On 1/24/2020 at 5:59 PM, mpozzi said:

I'm a plane designer for X-plane and I suffered three days no sleep to resolve a 20 hp electric engine thrust problem combined with the aerodynamics, eye candy and all I can tell you is very very harsh to create sim aircraft, also complex texturing mapping is involved and control manipulators and programming, I use  aero foil complex software and also 3D software much more complex than Solidworks and Rhino (what real aircraft engineers use) so I'm with mrSpark, developing aircraft for sim is harder than a real plane where a lot of third party specifications are plug and play.

It took boeing 8 years and 9 months to design the 787.  From design to first flight.  This is with thousands of engineers designing it.  More than half of that time is r&d

The design process and certification process is huge on an airframe.  This is why they decided to hack the 737 to turn it into a longer haul plane without designing a new airframe.

The millions of hours spent doesn't even come close to the time, effort and difficulty level required to make a plane in planemaker.

1 hour ago, Wobbie said:

...calling something a study level product implies that you will be tested after studying it...

I'm tested every time I fly it. 😄

I don't fly modern airliners, but I do fly study level aircraft occasionally.  It just means you have more complex systems and procedures you need to follow.

While not quite "study level", I remember flying the SR-71 in Chuck Yeager's Flight Trainer.  If you didn't lower the flaps on takeoff, you'd shred the tires.  I won't say how many takeoffs I had to do before I discovered this.

This is basically what "study level" means.  There are certain procedures you need to follow or you'll have problems.  

Something as simple as getting the engine started in the A2A Cessna 172 ends up being fairly complicated.  Of course you can always use Auto Start, but sometimes it's fun to go through the realistic starting procedures.  There is a feeling of accomplishment when you figure out how to do it right every time.  It doesn't help that if you follow the starting procedure in the manual exactly you'll end up with a flooded engine.  Then you have to do a proper run-up and magneto check because the spark plugs can foul.  

And even simpler, the A2A Cub, where you hand-prop the engine to start it.  You still need to do certain things in a certain order to get a clean start on the first pull of the prop.  About as simple as it's possible to get for "study level". 😄  Heck, the thing is so simple that you don't even use a checklist, you just remember the procedures.  And people still get it wrong in videos, go figure.

A flight simulator for a mass market (well, as mass as the flight simming market can get) will have simple ways to operate every aircraft.  Apparently we'll also have some pretty good depth if we want it.  Not everyone is going to want a complex aircraft, and conversely not everyone is going to want one that is too simple either.

There is still a market for non-airliner study level aircraft.  And obviously a market for PMDG.

Hook

8 hours ago, Wobbie said:

but surely, calling something a study level product implies that you will be tested after studying it...

No it doesn't, at least not like you would be in school. It just implies you need to study the aircraft systems and procedures to fly the plane, which would be the test. It's a term that's been around for a while too. Some of the older Janes sims, as well as Falcon 4, were considered study level sims, compared to the likes of Ace Combat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_flight_simulation_game#Study

For most people I don't think there was anything elitist intended with the term.

lol... A study level game? (from a gaming studio?) 

An exeption is obviously the the commercial (non gaming) sims out there, that are used (& licenced with the pertinent hardware)

I read with amazement that a poster here, only uses a joystick with his 'study level' Boeing add-ons.

10 minutes ago, Wobbie said:

I read with amazement that a poster here, only uses a joystick with his 'study level' Boeing add-ons.

What's so 'amazing' about it?  If the yoke isn't the actual Boeings full size yoke and if it doesn't require the same force to move it, it really doesn't matter if it's a joystick or yoke you are using. Has nothing to do with study level.

When I was doing the transition to the 767 I was really happy that the LevelD 767 was available at that time and it did help me quite a bit when I started with my type rating.

In my case the desktop sim with the LevelD 767 and a conventional joystick was definitely study level! 

Edited January 25, 20206 yr by FDEdev

I use a joystick with my PMDG planes, but I have never suggested that I use them for "study level" simulation. My decision to buy them is simply because they are considered to be some of the best and most detailed recreations of airliners available for P3D, and I have not been disappointed with any of them. The fact that I generally only use a fraction of the available systems and features on offer is irrelevant.

Dunno, Putting  joystick & 'As Real as it gets' in a sentence, with Boeing, to me, is a bit iffy..

So, your type rating & transitioning to 767, obviously you are a real pilot.. Well done indeed.

Well, as I'm sure you are aware, size does not matter! so the size of the equipment is, slightly irrevelant.

We, at our Virtual club, have built a lifesize Avro Shackleton. Why? The Shackleton was used by 35 Squadron at our local South African Air Force base (FAYP) here in Cape Town, & we have the only one left (of that particular model) that is start-up'able, so be built the sim, using actual seats, yoke, quadrant & pedals, but using a screen for the panel, & a projector for scenery.

We had real pilots fly the thing, & were amazed to watch them 'bump' in their seats when anticipating touchdown. Thats the immersion factor kicking in, more important that realism. By the way, the Shackleton flies totally accurately, by the numbers. We are using FS2004 (modified) with freeware Aeroworx scenery for South Africa, on a Celeron box, 4GB RAM

So, is this a study level aircraft?

By the way, you will be even more immersed with your LevelD 767 when using a yoke.

 

19 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

I use a joystick with my PMDG planes, but I have never suggested that I use them for "study level" simulation. My decision to buy them is simply because they are considered to be some of the best and most detailed recreations of airliners available for P3D, and I have not been disappointed with any of them. The fact that I generally only use a fraction of the available systems and features on offer is irrelevant.

Chris, 100% correct! I was just wondering where this 'Study Level' came from.

57 minutes ago, Wobbie said:

lol... A study level game? (from a gaming studio?) 

Did you ever try them? Or are you just making an elitist judgement based purely on a name? The term study level is simply a way to categorize the more detailed sims and aircraft as opposed to the more casual ones out there. Nothing more, nothing less. At the end of the day, all of these sims and aircraft are just simulated versions of flying real aircraft outside in the real world.

 

PS. That FS2004 you use for your Shackleton sim game from a gaming studio too...

Edited January 25, 20206 yr by goates

2 hours ago, Wobbie said:

I was just wondering where this 'Study Level' came from.

Study level implies the addon is detailed and realistic enough to be able to learn the real aircraft's systems and procedures to some extent. You can use Ctrl+E in a P3D default aircraft to start the engines. You can't do that in a 'study level' addon and need to follow real world procedures to get them running. That's all the term refers to.

I thought the debate about sim aircraft being more intricate to develop than a real world aircraft was weird enough but now this thread has turned into some kind of language OCD. Perhaps MS/Asobo should push daily updates to keep people busy and on-topic. 😁

13 hours ago, threegreen said:

I thought the debate about sim aircraft being more intricate to develop than a real world aircraft was weird enough but now this thread has turned into some kind of language OCD.

Its not weird, the flight sim community is just far, far to used to sim aircraft being very low quality bodge jobs without a fraction of the effort put into them as would be required to make them realistic, while the developers claim they are "as real as it gets" and "study level".

Meanwhile flight simmers are going through a level of adjustment such that more and more people understand enough to call such behaviour out.

"study level" is a really good example of this, it implies it is usable for actual study, very real aviation exams that cover everything from where to check for cracks in an airframe to language OCD naming the clouds in the sky. Used to justify high prices for addons and simulators that never go anywhere near anyone taking actual aviation exams. 

So what kind of "quality" are you looking for?

A great game aimed at teenagers with an average 1 minute 18 second attention span.

Or a great simulator that goes a long way to offset the very high costs of real aviation.

Two very different standards. With two very different goalposts. Neither of which are set by any of the FSX variants or their addons. The days of calling the former the later are numbered.

Edited January 26, 20206 yr by mSparks

Study level? I swear that’s a term made up by certain flight sim “influencers.”  Now every third party add on is labeled “study level”. 
 

Here’s a new avatar with 4K BPR materials complete with study level shoe laces. 🤦🏼‍♂️

During the entire 23 years of this website, has anyone ever posted even a single message that didn't contain the phrase "third party add-on"? I've yet to see one.

 

 

Do some people feel threatened by highly complex add-ons? There's no reason for it.  You fly the way you like and I'll fly the way I like.  Sometimes I just want a jump-in-and-fly experience even in aircraft that I've modified to be more complex.  However, when I want a more in-depth experience, I'm glad such aircraft exist.

There was a guy in the Steam FSX:SE forums who absolutely hated the complex Concorde because he wasn't willing to take the time to study it and fly it the only way it could be flown.  He used the simpler Concorde and even modified it to be easier to fly.  Nothing wrong with that but no reason to hate the complex version.  That's what some people want.

Is all this because a few years ago Avsim was primarily a "Serious Simmer" site filled with people who looked down on and ridiculed anyone who didn't fly the PMDG 737NGX?  They seem to be gone now, at least in this part of the forum.

If "study sim" was primarily a marketing phrase that didn't have anything to do with the reality of the aircraft, I wouldn't like it either.  But I haven't seen that label on any aircraft that didn't seem to deserve it.  Feel free to give examples, but don't just copy a list of study sims.

A2A doesn't call their aircraft study sims, but several of them say they're intended to be flown "by the book."  In order to operate them, you have to study the book.  At least it's not 600 page manuals like PMDG has.  For some of their complex electronics they recommend downloading the manufacturers' manuals to use the devices.

There needs to be a full range of aircraft to suit any taste.  For the more complex aircraft, it helps if they have a simple mode.  For example,with the A2A Cessna 172 I mentioned earlier, you can either go through the entire experience or turn off damage, use auto-start and just fly, and this is how some people do it.  I suspect MSFS might be similar.

I haven't seen anyone put anyone else down because they didn't like complex sims.  Might it be possible for those people to return the favor?

Thanks.

Hook

Edited January 26, 20206 yr by LHookins

9 hours ago, LHookins said:

I haven't seen anyone put anyone else down because they didn't like complex sims.  Might it be possible for those people to return the favor?

Generally speaking, I agree with you, but for this one quote, here you are. 😉

22 hours ago, mSparks said:

So what kind of "quality" are you looking for?

A great game aimed at teenagers with an average 1 minute 18 second attention span.

 

Edited January 27, 20206 yr by tweekz