all I
know, they may be running MSFS. It would be kind of sad to reject it
just out of religious belief.

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