What makes an addon STUDY LEVEL? | Real Airline Pilot - YouTube

Agree or dissagre. Although I still feel like PMDG and Fenix is far from this.

Study level is a marketing term.  

It's all a matter of perspective.  I'd certainly say that if anything is "study level" on a desktop computer, the PMDG is.  You can genuinely use it to study procedures, flows and checklist.  It can help you learn these things.  Systems as well, though caution is needed there - you'll need to know what's correct and what isn't, or there is a risk of negative learning.

But at the end of the day, you're still using less than $200 worth of software on a desktop computer, and likely less then $500 worth of hardware for controls.  You're operating entertainment software; a video game.

But a similar thing can be said for an actual level D full flight simulator... there's a reason airline pilots fly multiple OE trips with a check airman after completing a full simulator training course to include receiving their type rating in the sim.  It's still a sim - a multi million dollar wonderful teaching tool, but not an actual airplane.  There are still differences.

In the end, only flying is actually flying.  The rest of this is something else.

BUT, that absolutely does not mean there is no learning value in desktop sims.  Even using a default Cessna to practice instrument approaches has much value in improving your scan and SA if you're an instrument student, regardless of the fact that the default aircraft hardly feel like aircraft.  They really don't need to, for this purpose.  And a good aftermarket aircraft with a good quality panel, doing practice approaches on VATSIM, can be incredibly realistic.

It's just... Still not an airplane.  But once you accept that, there are a multitude of things that can absolutely be "studied" with this sim.

Edited January 14, 20233 yr by Stearmandriver

I can basically start and pushback these study level planes as soon as the IRSs align. Each complex plane can be simplified with that study.

Study level to me means your computer shuts down for 6 month and you have to buy a new MSFS license after an outside view in flight.

The default C172 with no mods that ships with MSFS is study level. To a youngster preparing for his/her first real world flight lesson, they can use the sim to understand the physics and concepts of using elevator, ailerons, rudder etc and gain a basic concept of reading altimeter, airspeed, AH etc. What is that if not “study level”? They are using the default aircraft in their “studying” towards learning to fly are they not?

All relative. 

So why do we always knock Carenado aircraft as not being "study level".  You can use those to follow flows, procedures, start up and fly?

This is a great post and I've often wondered the same.

Good stuff OP - I like it.

Jase

Study level for me is not the airliners only which many people seem to think.
Flying a procedural circuit in a Piper Cub needs to be studied too. 🙂
Let alone all the Garmins, especially the WT updated ones, which will be pretty much all of them soon.
When I step in a helicopter for the first time, I need to know if it is a EU or USA built machine. I mean, not knowing and then using the wrong torque pedal... And, what is a collective, a cyclic...?
Flying and navigating in an airplane without a glass cockpit. "What is that meter with positive and negative numbers and why is it saying -6000ft/min?" 🙂

I sometimes have friends, which also are plane spotters like me behind the controls and believe me, they have a hard time getting planes in the air, even the simplest ones, and flying circuits.

So, study level for me is very broad. I hardly fly any big iron and I do like the Carenado's.

 

Edited January 14, 20233 yr by bvdboomen

Funny how people discuss the term over and over again, mostly saying it's a marketing term and highly subjective - but then when it's about specific aircraft / products, opinions usually converge unanimously. Like everyone agrees that the 737 and the Fenix are study level, and that the CRJ is not.

So maybe the term itself is misleading, but the actual concept of thought behind that term is very clear and shared by everyone.

I totally agree its a marketing term. Any plan can be "study level" depending on *how* its used. I can fly upside down under bridges in C152 Aerobat or use it to do realistic cross country flying with flight planning, setting up approach into the pattern etc.

For my friends who are hardcore into MSFS its the airliners that they mean when they use the term "study level" - and more specifically the systems in those airliners.

Dreamliners and A350s are powerful computers with wings and a tube attached to them and learning to work the software that drives the avionics is a big attraction to home gamers who want "as real as it gets. (In addition to of course the flight planning process).

 

5 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

Study level is a marketing term.  

Not really Fenix never sold their A320 under the label "study level" more like "high fidelity" which is probably the best in MSFS or PMDG. and you have folks here claiming default aircraft being "study level" just stop it.

5 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

Study level is a marketing term.  

I agree it's a completely meaningless term but it helps sell toy planes and appeases the wives. 

Wife: Can you take out the trash bags that have been sitting in the kitchen for a week?

Simmer: Sorry, honey, can't right now, I'm "studying" this plane. 

I mean, MSFS could be released with a hardcore training and progression system including perma-death, meaning as soon as you end up with your plane sideways between trees, coz you  didn't "study" enough,
the sim automatically deletes itself from your harddrive. Which makes sense, because you are now "sleeping with the fishes".

If this were to happen, flight simulation would disappear as a hobby and Avsim would be empty within a week. 

The best definition of study level I’ve read was in PC pilot magazine which basically described it as a study ( by the developers) of a particular aircraft. “ a study of”  being defined elsewhere as “ a detailed investigation and analysis of a subject or situation “

That to me makes the most sense rather than one having to “study” to learn how to operate the aircraft.

A good video I thought. Back in the FS2004 and FSX days where I was involved in the PMDG 747 products I was amazed at the level of systems simulation that was going on in the background which was explained to me by the programmers , which as mentioned in the video most people will not even notice, myself included. And that was all in a product that all fitted into just  85mb ! , just imagine what is going off nowadays.

This explains the difference in pricing between the high end and more mid tier products, they may look fundamentally the same on the surface but there’s a lot more going off, and therefore more realism , in the high end stuff.

 

Edited January 14, 20233 yr by jon b

Just marketing bs as correctly stated before. And most of the hardcore "study" tubeliner pilots insisting on flying study level only will probably even not be able to do a proper traffic pattern in a stick and rudder Cub on a windy day with some crosswind. High fidelety would match more but in the end it would be just another marketing term. The thing is you can make every single plane of whatever size to your own study level if you want to fly it properly and take care of it's substance. And with flying I don't mean only managing a fmc and ap. Take for example the small Sting S4. It will teach you way more on proper landing and usage of your brakes with maintenance enabled than some of the big boys. In the end very subjective and every single pilot will have a different expectation based on its experience and sim life. I personally would find an AN2 much more study level than a Boeing. The latter I would not need to study anything, the Antonov I need to study hundreds of cryptic switches before getting even the engine running.

In the end the good thing... Simming gives every one of us what we want... Happy flying

Cheers T.

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Torsen said:

Just marketing bs as correctly stated before. And most of the hardcore "study" tubeliner pilots insisting on flying study level only will probably even not be able to do a proper traffic pattern in a stick and rudder Cub on a windy day with some crosswind. High fidelety would match more but in the end it would be just another marketing term. The thing is you can make every single plane of whatever size to your own study level if you want to fly it properly and take care of it's substance. And with flying I don't mean only managing a fmc and ap. Take for example the small Sting S4. It will teach you way more on proper landing and usage of your brakes with maintenance enabled than some of the big boys. In the end very subjective and every single pilot will have a different expectation based on its experience and sim life. I personally would find an AN2 much more study level than a Boeing. The latter I would not need to study anything, the Antonov I need to study hundreds of cryptic switches before getting even the engine running.

In the end the good thing... Simming gives every one of us what we want... Happy flying

Cheers T.

 

 

 

While I understand the merits of your argument.  Generally I think the term study level is meant you have to study (learn) the systems.  A piper cub barely even has systems.  if at all.  The reason you have type ratings for airliners and not for simple piston powered airplanes.  Though I agree that landing a tail wheel airplane is a skill that usually needs to be acquired.