We can all discuss sematics all day and what not, but basicly every simmer that hasn't lived on the moon the past 20 years all know what to expect when someone annouces a, or talks about, a study level plane....

Personally, I don't like the term 'study level' because it generates discussions exactly like the one we are seeing.

Today I prefer to use the term 'high quality' to refer to aircraft addons rather than study level. High quality is a much broader term and has a simple concept: Any aircraft that has customized flight model and systems, which are close to the real aircraft.

How close to the real aircraft to consider high quality is subjective and depends on one's requirement. Even using the term high quality, I believe there will still be discussion about what each one considers to be high quality. There are people who say that FBW A320 is high quality.

2 hours ago, 320Driver said:

it still would need to specified for whom it is study level. For a beginner, for an advanced simmer, or for a RW pilot ? And who is going to judge about it ?

FBW A320 is study level for a beginner, Fenix A320 is study level for an advanced simmer, FSLabs A320 is study level for a pilot.

It is indeed a completely useless term.

This statement assumes, following an LNAV/VNAV are the only components that can be studied on an airliner. There's various systems, for example, pneumatics, hydraulics and electrics that can be observed in accordance with the real thing to draw conclusions about what to expect were you ever to fly the real thing.

I think "Study Level" is ofc a marketing term, but it also depends highly on what to person wants to study. The Fenix's engine modelling isn't entirely up to specs as they know, so can engine performance be studied in this case? probably not. Does that means it's not a study level airliner any more, all depends on what you're looking for. PMDG, a highly sought after airliner, it's own LNAV isn't really compliant with the ARINC spec, and can't entirely be depended on to study all LNAV procedures like the real thing. Does that not make it a study level airliner? depends on what you're looking for. FBW simulates hydraulic actuator failures that can be studied for failure procedures, but it doesn't support, for example, FINAL APP, does that not make it study level?

Overall I think it all depends on, what are you looking to study. It doesn't make one person an advanced simmer or a begineer simmer because of this. Most aircrafts have a high fidelity of modelling ( I don't mean 3D modelling) in some areas while are lacking in others areas. Just depends on if those areas are important to you or not.

If you don't like the term "study level" for flight sim a/c, then by all means, call it what you will, complex or whatever..

As for me, I will always accept "study level" as a valid term for more complex flight sim a/c.  Freedom of choice.  I don't & won't hold it against anyone that chooses otherwise. 

Hot and probably controversial take, so don't everyone hate me. 😅 I feel like the term "study level" is more often used as a way of elevating one's own elite simmer status by describing the amazingly complex virtual aircraft one can operate as opposed to being any kind of usable metric for addon complexity. It always feels very gatekeepy to me. Just look at the totally conflicting examples in this very thread. (Other disclaimer, not knocking these devs, they're all awesome!)

Stock 172: Pretty dang accurate flight model, massively deep avionics simulation, gotta fly it like you fly the real thing. Study level.

Stock 172: Too easy to fly, real thing doesn't really have many systems. Not study level.

For some folks, no circuit breakers equals not study level. Well, I guess the PMDG 737 is disqualified. Or, for other folks, it's no failures. That knocks out a bunch of things where folks seem to agree they're study level.

The NXi and AAU1 G3000 have more accurate LNAV and VNAV than the 737. Does that make them study level, since the 737 is study level? Or no, since they're perceived as too easy, or too inexpensive?

The AAU1 Longitude has systems for days, with quirks that you would need to spend a ton of flight hours discovering. So, study level. But you can also just power it up and fly it in NORM really easily. So, not study level. But, it simulates a whole GPS system with satellite locations and SBAS, so study level. But no cabin, so I guess not study level.

Fenix has a number of incorrect and mismatching systems (of varying importance), so not study level? But the consensus is very much study level.

So, I have a new metric. Does it make me look super cool that it's so complicated to fly and/or expensive and I own it? Study level. Everything else, not study level.

OK, you can all hate me now. 😂

 

 

Its not about being elite for me, but a carenado plane is just boring for me versus an A2A study level plane. Like I said before, if I have to read the manual to not mess up, its study level for me. If I just can start at runway, firewall the throttle and abuse the plane without any concequences its not study level, because there is simply not anything to study to fly the thing.. 

Even if the default plane has study level avionics, doesnt make the plane study level for me, only the avionics is... Its the complete package of deep stuff that makes it study level, though it can lack a few bits if the whole package is complex enough.. 

Edited January 14, 20233 yr by Kaboki

"Study level" :-

An aircraft addon that, in the developer's view, will require study over and above that required to fly default aircraft.

The clue's in the phrase. 🙂

22 minutes ago, MattNischan said:

Hot and probably controversial take, so don't everyone hate me. 😅 I feel like the term "study level" is more often used as a way of elevating one's own elite simmer status by describing the amazingly complex virtual aircraft one can operate as opposed to being any kind of usable metric for addon complexity. It always feels very gatekeepy to me. Just look at the totally conflicting examples in this very thread. (Other disclaimer, not knocking these devs, they're all awesome!)

Stock 172: Pretty dang accurate flight model, massively deep avionics simulation, gotta fly it like you fly the real thing. Study level.

Stock 172: Too easy to fly, real thing doesn't really have many systems. Not study level.

For some folks, no circuit breakers equals not study level. Well, I guess the PMDG 737 is disqualified. Or, for other folks, it's no failures. That knocks out a bunch of things where folks seem to agree they're study level.

The NXi and AAU1 G3000 have more accurate LNAV and VNAV than the 737. Does that make them study level, since the 737 is study level? Or no, since they're perceived as too easy, or too inexpensive?

The AAU1 Longitude has systems for days, with quirks that you would need to spend a ton of flight hours discovering. So, study level. But you can also just power it up and fly it in NORM really easily. So, not study level. But, it simulates a whole GPS system with satellite locations and SBAS, so study level. But no cabin, so I guess not study level.

Fenix has a number of incorrect and mismatching systems (of varying importance), so not study level? But the consensus is very much study level.

So, I have a new metric. Does it make me look super cool that it's so complicated to fly and/or expensive and I own it? Study level. Everything else, not study level.

OK, you can all hate me now. 😂

 

 

And the WT 530 borks a lot of planes autopilots so it's study level because we have to study like hell to work out why.😂

22 minutes ago, MattNischan said:

 😅 But no cabin, so I guess not study level.

Lol I was waiting for that one. Neither do commercial sims.

Perfect points, well made!

 

G

7 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

And the WT 530 borks a lot of planes autopilots so it's study level because we have to study like hell to work out why.😂

Well, to be fair to both us and the aircraft developers, we do have to use a lot of the super recent features of the sim and many planes were made before those features and/or never bothered to hook some stuff up because it didn't work with the previous GNS. So we're working directly with nearly all of them to help guide them to updating their aircraft.

Of course, we could pull all that stuff out if desired that makes the GNS able to simulate all it simulates and then you'd have a stock featured GNS but with a really nice retro font. 😉

15 minutes ago, JYW said:

will require study over and above that required to fly default aircraft.

All the love and respect in the world to the awesome folks at FlightFX whom I just absolutely dig, but I guess that's gonna start disqualifying bizjets after AAU1...

Mostly kidding here, but being default no longer disqualifies requiring study to fully understand and fly.

So since "study level" isnt acceptable anymore(worked fine for 20years). What are we now gonna call A2A/pmdg stuff to explain it takes more than a monkey brain to get in the air? 

Like, lets say a few weeks someone announces plane xxx from developer xxx, and someone comes and ask, is it study level? We have to respond, study level doesnt exist.... So he ask, is it complex? We reply, yes very complex. So he ask again, how complex? Then one of us just get tired and say, its f.... study level. Then the guy that ask all this, reply, thanks, now I understand,, off to the shop

 A study level simcraft is one that demands to read and practice to make the most of it. Read+practice= study. Being a PMDG bird or a Cub. How is that difficult to understand ? I am flying the Guimbal these days and I have already read the pilot's handbook and some FAA manual about helis to understand how the machine ticks.   

Edited January 14, 20233 yr by Dominique_K

I own quite a few “study level” airliners on different platforms , Fenix, PMDG,FSlabs, hotstart, Toliss etc,  yet I usually start on the runway engines running and don’t know much about their systems or how to operate them.

Why you may ask , well I know that if the developers have spent a lot of time paying attention to the small details of the aircraft systems , they’ve usually also spent a lot of time perfecting the flight model and it’s accuracy, and that’s what I’m happy to pay for really , an authentic quality flight model that feels just right. 
 

On cheaper products , and I don’t mean this in a negative way but carenado as one example , the flight models often don’t seem to be as accurate as they could be as there hasn’t been the time invested to develop it, and hence it’s lower price point.

There was an excellent 1980’s tv program in the uk called “test pilot’ , you can find it on YouTube, that followed a course of students at the empire test pilots school at Boscome Down.

There the students flew a vast variety of aircraft from 2 seat military jets like the hawk up to large airliners like the BAC 1-11. The students did not learn in great detail the individual aircraft systems and procedures , there was a qualified instructor along who took care of that. Instead they were there simply to fly the aircraft and learn how to evaluate its handling.

Thats the sort of flying that appeals to me and why I buy these highly detailed aircraft because I know there flight models are superb, which is why I’m particularly looking forward to the A2A Comanche, a study level flight model but not a massively complex aircraft to learn.

Truth be told I don’t have the mental capacity to learn all the systems and procedures and remain current on several of these high level simulations at once, no one does which is why the regulators only let you fly one type commercially at a time.

I used to be able to start up and fly to reasonable standard on the DCS A10C and F/A18 but not having looked at them in over a year a wouldn’t be able start an engine anymore without first hitting the books.

I think that is not useful to explain what "study level" means, this kind of questions didn't exist before MSFS20 and the people generally knew what to or not to buy. Today I can read about people talking about "kts per hour", "only 260kts at fl380?" or "please the wind gusts are not real in a flight sim". The more useful question is: why the people refuse to study and want to reduce any good airplane in a sort of McDonald's garbage? But after all I like the beginners entusiasm, if it's "real" e not simulate.