My humble conclusion after only 2 months of XP12. There is not an aeroplane in the sim that is not study level.

Ignoring all the ways it is configured and programmed differently from the others the focus on realism is actually daunting but not unpleasant. Every aeroplane you wish to fly in simulation has to be understood in terms of its systems, its controls, how it handles on the ground, how it handles in the air and how to operate the automated systems (dependent upon type.) I have embaressed myself repeatedly in a variety of types. Even the humble C172 keeps you humble, 

I find I now have to dig for a lot of information about different aeroplanes - simply so I know how it should be operated - piston, turboprop or pure turbine. The more recent the design and its level of automated systems the more challenging it becomes. One's performance in the sim is equal to any in real life, unforgiving of lack of preparation, not knowing your aeroplane and not knowing about the area your going to fly. 

I realise now how much was fudged or pretend in the other sims - simple key stroke and hey presto your off or its all good for you - not with XP12. Even if you can start engines running and rocket of the nearest runway you will not get far! 

So back to the books on a few. Sure would be nice if Laminar actually provided some proper pilot notes and aircraft manual for their aeroplanes. 

The term study level is used for for everything now.

XP12 and MSFS will never be study level sims.

They might have some complex aircraft and flight models but only a commercial sim will cut it

 

31 minutes ago, jason74 said:

The term study level is used for for everything now.

Correct. I feel like the term is just thrown around loosely.  I actually prefer the term, 'high fidelity'. I certainly wouldn't call an A330 with a Boeing FMC "study level" to begin.

Edited January 18, 20233 yr by brinx

5 minutes ago, brinx said:

Correct. I feel like the term is just thrown around loosely.  I actually prefer the term, 'high fidelity'. I certainly wouldn't call an A330 with a Boeing FMC "study level" to begin.

...with an FMC that resembles a Boeing FMC more or less loosely. There is a reason the Zibo exists. 🙂

Yes the A330 certainly is high fidelity and not full systems mapped or programmed but the Rotate MD11 sure is! If I wanted true study level I would be on the Airbus Ground Course or the MD11 ground course. They all are about 65-70% there as they are - that makes you work for it! I would spend 8 weeks in study for a full study level simulation and pass a few exams as well!

If the were study level I would need the QRH for all of them! And of course given failures how well would the sim model switch to secondary and standby systens without my intervention - I have the 330 pilot training manual and there is of course a lot not provided - but hey do I really want that level of detail! 

It certainly is not a matter of hitting CTL+SHIFT+E and heading off into the sunset!

Humble C172 is all there bar one or two things - you got to know the C172 to get the best out of it!

Edited January 18, 20233 yr by coastaldriver

Study-Level is a term used in flight simulation abusively, just as AI now is present in pretty much everything you see advertised, as some kind of quality assurance 😕

XP in itself isn't more or less study level than any of the competing general purpose civil sims - P3d, MFS maybe even AEFS.

It all depends on what you use it for, and which addons it is used with.

Natively Study-Level sims are specific, like Aerowinx PSX, Airlinetools A32x, and even DCS World with some of it's modules.

But with good addons, like the CL 650 in X-Plane, the whole sim can indeed become study-level you commit to learn the details of the aircraft systems and operations, as if you were studying for a type-rating.

Edited January 18, 20233 yr by cagarini

2 hours ago, jason74 said:

The term study level is used for for everything now.

XP12 and MSFS will never be study level sims.

They might have some complex aircraft and flight models but only a commercial sim will cut it

 

I think the disagreements only comes from the fact that the word « study-level » has no clear definition. That means, everyone can interpret that word like he wants.

But when i hear a real Airbus-pilot like V1-pilot stating that he uses the Toliss to train before going to his checkrides, it’s difficult to deny that the addon isn’t at least good enough to « study » how it works in real.

 »Study-level » doesn’t mean FAA-certified or what not.

So yes, in my opinion there are clearly study-level addons in nowadays desktop-simulators. The question is rather what does it require exactly to be called like that. But we don’t have any definition.

3 hours ago, jason74 said:

The term study level is used for for everything now.

not quite.

Even the bugs in X-Plane are study level.

That should do it.

Well those who need a definition of 'Study Level" will not get one- my reference or use of 'Study Level' was that the model aircraft to a large part reproduced accurately in a simulation environment the performance, flight characteristics and systems of the real aeroplane.

So in that regard yes XP12 is high fidelity and yes it is capable of being certified as an approved simulator by the FAA and other regulatory authorities - as an approved training aid not much else. 

You want to go beyond that well you have to match the simulator against what level of flight simulator requlatory approval is required (Training, competency, checking and type rating approval). The basic test remains in the real world that the systems, software, and performance of the device accurately matches the aircraft to which it is applied! 

Even the most sophisticated model in the simulator cannot be used to accurately match the aircraft to which it is applied (two crew, no motion, poor systems, etc etc)

A good majority of pilots I used to fly with (And check and train and test in a full motion simulator and real aeroplane) all used desk top simulators at home. They were a cheap and handy way to practice procedural IFR flight and basic systems recall as well as check list recall. In commercial aviation all the simulators had word not allowed graphics because the flights, training and procedures were all expected to be conducted under instrument flight conditions not doing a jolly about the countryside VFR. The military are different they want high level graphics to use for training (formation flying, low level nav, targeting ordinance delivery etc) They build very different simulators to do this!

So XP  is both a game and a flight simulator but the level of fidelity is sufficient for me to consider it requires a 'study' of the aeroplane you wish to fly, the weather, nav planning and performance if you do that you get a reasonably accurate representation of flight in the real aeroplane - but all on a $4000 PC with a $200 simulator program - bargain! 

You want true study level - build yourself a full motion, accurate recreation of a Boeing or Airbus cockpit complete with all instrumentation and controls etc. Then get the FAA in to evaluate it against the performance data for the real aeroplane! Simple!

 

Edited January 18, 20233 yr by coastaldriver

6 hours ago, jason74 said:

The term study level is used for for everything now.

XP12 and MSFS will never be study level sims.

They might have some complex aircraft and flight models but only a commercial sim will cut it

 

No idea why some of you get so annoyed by a simple phrase.  The term 'study level' is used for flight simulator aircraft that require more 'study' to fly accurately - as opposed to those simulated aircraft than don't need any 'study' to get off the ground.

The term is not meant to be referenced against any real world training or aircraft.  A lot of fuss about nothing.

1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

No idea why some of you get so annoyed by a simple phrase.

If I recall correctly the phrase emerged from pmdg trying to differentiate themselves from a hundred fsx developers whose only experience of aviation was standing in the economy line at the airport, shipping 737s and 747s with the default fsx C172 flight model.

They should've trademarked it...

That would tend to suggest the ones offended and annoyed by the term are..... somehow affiliated with the non study level aircraft.

 

9 hours ago, cagarini said:

Study-Level is a term used in flight simulation abusively, just as AI now is present in pretty much everything you see advertised, as some kind of quality assurance 😕

XP in itself isn't more or less study level than any of the competing general purpose civil sims - P3d, MFS maybe even AEFS.

It all depends on what you use it for, and which addons it is used with.

Natively Study-Level sims are specific, like Aerowinx PSX, Airlinetools A32x, and even DCS World with some of it's modules.

But with good addons, like the CL 650 in X-Plane, the whole sim can indeed become study-level you commit to learn the details of the aircraft systems and operations, as if you were studying for a type-rating.

Exactly correct. Only Aerowinx PSX (the 744) was approved by certain authorities for certain airlines to be used as a Cockpit Procedural Trainer at a study level.

OK got it, don't use "study level", use instead, "high fidelity".

14 hours ago, coastaldriver said:

My humble conclusion after only 2 months of XP12. There is not an aeroplane in the sim that is not study level.

 

40 minutes ago, 1st fltsimguy said:

OK got it, don't use "study level", use instead, "high fidelity".

language specifics aside, the quality and depth of the default fleet in XP12 was probably my biggest surprise. Possibly XP12s greatest "unsung" selling points.

There is another of those not quite well defined terms that also fits.

The entire default XP12 fleet is payware quality.

This simple observation alone makes XP12 an absolute bargain, and a huge improvement over XP11 where the majority of the default fleet was mediocre at best.

I suspect a lot of the early adopters have been more concerned with their current favourite plane getting the XP12 love; I would really recommend taking some time to explore the aircraft that XP12 ships with, I haven't been through them all yet, maybe only half, but all the ones I have tried have left me wanting to take them out again.

1 hour ago, mSparks said:

I suspect a lot of the early adopters have been more concerned with their current favourite plane getting the XP12 love; I would really recommend taking some time to explore the aircraft that XP12 ships with, I haven't been through them all yet, maybe only half, but all the ones I have tried have left me wanting to take them out again.

I definitely fall into that camp. Fortunately for me, most of my favourite aircraft (Hotstart CL650, Aerobask DA50RG) have already received the XP12 love. Just waiting for the Hotstart TBM900 to join the fleet.

But I take your point: I should definitely spend some time exploring the default aircraft. I haven't really done that.