Evaluating Full Flight Simulators: A Buyer's Guide

Dr. Mike Jones

09/29/2026

Aerospace

Pilots operating the controls in an airplane cockpit

Selecting the right simulation devices is one of the most important decisions in a flight training, research or readiness program. No matter whether you're outfitting a defense readiness program, research lab or an OEM development effort, variables such as motion, visual fidelity, flight-model accuracy, qualification and the total cost of ownership demand careful analysis as you make your selection.

What's more, the full-flight simulator landscape is changing rapidly. Full-motion simulators now sit alongside virtual reality (VR) and mixed reality (MR) trainers, and networked, distributed environments, and the rules that qualify them are rapidly changing. In this guide, we'll take a deep dive into what to evaluate in 2026 so you can invest in your next simulator with confidence. Read on to learn more or contact Systems Technology, Inc. (STI) today.

What Are Full Flight Simulators?

Full flight simulators, or FSS, replicate cockpit controls, visual environments and motion cues for pilot training, engineering evaluation and research. They use six-degree-of-freedom motion platforms to replicate acceleration, turbulence and ground handling cues. Think of full flight simulators as highly accurate physical and functional replicas of the real thing. Key features of FSS include:

Highly accurate replicas that recreate a specific aircraft's flight deck.

Utilization of dynamic platforms and high-definition displays to mimic real movement and scenery.

Regulatory certification: The best full flight simulators are so realistic that pilots can complete certifications and log hours without even sitting inside a real cockpit.

Full Flight Simulators vs. Lower Fidelity Devices

The FFS differs significantly from lower fidelity devices (i.e., flight training devices, aviation training devices, PC or tablet setups, etc.) in terms of their construction, sensory feedback and overall training capability. Key differences include:

FSS include full-motion platforms designed to simulate G-forces, turbulence and acceleration, compared to stationary systems that lack physical movement or acceleration cues.

FSS are a near-exact physical replica, while lower fidelity systems tend to use generic panels, touchscreens and simplified display and software models.

FSS offer panoramic external visuals that cover a wide depth of view to offer true depth perception, while lower fidelity systems tend to include standard monitors, screens and basic projector setups with limited fields of view.

FSS offer a more robust training solution, while low-fidelity systems are better suited for early-stage procedural training, instrument familiarization, switch location and cognitive task practice before students fly a real plane.

FFS in Engineering Evaluation, Research and Pilot Training

Because FSS replicate aircraft flight decks, motion dynamics and visual environments, they also support engineering evaluation, research and pilot training. For example, engineers often use the FFS to test new aircraft concepts, handling and flight control laws before physical prototypes are created to verify and validate avionics, aerodynamics and propulsion systems.

Researchers also use the FFS to study a pilot's situational awareness and assess workload limits, fatigue and cognitive responses to displays and other stimuli. Pilot training is also key, as modern-day FSS are so realistic that airlines can use them to complete certain training before pilots actually log any hours in the sky, including scenarios where they take off, manage changing weather conditions, and respond alongside other pilots in coordinated operations.

FFS Qualification Levels

Both the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) define and grade FFS capabilities to determine which pilot training and certification credits apply.

The FAA categorizes FFS systems from Level A to Level D, with D being the most advanced. The ICAO categorizes devices into Types, which are equivalent to the levels that the FAA uses.

The Emerging Simulation Landscape: VR, Mixed Reality, and Networked Devices

The simulation landscape continues to change, as technologies like virtual reality (VR), mixed reality (MR) and other networked devices blend computer-generated scenarios with physical environments for training. Here's an overview of many of these emerging technologies and the impact they have on the evaluation calculus:

VR and MR

VR trainers include head-mounted displays that are used for procedural training, flows and cockpit familiarization. VR trainers are lower-cost options that can often be utilized outside of specialized environments, such as at home.

MR and blended reality (XR) technologies include video pass-through that allows pilots to see and manipulate physical controls while immersed in a truly virtual scene. Providers often position MR simulations as a complement to FFS, not a direct replacement.

XR and reconfigurable trainers are already being utilized for pilot training. For example, the U.S. Army Reconfigurable Virtual Collective Trainer Air program utilizes such technologies.

Networked Simulation Devices

Another emerging trend is connecting devices into a shared synthetic environment using interoperability standards. These include DIS (IEEE 1278) and HLA (IEEE 1516) as well as Live-Virtual Constructive (LVC) training that links live, virtual and computer-generated entities. Networked systems let multiple people work on the same virtual platform from different physical locations.

Evolution of the Modern Flight Simulation Landscape

Several factors are driving the modern flight simulation landscape, notably pilot and instructor shortages, the complexity of modern aircraft that cannot be mastered in real aircraft alone, cost pressures and regulatory realities, among others.

Demand for pilots is high, but there aren't enough human instructors to train them properly. Simulators can provide training for highly repetitive drills, while human coaches focus more on helping pilots in training with their decision-making. Furthermore, novel aerodynamics, like electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) and powered-lift aircraft, use complex, distributed electric propulsion that cannot be safely or properly mastered in a real aircraft alone.

Finally, regulators like the FAA and EASA are relying more on simulation hours because of fleet constraints and a lack of dual-control physical variants. Operational expenses must also be considered and can be largely offset by using a FFS or other emerging technologies noted in this section.

Evaluating Newer Devices: What to Consider

What type of simulation technology is best for your situation? Weigh solutions based on task suitability, fidelity trade-offs, human factors, latency and motion-to-photon delay, and interoperability with existing systems. Here's an overview of each solution to help you make the best decision for your situation:

	Best-Fit (Training Tasks)	Fidelity Profile	Cost Profile
Full Flight Simulator	Type ratings, emergency procedures, full-motion landings	High: Near-exact cockpit replica, full motion, realistic visuals	Very High: FSS can cost millions of dollars
Fixed-Base Flight Training Device	Instrument procedures, systems operation, normal procedural flows	High: Cockpit replica without physical motion	Moderate: Hundreds of thousands of dollars
Virtual Reality	Basic spatial awareness, individual switch drills, pre-flight checklists	3D views, lacks real tactile touch	Low: Thousands of dollars per unit
Mixed Reality	Tactile switch training, maintenance tasks, blended cockpit procedures	High	Can cost in the tens of thousands of dollars
Networked/Live-Virtual Constructive	Large tactical exercises, multi-domain operations, team rehearsals	Connects assets with virtual and simulated stimuli	High: Requires significant network and system infrastructure

Key Fidelity and Motion System Criteria

When comparing motion platforms and aerodynamic and physical models, look to prioritize certain metrics that help define realism, latency and skill transfer. Here's a closer look:

Degrees of Freedom (DOF): This defines how many axes of movement are available. 2DOF is basic pitch and roll, while 6DOF consists of full translational and rotational tracking.

Model accuracy: Simulators compute forces and moments, and a good flight model should correlate precisely with motion cueing. Any mismatches can degrade pilot control responses.

Control loading systems and tactile feedback realism: Consider prioritizing response latency, structural bandwidth and filtering accuracy.

Fidelity evaluation can shift depending on the device. For instance, head-mounted display fidelity evaluation shifts away from physical motion platforms toward perceptual and technical metrics.

Visual Systems and Display Technology in 2026

From advanced systems to cutting-edge displays, there are many options to consider in 2026. Here's an overview of the latest visual options and how they impact fidelity:

Collimated vs. direct-projection displays and LED domes

Collimated displays use mirrors and lenses to create a virtual image that helps reduce eyestrain and improve focus.

Direct-projection displays shine images onto a surface without collimation. They're simple and less expensive, but the eyes must focus at a closer distance.

LED domes often replace typical projectors with small LEDs. They offer better brightness, deeper black levels and higher contrast without projector alignment problems.

Head-mounted displays and video passthrough

High-resolution screens can help users read and decipher smaller cockpit instruments.

Field of view (FOV) is how much of the user's peripheral vision the display covers. A wider FOV creates a better sense of speed and immersion.

Alignment is an important element of mixed reality. Video passthrough cameras show the real world within the headset. Good synchronization and low latency can keep virtual details aligned with physical controls.

Image generator performance

High scene complexity can keep the frame rate smooth. A good frame rate is 90 or more frames per second.

Weather rendering is another emerging trend, which helps add conditions such as rain, fog, snow and clouds.

Night and night-vision goggles mode can also simulate low-light conditions.

Other emerging trends

Other emerging trends include:

Ray tracing, which helps simulate how light bounces off surfaces to create realistic reflections, shadows and more.

Synthetic environment streaming, which can download 3D maps and allow for global training.

AI-driven scene generation, which uses machine learning to create realistic terrain and other tactical features.

How Much Does a Full Flight Simulator Cost?

FSS can be a significant investment, though their cost depends on several factors, including airframe type, motion platform, visual system and the instructor station. While a top-line Level D FFS can cost millions of dollars brand new; refurbished systems or systems that lack advanced features are more affordable, usually about 50% less than a brand-new FFS.

What's more, purchasing the FFS is only part of the financial commitment. Training centers must also consider manufacturer licensing, delivery and facility prep, and maintenance and utilities when weighing total cost of ownership. For example, while a Level D FFS can cost millions to purchase new, actually running it can cost hundreds to thousands per hour due to the high power demand. The facility it's installed in must also be climate-controlled, with heavy-duty structural flooring to support the system's weight. Maintenance, requalifications and software updates can cost tens of thousands annually to keep the systems up to date and running well.

Regulatory Qualification and Certification

Buyers need to understand regulatory qualifications. They also need to understand how regulations are changing and adapting to accommodate new types of devices. Here's an overview to help with your flight simulator purchasing decision:

FAA (U.S.)

In the U.S., FAA 14 CFR Part 60 qualifies full-flight simulators and flight training devices at defined levels.

FTDs: Level 4 FTDs focus on procedural training, while Level 5s focus on aerodynamic programming. Level 6-7 require higher fidelity and modeling. Level 7 requires advanced visual/vibration systems.

FSS: FFS are defined from Level A-D, with A being the lowest standard and D being the highest.

EASA (Europe)

As of July 2026, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) introduced a new FSTD framework through Regulation 2026/781 and CS-FSTD Issue 1. It's been described as the most significant change to European flight simulation in several decades.

Specifically, the new framework replaces fixed simulator types and levels with a capability-based system using a new FSTD Capability Signature that describes the device by its actual features and fidelity levels. It adds qualification provisions and guidance for extended reality and touchscreen flight-deck interfaces. It also adds an optional task-to-tool methodology that lets organizations match the device to the specific training objective. The change is more about pairing devices with the tasks that they can do rather than defining them by a certain level, raising the level of independent capability and fidelity assessment.

To support the change, EASA has implemented various support programs and workshops that will run from late 2026 through 2027. The first one is scheduled for December 15, 2026, in Cologne.

Procurement Paths: Can You Buy a Full Flight Simulator?

There are various purchasing paths to acquiring a FFS. Here's an overview of the most popular paths to purchase:

Purchase a new-build FFS from an OEM. This consists of buying a standard, pre-made system.

Purchase a custom-engineered solution, where the FFS is built specifically for your project or training purpose.

Leasing, dry-lease and simulator-as-a-service purchase models are also options. These tend to be more affordable solutions in the right situation:

When leasing, the provider will provide the simulator, maintenance, utilities and, in some cases, the instructor.

A dry-lease often involves renting the equipment for a certain term, but without maintenance, instructors or insurance.

Simulator-as-a-Service: This is a usage-based or pay-per-hour model.

Depending on your industry, it's crucial to select a simulator that meets the right regulatory drivers and customization requirements.

How Systems Technology Supports Simulation Device Evaluation

As an independent engineering partner that helps organizations evaluate and validate devices, we're ready to help you find the right simulator for your situation. With nearly 70 years of experience in flight dynamics and simulation modeling, we specialize in independent evaluation and fidelity assessment of devices from full-range simulators to VR, mixed reality and networked configurations. Our specialties include flight-dynamics model validation using real flight-test data, definition and specification support to help buyers choose with confidence, pilot-in-the-loop and handling-qualities assessment methodology, and qualification and re-qualification support.

Why Evaluate Simulators with Systems Technology

Many of today's full flight simulator evaluators are also device vendors, so it can be difficult to get a true, unbiased evaluation. One advantage of working with STI is that we don't manufacture or sell simulators. Our expertise lies in flight dynamics modeling and independent evaluation of simulation devices, so you can rest assured you'll receive a fair, objective assessment.

Other benefits of evaluating your simulators with STI include:

Our decades of experience in flight simulation R&D and experience in government and defense contracts.

Our engineering-first, independent approach with no device-OEM lock-in.

We use proprietary simulation and analysis tools that are built on validated flight models.

Our ability to evaluate upgrades, modifications and re-qualification of existing devices.

Our experience working with defense programs, OEMs, research labs and flight-test organizations.

FAQs

A: FSS replicate cockpit controls, visual environments and motion cues for pilot training, engineering evaluation and research. They use six-degree-of-freedom motion platforms to replicate acceleration, turbulence and ground handling cues. Flight training devices are fixed-base systems that tend to focus only on procedural and instrument training.

A: An FAA-certified, professional, commercial-level full-motion flight simulator costs millions of dollars. Cost varies based on airframe type and the visual system.

A: Yes, you can purchase a full-motion flight simulator. Procurement options include major manufacturers, or second-hand or brokerage markets. Equipment financing is typically available to offset the expense of these training tools.

A: A full-motion flight simulator physically moves the cockpit to replicate acceleration, turbulence and tactile feedback to help force reflexes and build muscle memory. Conversely, a desktop simulator only relies on visual and desktop cues.

A: Used full-motion flight simulators usually cost 30-60% less than a new one, but this largely depends on the market tier. There are other hidden costs to also keep in mind. For instance, if a simulator's FAA status lapses, recertification can cost several thousand dollars. Decommissioning and shipping costs are also worth considering.

A: Fidelity is determined by how accurately its data, physical systems, motion and visual environments match a real aircraft. Key factors include aerodynamics and aircraft performance, notably responses during climbs, descents, acceleration and stalls. Control Loading Systems, motion platforms, system and functional integration, and regulatory standards are also key determinants.

A: Virtual reality and mixed reality are changing flight simulation by incorporating immersive 360-degree digital worlds and blending real-world cockpit controls with virtual environments. Key benefits include better depth perception and vision, safer practice of emergency situations and improved muscle memory. VR and MR are increasingly used for procedural training and cockpit familiarization, complementing full-motion simulators.

A: Capability-based FSTD qualification evaluates simulators based on their actual technical performance and fidelity features rather than traditional classification models. Per EASA's 2026 Regulatory Framework, device evaluation is based on factors including the FSTD Capability Signature, the Task-to-Tool Methodology that matches training objectives to a device's documented capabilities, accommodations for new technology and equipment specifications, among others.

Ready to Evaluate Your Next Simulation Device?

At Systems Technology, Inc., we bring decades of flight dynamics and simulation engineering experience to every program. Whether you're specifying a new device, comparing a full-motion simulator against VR or MR options, assessing a used platform or planning a networked training environment, our engineers specialize in helping evaluate fidelity, motion, visuals and flight-model accuracy to ensure you make the best decision for your program.