1 hour ago, Moria15 said:

it's not my place to define other peoples enjoyment or experiences 🙂

Yeah, that's my job. 🤣

In this hobby, “study level” is one’s perception of the level of functionality represented in the aircraft model. Aerosoft has been mindful with describing the March 16th release of the CRJ 550/700 as “the first complex and highly detailed aircraft expansion” for Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Be thankful we are all up in the flight deck and not as a passenger trying to get comfortable in a CRJ200!

So do we know that the CRJ will use a custom nav logic, or will it use the default from MSF?

I think “study level” should be added to the word not allowed list 😉

Define "study level", I could describe trying to use MSFS or any other piece of software as being "study level", its different every day. Oh wait I forgot this Aeroplane is not a PMDG or FS Labs product. nevermind.

Edited March 3, 20215 yr by jbdbow1970

4 hours ago, CJ1045 said:

'impossible to simulate a complex aircraft system without simulating failures' then 'These aren't failures'. So the examples you gave aren't failures!! I would say a failure is something like a blade snapping and destroying an engine, the landing gear breaking. It is not how systems react to the temperatures around them.

Whatever you have to tell yourself to justify your sim of choice. 😆

Where PC-based home entertainment flight simulator games are concerned, 'study level' is just a marketing term. This piece of paper is study level if I choose to use it for study, or I can just stick on my wall to look interesting if I like. Same with flight sims, when it comes to add-on aeroplanes for flight simulators, there is a features list, and what you choose to use it for.

The more features, the more it can be used to study. That's it. So if I want to learn how the door opens on a Mooney M20, then the Carenado Mooney M20 can function as a study sim for me, but if I want to learn how to navigate completely realistically as you would in the real thing using its GPS, then unlucky.

Everything else is just marketing blurb.

Edited March 3, 20215 yr by Chock

3 hours ago, Chock said:

It's probably not even ten percent. Although the percentage of vatsim users who imagine it's critical to everything will be up near to 100 percent 🤣

What's wrong with each individual having their own expectations of what they prefer to have for specific software? Your not to veiled implication that people that use Vatsim are being ridiculous with their expectations seems to suggest this.  Or must one conform to the group think mentality in this particular forum lest they be made fun of? 

1 hour ago, Andreas Stangenes said:

So do we know that the CRJ will use a custom nav logic, or will it use the default from MSF?

Full custom in all systems, almost none that uses from default MSFS, that is why everyone is eagerly waiting for it 😄 

9 minutes ago, B777ER said:

What's wrong with each individual having their own expectations of what they prefer to have for specific software? Your not to veiled implication that people that use Vatsim are being ridiculous with their expectations seems to suggest this.  Or must one conform to the group think mentality in this particular forum lest they be made fun of? 

There's nothing wrong with an individual having expectations, but whether those expectations can be met is another matter. And mine was not a 'veiled implication', I came right out and said it. 🤣

The fact is, we see time and time again that online ATC service users seem to imagine they're more prevalent than they actually are, and sometimes as a result of that, expect this to be reflected in what many developers should go for, when it doesn't necessarily reflect what a developer is targeting, or chooses to target. That's just a fact, I'm not making fun of it, I'm simply pointing out the reality of the situation.

If you or anyone else doesn't like that being pointed out, great, but it doesn't change the fact that it's true. I don't like getting wet in the rain, but me not liking it isn't gonna stop it happening.

Edited March 3, 20215 yr by Chock

5 minutes ago, Chock said:

There's nothing wrong with an individual having expectations, but whether those expectations can be met is another matter. And mine was not a 'veiled implication', I came right out and said it. 🤣

The fact is, we see time and time again that online ATC service users seem to imagine they're more prevalent than they actually are, and sometimes as a result of that, expect this to be reflected in what many developers should go for, when it doesn't necessarily reflect what a developer is targeting, or chooses to target. That's just a fact, I'm not making fun of it, I'm simply pointing out the reality of the situation.

If you or anyone else doesn't like that being pointed out, great, but it doesn't change the fact that it's true. I don't like getting wet in the rain, but me not liking it isn't gonna stop it happening.

In a nutshell!

Well said!🍻

7 hours ago, CJ1045 said:

I don't think more than 10% of MSFS users use VATSIM.

 

CJ

I was talking more about us here in the forums.  That statement was also meant to compare the term 'study level'.  For most people that's what study level really means.   Basically the ability to realistically start up from cold and dark, most systems simulated, enter and fly complex flight plans, have vnav/A/T capability, etc..  That kind of thing.  What I would call full featured.  🤪

For sure every one can make his choice, but when we think about what is needed to tie people on a longterm scale to the sim, it is certainly not addons such as this embarrassing 737 Max 8 or the novel A330 mega pack. Check what most people were flying back in FSX or Xplane, and you will realize that only addons with a certain complexity will last. Totally understandable, as a very basic plane simply offers no reward for mastering it and most probably each flight is almost identical to the last. It might be fun for some leasure entertainment, but it will become boring pretty soon. And then you need the next addon, and the next, and the next. With a good and complex addon instead, for example if it even includes wear like the A2A planes, every flight is challenging and potentially different, even if you fly the exact same route again. But of course, this is also just an opinion, no? 😉

"Study level", compound adjective:

1) Describes complex software enabling the user to learn real-world techniques and information about the subject;

2) Describes PMDG's justification for 3-figure prices for addons, making the initial sim investment look slim;

3) Describes a wish to ensure that one's significant other does not think you are playing a game (see also "video game")

Etc.

🙂

6 hours ago, Nyxx said:

If you cannot programe a flight plan into an FMS then any airliner or even a CJ4 then dont fly them. What on earth would happen if ATC gave you a direct or a diffrent runway to the flight plan as the wind changed?  Even a departing runway can change from a flight plan if the wind is changing.

I wish the CRJ would take an import from Simbrief. But I will still build a plan from it and take 2 mins if that, to enter it. For all I know the CRJ IRL might not even have away to import company flight plans. Even then I still see MSFS ATC giving me a diffrent runway to Simbief as the wind is low. So if someone is not capable to do the very basic things like enter a flight plan/SID/STAR/PERF then stay away. Or just stick to the closest thing to a toy FMS.

The real CRJ can download external flight plans via ACARS if the airline subscribes to that service, but it will only give the departure, destination, and enroute waypoints. The SID, STAR and approach always have to be manually entered by the pilot.