I think we all know what study level mean, I suspect some people that dont use study level aircrafts feel somehow inferior and want to drag the term down, so their basic carenado sightseeing looking at scenery and taking screenshots becomes more complex than it is.

Yeah, now I start to sound elitist, and anyone can do what they want and enjoy their sim as they want. But dont tell me after reading a whole manual and watching countless youtube videos after buying the wing42 b247d just to start the engine, that Im not studying.... 

I’ll jump in on this with a genuine question.

In real life especially with airliners, but not specifically, isn’t there a movement in the direction to make complex system management more the task of software, and not the pilot? The Honda jet is an example.
 

In other words, in the “real world”, aircraft are becoming less “study level” for the pilot. I get that impression when looking back at aviation evolution, but I’m not an expert.

Edited January 14, 20233 yr by xraythree

The contrary to those hellbent against this...the DC Designs Concorde is indeed STUDY LEVEL. 

As it's generated 2451 pages of technical information exchange between users on mostly operating the fuel and Autoland system alone on the official forums, YES I would call that study level enough.

It is indeed a study level payware addon, according to most definitions here. Some just may feel it just isn't a high quality study level product.

Thank you DC Designs for producing an extremely rare study level simulation of an aircraft in such an early time of the sim's release, you don't get enough credit.🍻

1 hour ago, xraythree said:

I’ll jump in on this with a genuine question.

In real life especially with airliners, but not specifically, isn’t there a movement in the direction to make complex system management more the task of software, and not the pilot? The Honda jet is an example.
 

In other words, in the “real world”, aircraft are becoming less “study level” for the pilot. I get that impression when looking back at aviation evolution, but I’m not an expert.

Don't mix up the automation and computerization with the needed knowledge of a pilot. Knowing all the laws (normal, direct, alternate etc.) of an Airbus and what protections are there and not there with all those laws and what you should do and not do needs a LOT of studying. Sure normal operation is a lower workload on Airbus compared to a MD-80, but it doesn't end there for a pilot.

My honest take is : I dont think the term is appropriate use for a game.  My stance has always been , wanna 'study' then go learn to fly real airplanes and stop pretending. I can tell you there is no substitute for learning in real life. The pressure of really having to do it is quite different then a game while having a brew at home.  No matter how many systems are closely emulated in any addon the feel and feedback of flight cant be replicated in a home sim. Do I love simming, sure but its just a game and nothing here is study level. I would give these so called 'study level' products a rating system (A,B,C,D) and give criteria of what it is able to emulate and how well it does it.  Like fenix and pmdg I would say A rated addon, for example. 

I think the "immersion" question is more pertinent than the study level one which is more or less meaningless at least to me.

sp

11 hours 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.

This would be true of actual airline pilots as well, if they have no recent tailwheel experience.  It also introduces another wrinkle: does "study level" relate to similarity to real life operation of that same aircraft?  If so, operating even a default airliner in MSFS is more "study level" than the best rendition of a taildragger, since taildragger physics are apparently impossible to simulate (I've never seen any dev in any sim platform do it even close to correctly, to include the vaunted A2A birds).

In the end, what @Fiorentoni said on page one rings true: this term does convey a useful and mostly agreed upon meaning, even if it's hard to verbalize.  It's like the old quote about a certain type of visual art that I can't name without my post certainly getting censored: "I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it.". 😉

7 minutes ago, wiler said:

A rated addon, for example. 

Ok, so you just now invented a new term, "A rated addon". So next time someone asks something about a new addon, we will just say, its an "A rated addon" , which I doubt anyone outside this thread would know what it means. Where if we say "study level" pretty much everyone know what to expect because the term has been with us for so many years. Doesnt really matter if its a game or whatever, the term is well established so its an easy way to know that an addon is deep without any further explanation..

To change this term to "A rated addon" will take years of reindoctrination of all of us and has to reach that consencus that most of us will accept it. I higly doubt a random person on avsim really can do that:p

24 minutes ago, wiler said:

My honest take is : I dont think the term is appropriate use for a game.  My stance has always been , wanna 'study' then go learn to fly real airplanes and stop pretending. I can tell you there is no substitute for learning in real life. The pressure of really having to do it is quite different then a game while having a brew at home.  No matter how many systems are closely emulated in any addon the feel and feedback of flight cant be replicated in a home sim. Do I love simming, sure but its just a game and nothing here is study level. I would give these so called 'study level' products a rating system (A,B,C,D) and give criteria of what it is able to emulate and how well it does it.  Like fenix and pmdg I would say A rated addon, for example. 

MSFS is useful training aid if used wisely. Anything that can contribute to safety, learning, or proficiency is actually a good thing . I strongly disagree with expression "stop pretending". In fact, I ask my students (who use MSFS) to pretend that they fly real airplane, follow real world procedures, checklists, power setting scan for traffic and so on. After all one can pretend arm chair flying and this is also contribute to study. So you guys can play with words anyway you want, but "study level" is literally anything that can contribute to real world flying!

What is it?  It’s the most overused and inflated phrase in Flight Sim history.   Even the most basic plane can inspire and capture a flight enthusiast imagination.  

Edited January 14, 20233 yr by kingm56

17 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

This would be true of actual airline pilots as well, if they have no recent tailwheel experience.  It also introduces another wrinkle: does "study level" relate to similarity to real life operation of that same aircraft?  If so, operating even a default airliner in MSFS is more "study level" than the best rendition of a taildragger, since taildragger physics are apparently impossible to simulate (I've never seen any dev in any sim platform do it even close to correctly, to include the vaunted A2A birds).

 

Agree! Yet you can do 6 approaches and hold in FAA certified IFR sim and get current. However, I argue that proficiency in it's  best would be obtain doing the same in real cockpit and IMC.  

11 hours ago, micstatic said:

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. 

So, a Piper Cub does INDEED have systems. Those systems include a pitot-static system, a vacuum system, a fuel system - which requires knowledge of the proper fuel mixtures for various altitudes and power settings, an electrical system, an engine system, and a flight control system, which includes proper trimming and manipulation in flight.

All those systems in a lowly Piper Cub must be meticulously maintained and checked during each pre-flight, as well as managed in flight. Additionally, one does not simply jump into a "simple piston powered" aircraft and fly. The assumption is that one is current in that aircraft with the appropriate hours to demonstrate proficiency as indicated in your logbook. To that end, currency is a less formal version of a type rating, but no less important.

So, I think millions of skilled piston pilots would be a bit offended by your characterization.

To that end - what's study level? Well, the first few weeks at flight school for an airline will see you flying the "paper tiger" which is a full scale cardboard POSTER of a cockpit. So a poster is recognized as "study-level" by every flight school in the world. People confuse fidelity (the level of recreation of the aircraft) with study level (a meaningless term which can mean anything to anyone).

Mike T.

Edited January 14, 20233 yr by Mike T

19 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

I strongly disagree with expression "stop pretending". In fact, I ask my students (who use MSFS) to pretend that they fly real airplane, follow real world procedures, checklists, power setting scan for traffic and so on.

Agreed.  If you do not scan for traffic every 500' in a climb, scan for bystanders and say clear prop before starting etc etc etc you run a real risk of forgetting once you fly again if you take a break from real world flying.  People seem to get embarrassed about saying "clear prop" in a sim but it is better to be embarrassed then acquire a bad habit that might end up chopping someone's arm off.

7 minutes ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

Agreed.  If you do not scan for traffic every 500' in a climb, scan for bystanders and say clear prop before starting etc etc etc you run a real risk of forgetting once you fly again if you take a break from real world flying.  People seem to get embarrassed about saying "clear prop" in a sim but it is better to be embarrassed then acquire a bad habit that might end up chopping someone's arm off.

My favorite version of "clear prop" is "attention I'm about to commence an engine start" LOL

2 hours ago, Mike T said:

People confuse fidelity (the level of recreation of the aircraft) with study level (a meaningless term which can mean anything to anyone).

I think this captures my issue with "Study level" which to me is a meaningless marketing phrase that as far as I can recall traces its lineage back to Froogle who used it for those aircraft he was partial to. As with so many things, it becomes a silly dichotomy: "study level" or "not study level" and a more nuanced analysis of the fidelity of the simulated aircraft and its correlation with its real-world counterpart is poorly analyzed and articulated. I sincerely dislike the phrase and generally ignore it.

Edited January 15, 20233 yr by Cognita