58 minutes ago, 238932 said:

If you mention the crj as a study level aircraft then I guess you actually don't know what it means.

Being good isn't enough,  the crj probably is a good representation of the  aircraft but to be called a study level sim you would need more.

It was a joke

We sometimes get so knotted up in details and terms that we lose perspective and context.

The term 'study level' is not an official term.   It was  a term coined by Froogle, if I recall correctly, when he started his 'fully loaded' series of videos.    It generally refers to any aircraft which has been designed to simulate systems as close to reality as possible (which usually includes failures), thereby requiring a procedural approach to simming,  given any situation.  (in other words, much more than Cntl-E on one which usually requires reference to the actual aircraft operating manual )

PMDG, FSLABS, TDFI, Majestic, A2A, are certainly the top ranking of study level simulations by that loose definition.  But without any formal definition, what does or does not fit into that category is fairly subjective.    If you'd like to think you're simulating a study level aircraft - go ahead.  Who is anyone else to dispute that.

Most of us here are just hacks, and if we think we're the bees knees because we're able to handle failure scenarios on complex aircraft as a single pilot, well good on us.  But I know a few real one's who are far less confident than many on these boards.

 

There are many levels of study...

Simulating VFR GA operations is a totally different ball game than commercial IFR operations.  

IMHO A2A doesn't need "failures" in their C172 to call it a study level sim. As long as you can simulate stalls and turn off the engine in flight you've pretty much done what needs to be done in terms of simulating failures. For twins you need accurate flight dynamics to simulate flying with one engine, and you're pretty much done there too.

2 minutes ago, simmerhead said:

There are many levels of study...

Simulating VFR GA operations is a totally different ball game than commercial IFR operations.  

IMHO A2A doesn't need "failures" in their C172 to call it a study level sim. As long as you can simulate stalls and turn off the engine in flight you've pretty much done what needs to be done in terms of simulating failures. For twins you need accurate flight dynamics to simulate flying with one engine, and you're pretty much done there too.

Agree, but again, there is no formal definition of 'study level'. It defines what you choose it to define.    We are trying to cookie cut a definition from a term which was one man's reference to describe a complex and well designed digital aircraft.

 

 

3 hours ago, 238932 said:

- Complete and accurate system recreation,  not something that look like  it and is just the most recent version, but something that is accurate in its behavior  in every aspect.

- Accurate flight  dynamics in all phase of flight and  ground in normal and abnormal  operations

- Accurate failures and handling and performance degradation caused by these failures

If this were the definition of study-level, there would be no study-level aircraft in any sim. PMDG for instance have repeatedly said their aircraft come within a 5% margin of real perf data, which is already pretty good. You won't get 100% accuracy, especially with regards to failures. We're always talking about "somewhat" accurate flight behavior, "somewhat" accurate systems and "somewhat" complete simulation of aircraft systems. That's why the term study-level is so vague and only good for marketing purposes: For some, it means 90% realistic flight behavior and 80% systems, for others the threshold is 95%, for level-d sims maybe 99%.. 

If you really want 100% accuracy, you'd have to go get the real aircraft imho.

1 hour ago, ErichB said:

We sometimes get so knotted up in details and terms that we lose perspective and context.

The term 'study level' is not an official term.   It was  a term coined by Froogle, if I recall correctly, when he started his 'fully loaded' series of videos.    It generally refers to any aircraft which has been designed to simulate systems as close to reality as possible (which usually includes failures), thereby requiring a procedural approach to simming,  given any situation.  (in other words, much more than Cntl-E on one which usually requires reference to the actual aircraft operating manual )

PMDG, FSLABS, TDFI, Majestic, A2A, are certainly the top ranking of study level simulations by that loose definition.  But without any formal definition, what does or does not fit into that category is fairly subjective.    If you'd like to think you're simulating a study level aircraft - go ahead.  Who is anyone else to dispute that.

Most of us here are just hacks, and if we think we're the bees knees because we're able to handle failure scenarios on complex aircraft as a single pilot, well good on us.  But I know a few real one's who are far less confident than many on these boards.

 

I’m just an armchair pilot like most of us on this forums and I’m aware of it,  so no need to get cynical. I’m just giving my opinion as an flightsim enthousiast. Why bother to follow checklists if one knows in advance that everything will be always 100% in working order? I like the possibility that once in a while something can go wrong - just as in real life. 

“study level aircraft” is what the OP uses in his question. Obviously, that definition hasn’t the same meaning for everyone. Nothing to dramatize about. I like to read other opinions than mine. Always interesting. 

Just my 2 cents.

Jos

1 hour ago, ErichB said:

Agree, but again, there is no formal definition of 'study level'. It defines what you choose it to define.    We are trying to cookie cut a definition from a term which was one man's reference to describe a complex and well designed digital aircraft.

 

 

Froogle is a nice lad, but he didn't invented "study level" as term used in simualtion - it is well established engineer lingo. My use of quotation marks in the OP was to avoid literal intepretations of the term.

Hi-fidelity simulated aircraft would perhaps be a better choice of wording in the OP.

'Hi-fidelity simulated aircraft'

My middle manager boss you love you with buzz words like that....

1 hour ago, beep747 said:

Why bother to follow checklists if one knows in advance that everything will be always 100% in working order?

Fair point Jos and I completely agree..  But nothing stops you from being procedural, which is why most are attracted to flying more complex types anyway. 

48 minutes ago, simmerhead said:

Froogle is a nice lad, but he didn't invented "study level" as term used in simualtion - it is well established engineer lingo.

Fair enough,  but it was first used by Froogle in his videos before others started to use it as flightsim lingo

The point I was trying to illustrate was a reaction to what often happens when people (me included) become knotted up in debates about categorization of aircraft using that term without a specific definition.   But at the end of the day, more or less, we all come out with the same list.

32 minutes ago, ErichB said:

Fair enough,  but it was first used by Froogle in his videos before others started to use it as flightsim lingo

The point I was trying to illustrate was a reaction to what often happens when people (me included) become knotted up in debates about categorization of aircraft using that term without a specific definition.   But at the end of the day, more or less, we all come out with the same list.

I think most of us have a pretty good overview, but as this discussion shows there are difference of opinion.

Does the CRJ, 717 and Aerosoft Airbus belong on the list? I don't own any of them, so to me the points being made are very interesting. The CRJ is top of  my want-list as I like doing short flights, but I'm not sure if I'll be addining it to my hangar at this stage.

Also, I had little knowledge about ProSim. I thought it was software for cockpit builders, but see that it is all that and more. So live and learn.

I have zero Milviz aircraft on my list too, but I'm sure a few of them fit the bill. I kind of gave up on Milviz and Flight1 because fo their idiotic DRM system and some of the trouble I had trying to get discounts on FSX to P3D upgrades... I did like the Boeing 737-200C though, and while not study level, it is certainly a high quality add-on.

maybe someone then that likes "study level simming" knowledge can come and help me fix my 3 aogs. One with a gear struct limit, and 2 with rad alt failures.

I hate these silly buzzwords.

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, tooting said:

maybe someone then that likes "study level simming" knowledge can come and help me fix my 3 aogs. One with a gear struct limit, and 2 with rad alt failures.

I hate these silly buzzwords.

Or you could just restart the sim. 

7 minutes ago, tooting said:

maybe someone then that likes "study level simming" knowledge can come and help me fix my 3 aogs. One with a gear struct limit, and 2 with rad alt failures.

I hate these silly buzzwords.

You should try wargaming forums...

"I want to attrit more assets in the OpFor MLR"

"You mean you want to kill more units in the enemy front line?"

4 hours ago, ErichB said:

PMDG, FSLABS, TDFI, Majestic, A2A, are certainly the top ranking of study level simulations by that loose definition.  But without any formal definition, what does or does not fit into that category is fairly subjective.  

Exactly, what defines it ? So now we have deep system simulation and failure simulation. But imagine you have that, but the AP doesn't come close to the real behaviour. You end up thousands of feet above your IAF in VNAV, have to ride the speedbrake or the AP puts the plane in a steep dive, all what the real plane wouldn't do. So the discussed TFDI would jump out of the list right away. So : A custom Autopilot coming close to the real behaviour would be one requirement.

Quote

But I know a few real one's who are far less confident than many on these boards.

That's a funny one. Maybe that's why we so often read 'tested by real pilot' in advertisements. Even at Carenado :-)))

Mike

1 hour ago, Holdit said:

You should try wargaming forums...

"I want to attrit more assets in the OpFor MLR"

"You mean you want to kill more units in the enemy front line?"

I've plenty of idiots I like to kill on the front line, namely the skipper who refused to take a perfectly good aircraft.. Anyways back to topic.