Talk:Flight simulator

message: While this article generally contains valuable and applicable information, I feel that the organization of this article, as well as the terminology used, could use some cleaning up in order to improve article flow and to match current industry parlance.  To this end, I propose the following changes:
The article be renamed to "Flight Simulation".  The words "Flight Simulator" have a very specific meaning in recent versions of JAA regulations, and using this name on an article that is not specifically about flight simulators is misleading.  I think that Flight Simulator should redirect to Flight Simulation, since this is a common misuse of the term.
The Flight Simulation article should have the following sections:
*History
*Types (Current "Flight simulators and flight training devices" section)
*Uses
*Qualification, Certification, and Approval (Current "Simulator and flight training device certifications" section)
*Technology (Current "Instructor operating stations" and "Modern high-end flight simulators" sections)
*See Also
*References
*External Links
The section "Flight simulators at home" should probably be moved to a separate article titled "Amateur Flight Simulation", which would be prominently linked to from this page.  This would allow the two main segments of the industry (flight training and entertainment) to maintain relevant information without stepping on each other's toes.
Additionally, pages would be created for any of the following device types that do not already have articles:
*CPT - Cockpit Procedures Trainer
*ATD - Aviation Training Device (would encompass both BATD and AATD) (FAA)
*BITD - Basic Instrument Training Device (JAA)
*FNPT - Flight and Navigation Procedures Trainer
*FTD - Flight Training Device
*FFS - Full Flight Simulator
This article should be removed from the series "Simulation video games", since flight simulation is largely geared toward flight training, although a significant entertainment segment does exist.
Just for everyone's information, semantics are extremely important in the flight simulation industry, so here is a list of common terms and their explanations:
*Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) - A generic term that encompasses FFS, FTD, FNPT, and BITD.
*Flight Simulator (FS) - A deprecated term used by the JAA (Joint Aviation Authorities) for devices equivalent to the current Full Flight Simulator (FFS).
*Full Flight Simulator (FFS) - A term used to describe full motion flight simulation training devices (FSTD).  An FFS can only be called such after it is qualified by the FAA or other NAA.
*Flight Training Device (FTD) - A term used to describe fixed base training devices, either with or without visual systems.  An FTD can only be called such after it is qualified by the FAA or other NAA.  FTDs, may have motion systems if desired.
*Flight and Navigation Procedures Trainer - A term used to describe generic fixed base training devices.  This is a term used only by the JAA.  FNPTs may have motion systems if desired.
*Aviation Training Device (ATD) - A term used to describe generic fixed base training devices.  This is a term used only by the FAA.  There are two types; Basic ATDs and Advanced ATDs.
*Cockpit Procedures Trainer (CPT) - A term used to describe a trainer that provides the basic layout of a cockpit, but with little or no aerodynamic modeling.
*Qualification - The current term for approval of an FSTD to be used for flight training.  Granted by the FAA or other NAA.
*Certification - A deprecated term equivalent to qualification.  No longer in use.
*Approval - The current term for approval of an ATD by the FAA to be used for flight training.  Also a deprecated term equivalent to qualification.
;Additional Notes:
*Regulation of FSTD in Europe is still handled by the JAA under JAR-FSTD A and JAR-FSTD H.  Although draft regulations have been published by EASA (CS-FSTD A and CS-FSTD H), a final rule has yet to take effect.
*In the united states, the FAA regulates FSTD qualification under 14 CFR Part 60.  ATD approval guidance is provided in AC 61-136.
If I don't hear any objections to these changes in the next few days, I will go ahead and start the reorganization.
NoNameXII (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: Contrary to a widely-held misconception, X-Plane itself isn't certified for anything by the FAA.  There are certain complete simulator configurations that incorporate X-Plane that are certified for certain limited purposes, but only the complete configurations are certified, not the X-Plane software itself (that is, if X-Plane is used in any way other than part of the certified configuration, it has no special status at all).  Article corrected to remove the claims of certification for the software. Agateller (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  X-Plane certification 

message: Helicopter flight sims seem to be very rare. Presumably low demand. Drutt 19:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How are the controls simulated in a home enviroment? Drutt (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whirlybirds 

message: Magicaldr 22:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modified Home Built section 

message: Why is there a section for links to commercial websites here?  WP:SPAM, no? - Special-T 22:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial links = spam? 

message: Reading through this article in full (I previously focused on home cockpits as I have an interest in these) it seems to me that we need more sections. We also need to somehow make this read as a single contiguous article. Currently to me this reads as 3 separate (although interesting) articles, each covering the basics of flight simulators in commercial environments, but with focus on slightly different areas or simulators.
I have played with breaking up the page while keeping the content, but cannot order it to better effect myself without major alterations to what is really good reading. As an example there is repeated discussion on what a flight simulator can be used for, and details of the axis of motion available. We should in my opinion cover each item once in their own sections. Would value other editors thoughts. 
Magicaldr 23:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reworking of sections / article as whole 

message: I added this link in, although it is not my site and I have no affiliation to it. I found it while researching home cockpit designs and feel it provides a reference backup to my comments in the Homebuilt section regarding homebuilt motion platforms. The site does sell plans, but not for the 3 axis sim. The advertising is only to the side and the primary purpose of the site is as an article on the 3 axis sim and its development to other home cockpit builders. 
Obviously I feel this adds some interesting further reading into the subject and is not a spam link, but I note it was removed as spam and would welcome comment.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.16.50 (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam - Homebuilt 3 Axis Motion Platform 

message: I feel this fails to add anything to this article, although it could be argued that it belongs in 'See Also' section. To me flight simulation needs a degree of user input, a motion platform with a  movie is not simulating, it is simply playing back.
Thoughts anyone?
Magicaldr 18:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ride Simulators 

message: Since the latest version now includes a (pretty basic) Flight Sim that is accessible by pressing Ctrl+A. Does this mean it merits inclusion here? I wanted to ask before I jumped in and edited. Timw06 16:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Earth 

message: I note that this was flagged as needing citations, however was there anything specific that whoever flagged it was asking to be referenced or challenging?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicaldr (talk • contribs) 05:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs additional citations for verification. 

message: I have removed a link today to http://www.sailorsofthesky.com/ which to my mind adds nothing to the general article on Flight Simulation. As per WIKI policy it is not desirable to have a link to every flight simulator, and I feel we should only add in external links that add in further reading not already available. 
I have added in the WP:WPSPAM no more links template and suggest new external links are discussed here prior to be added.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicaldr (talk • contribs) 12:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I have removed the following paragraph:
"The main problem with homebuilt simulator systems is to find real software and hardware for GPS and PFD navigation that can also be used for pilot training and in the same time interface with air data from flight simulators. To make this more easy, fun and useful the FSFDEXGA software a plug-in for MS Flight Simulator together with the popular FSUIPC plug-in enables external system like the Q-12 Series (Electronic Map Display and Primary Flight Display) to show live GPS and AHRS data in external simulator displays."
''
This contradicts with the previous article section which states that there are a variety of suppliers for software/hardware. I can list a whole range of suppliers for off the shelf software for PFD or GPS using a 2nd PC. There is also the option to simply undock windows from flight simulator on a multi-head graphics card (which is how I approach this) which opens up the options even further. 
To me this addition is contradictory, and linked to only 1 software provider. This makes it more commercial than informative. Although I accept this may not have been the intention, which is why I am clarifying my reasons for removing it here. Happy to discuss this and reach a compromise.  
Magicaldr (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is PFD really the main problem? 

message: :Image:Shuttle lift-off in Orbiter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 08:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Shuttle lift-off in Orbiter.jpg

message: :Image:Shuttle lift-off in Orbiter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Shuttle lift-off in Orbiter.jpg

message: I moved the following link here, as it is an external link in a list entirely made up of internal links.  The list itself is bad enough without the addition of external links.
* G1000-Simulator - A Open Source Project Hardware for Garmin 1000 Flight simulator based on CAN-Bus technology.
Icemotoboy (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: The image :Image:Il-2 Sturmovik.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Il-2 Sturmovik.jpg

message: IOS is currently a disambiguation page, and it links to this one. Its proposed to move iOS (Apple) over than and move the redirect to IOS (disambiguation). See Talk:IOS (Apple)#Requested Move 3 if you wish to comment. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move request to move [[iOS (Apple)]] to [[IOS]] 

message: The FAA Spatial Disorientation Simulator travels the country ( I encountered it at the Reno Air Races.)  This is the one motion simulator in aviation that many people have experienced.
One such simulator is mentioned on en.wikipedia.org at  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Odegard_School_of_Aerospace_Sciences
The FAA simulator is extraordinarily effective in conveying the utterly convincing experience of roll which is contradicted by the stable instruments (initiated through a simple action such as bending to pick something up) without the use of graphics to complement the instruments and controls.
Incidentally, an early IBM PC "flight simulator" game in the 1980's was also graphics-free and covered London - Netherlands using keyboard input and character display of instruments for an imaginary DC-10 without even visual runway indications (if my memory serves.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grshiplett (talk • contribs) 23:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAA Spatial Disorientation Simulator and Coriolis illusion 

message: I have just finished copy editing this text, and am rather bothered by the drastic use of the "citation needed" comment and all the "no reference or sources" boxes in this article, section after section, paragraph after paragraph. Why does anyone have to be so aggressive and antagonistic? One comment at the beginning of the article should suffice, seems to me. 
This new policy, which I have noticed in many articles recently, is starting to be a nuisance rather than a help. Such requests should be reserved for sentences that are very controversial or very doubtful or very opinionated, where their use has some validity. Otherwise, don't we have to trust the author in the first instance, and leave it to the Wikipedia user to tackle any needed editing? They are not shy about making such changes, after all. --Remotelysensed (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the bulk of this article is unsourced. If you check the history it has mostly been incrementally added by many different editors, many of them IP editors who were clearly here to promote companies or products as well as fans adding gaming text. As a result the article, even though you have now nicely copy-editted it, is a mass of unsourced and WP:OR text. As quoted in Wikipedia:Verifiability as Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said "I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources.  Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar." The tags are there to warn readers that the information is doubtful as to its source and whether it is right or not. I was planning to leave them there for a while and see if anyone can find sources, but eventually the unsourced and tagged text will be removed. If the tags seem to be intrusive we can move that process up and just do a text clean up sooner if you prefer. - Ahunt (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much for this useful clarification. I have no problem whatsoever with the warning as such, your reasons are convincing. But I think it would be adequate to put it once at the beginning of the article if it refers basically to the entire article (as in this case) and otherwise just at the beginning of a dubious section (as one sees in other articles). That is very helpful for the user. But in this article, to go on to mark so many paragraphs in the same way with that big box, after once generally calling attention to the problem at the beginning, is like the little boy calling "wolf"; the effectivity drops. I guess I did not make myself clear enough in my comment, sorry for that. Another thought: why not use for the subsequent reminders that little superscript warning to the reader that some assertion needs backing; I seem to remember that it's a text something like "citation needed". Then you are getting across the message without "yelling".  --Remotelysensed (talk) 10:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem I can do that. - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complaints about need for citation 

message: Most of this article consists of text that has now been tagged as unreferenced for four years. It is really time to clean it up and reduce it to what can be actually referenced. I think this will result is a rather short article, so I thought I would open discussion here first and see if there are other ideas or references available. - Ahunt (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: With no objections for more than two months, as per WP:SILENCE, it is time to remove the unsourced text. - Ahunt (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  - Ahunt (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up time?

message: There is an WP:RFC about restoring content deleted from the FlightGear article on its talk page here, which may be of interest to editors of this article, if nothing else because some of the content may potentially belong here or elsewhere. LjL (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  FlightGear RfC 

message: Substituted at 15:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Flight simulator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111217165813/http://files.asme.org/ASMEORG/Communities/History/Landmarks/5585.pdf to http://files.asme.org/asmeorg/Communities/History/Landmarks/5585.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202223700/http://www.index.migman.com/ to http://www.index.migman.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I was kind of astonished this article skips completely over the 1960s-1980s simulators. This is when they were heavily driven by graphics systems and collimated displays.  This was a major technological advance, well before the home gaming or arcade market appeared, and the topic really needs a more encyclopedic treatment. -Rolypolyman (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BOLD--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As always, coverage of subject areas and time periods like this is dictated by a lack of references. If you can find the refs, then the text can be expanded. - Ahunt (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs more information on 1960s-1980s simulators 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Flight simulator →  – "Flight simulator" should be a broad-concept article describing both professional and amateur flight simulation, as well as combat flight simulation. fgnievinski (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 12 May 2021 

message: Might consider integrating the "Qualification and approval" part into "Types of flight simulators" part. LuminousN (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the two sections were too similar, now one of them is application-specific MaarrkL (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: Hello! The expanded part of this article is of professional content. Many advanced and solid conclusions are embeded in the added section. Good work!
One detailed thing about the short name of the nomenclature in this article may could be adjusted to improve the quality of the whole article. For instance, the term "BITD" located in the section of "instruments" perhaps doesn't have the explanation or the full time around, which is describled in the following section of "European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA, ex JAA) categories[edit source]". Probable the orders of them could be changed.
Ciao!
Duomo Feng (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "BITD" is used twice, once with a definition in brackets right next to it and the other with an abbr tooltip that defines it. - Ahunt (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the suggestion, I reorganised the article so terms are mentioned after they are explained MaarrkL (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review only for sections: Types of flight simulators, Technology, EASA categories 

message: The article well describes the features of flight simulators. I also agree with the suggestion above of merging Qualification and approval with Types of flight simulators, perhaps even renaming the Types of flight simulators into something along the lines of Employment of flight simulators. Also, the first appearance of the acronym ATD doesn't seem to explain its meaning (see the subsection Procedure in Qualification and approval). SlipherD (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review  

message: In the Simulation#Flight section, there are a few paragraphs that describe the advantages (safety, cost etc.) that should probably be moved to this article, I'd say into Flight simulator#Pilot training section, to give reason for that application. I think as Simulation is already very long and a bit messy, the section about flight simulation should be just a simple example. The text there should be more related to the topic, like what kind of simulation that is according to the categories explained above.
But I am not yet sure if I should and how to approach that exactly MaarrkL (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Integration of content from Simulation article 

message: The following observations and suggestions for improvements were collected, following expert review of the article within the Science, Technology, Society and Wikipedia course at the Politecnico di Milano, in June 2022.
The Wiki entry appears well balanced in terms of content and description accuracy. Under a scientific perspective, flight simulation also includes simply forward-integrating a suitable set of equations of motion/control laws/actuator dynamic equations/sensor equations etc. Simulators in virtual environment (i.e. running on a standard pc), without visual outputs and without any real-time capabilities are possibly the most widespread for research purposes. I acknowledge this 'meaning' of flight simulator is somewhat far from what the general public usually is accustomed to - including this meaning in the page might be misleading. However, if completeness is sought, something more could be said on this use as well. The authors may also consider adding some references to commercial implementations, which have been made available to the general public over the years for entertainment and more sophisticated uses as well (MS Flight Simulator, Sierra Pro-Pilot, X-Plane, etc.), and often share simulation models with more complex simulators aiming at a professional or scientific target.
-- BarettoDiArchitettura (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Observations and suggestions for improvements