In article ,
says...



"-b-" wrote

To paraphrase, the programs are not completely without usefulness, but
they are
not simulators.

That's not what he said, he said they weren't "flight training devices".
The FAA has a definition for what qualifies as a "flight training device",
or FTD. They do not have one for "simulator". Webster does, and MSFS seems
to fit that very general definition: "A device, data processing system, or
computer program for representing features of the behavior of a physical or
abstract system."

Notice it doesn't say "all features" or "exact behavior" because those are
qualitative. MSFS is indeed a flight simulator, albeit a poor one.



Yours is the very definition of an out of context post.
MX has made it clear that he is not interested in the FAA's definition of a
simulator or fligght training device, but focuses on its functionalities.
Collins cites functionalities to circumscribe the usefulness of these devices,
and you comme back to FAA definitions!! Let's call in Kafka to clarify!!