writes:

Low cost sims would be a lot more useful if they came with a
instructor and a curriculum.

Let me justify that. With many home sim programs, A lot of people
learn to land right on the edge of Dead Man's Curve, without some
instruction or evaluation. Ie a controlled crash at very low speed
with no flare. If its a game, thats fine, and you can get the 172
onto the carrier that way. But it may be doing many a disservice.
It would be nice, if included in the cost of the software, you could
upload a file to have your flight constructively evaluated by a human

Most simmers won't be flying a real aircraft, so the differences between the
simulation and real life are not necessarily important (although that depends
on the simmer's viewpoint, as some are more rigorous about realism than
others). And, since nobody is likely to climb out of his easy chair and into
a cockpit without instruction and certification, one can assume that the
differences would be identified and compensated for by anyone who really wants
to fly an aircraft in the real world.

What mystifies me is the knee-jerk reaction of some pilots to the mere
suggestion that simulation is anything like real life. I can only assume that
they invest a great deal of their self-esteem in flying, and are very insecure
about anything that might hint that any other activity is even remotely close
to flying. They like to believe that they are special, and anything that
seems to erode that illusion in their eyes disturbs them.

As I've said before, the more experience pilots have, the less they tend to
foam at the mouth in fury when simulation is brought up. Simulation is not
identical to real life, but it's not a waste of time, either. The truth is in
between. Moderation is best in all things.