4 hours ago, LRBS said:

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.

Again, why is anybody getting tied up with a simple phrase to describe a flight simulator product that requires some 'study' to use it?  Some aircraft can be started and flown without reference to any documentation, but try doing that with with something like the Hotstart CL650.

If real world aviation training use the phrase 'study level', then I can fully understand that phrase being used with flight simulation to describe a complex addon. After all, we want simulated aircraft to maximise the systems modelled, to fly by the numbers, accurate airports, realistic online ATC, realistic navigation equipment and to have a flight model that feels realistic etc.

Perhaps VATSIM should change to 'Online High Fidelity Control', because the controllers aren't required to take real world ATC training?  'Study Level' simply conveys the addons level of complexity in the simulated world.  Those annoyed by this should lighten up.

1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Again, why is anybody getting tied up with a simple phrase to describe a flight simulator product that requires some 'study' to use it?  Some aircraft can be started and flown without reference to any documentation, but try doing that with with something like the Hotstart CL650.

If real world aviation training use the phrase 'study level', then I can fully understand that phrase being used with flight simulation to describe a complex addon. After all, we want simulated aircraft to maximise the systems modelled, to fly by the numbers, accurate airports, realistic online ATC, realistic navigation equipment and to have a flight model that feels realistic etc.

Perhaps VATSIM should change to 'Online High Fidelity Control', because the controllers aren't required to take real world ATC training?  'Study Level' simply conveys the addons level of complexity in the simulated world.  Those annoyed by this should lighten up.

In the airline industry to qualify for a study level there are very specific items that are required to be achieved. Having said that,  Aerowinx PSX (for the 744) passed all the requirements and was approved by authorities.

For people familiar with those requirements it is difficult to accept this statement. Far from being "annoyed".

While this is a selling point for a very popular gaming flight simulator software, I think that the term is overexaggerated.

I really don't understand why you think that people have an issue with "we want simulated aircraft to maximise the systems modelled, to fly by the numbers, accurate airports, realistic online ATC, realistic navigation equipment and to have a flight model that feels realistic etc."

I don't see anybody complaining about that.

At the same time, I don't find it appropriate to tell to people who have a different point of view to say "Those annoyed by this should lighten up."

I sought that exchanging views and opinions is something to look for.

 

1 hour ago, LRBS said:

For people familiar with those requirements it is difficult to accept this statement. Far from being "annoyed".

The people who are familiar with 'study level' in a professional capacity, are intelligent enough to know its use in flight simulation is a description of an addons complexity.  How this is difficult to accept is beyond me.

 

1 hour ago, LRBS said:

I sought that exchanging views and opinions is something to look for.

Which is exactly what we are doing.

8 hours ago, LRBS said:

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.

Procedural Trainer doesn't require authority approval, (At least in my country). AFAIK There are some airlines use iFly737 for procedural training as well (bought from airliner1 rather than flight1, but essentially the same code)

37 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

How this is difficult to accept is beyond me.

 

I fully understand and respect that.

 

Now, for some people in the airline business, it's quite difficult to stomach this marketing gimmick when we know how difficult is the process to get approved for any study material.

It is no question about the complexity achieved by some developers, especially in this environment of flight simulation. A very addictive hobby with different levels of knowledge. 

 

As @C2615 mentions that his country of origin does not require any approval for CPT, others have issues and require any little change to be approved.

 

Thinking more carefully I can see why some of us have an issue with this, not connecting properly that this is a game and developers via marketing tools will say whatever to sell and get their money.

It's funny how we got caught in this marketing mind game.

Yep, study level term is used for everything that has a proper and authentic FMC in it. 😄

I mean, if you want to study every corner of the cockpit, if modeled 1:1 with authentic textures and stuff, it's STUDY LEVEL. If you know what I mean. 😉

There is no doubt that XP12 default aircraft are WAY better than the default stuff in XP11, but the fact is that LR can't make every default aircraft a study level simply because they'll need to focus few/many months on each model, depending on a complexity. For example, A330 requires maybe even a year or two of pure dedication to add all systems and model them correctly. 

Buying complex addons is a reality, if you want "study level". The fact that a dev focused on one aircraft model for months or years (again, depending on a complexity of a real life counterpart), equals dedication, equals simulation complexity. Again, that doesn't mean the addon aircraft is super-realistic, all depends on a data the dev have in their disposal, and their coding skills, among other variables.

So, in short, I'm rather for a pretty good simulation platform that provides a complex physics model and flexibility, and let the experienced addon aircraft devs do their best. Toliss, HotStart, Aerobask and Thranda, I'm cheering for you guys! 🙂

Yes, “study level” pushes a few buttons in some individuals. I think the average simmer (not the people that frequent flight simulation forums and chat rooms) interpret this phrase as a highly realistic aircraft. The ones in the know realize that this term is pasted on a wide variety of aircraft that incorporate systems function and management to various degrees!

Some developers are not using the term and replacing “study level” with “highly immersive”. Either way, unless the hobby adopts specific terms with a definition, the meaning will always vary among individuals.

Has there ever been definitions such as Study Level I, II and III that reflect the complexity of an aircraft (as some sort of a starting point to separate the depth of aircraft realism)?

Edited January 19, 20233 yr by Doering

4 hours ago, Doering said:

Has there ever been definitions such as Study Level I, II and III that reflect the complexity of an aircraft (as some sort of a starting point to separate the depth of aircraft realism)?

 

5 hours ago, LRBS said:

It is no question about the complexity achieved by some developers, especially in this environment of flight simulation.

I think there are a lot of unanswered questions. 

Also think its time for some specifics.

5 hours ago, Pe11e said:

So, in short, I'm rather for a pretty good simulation platform that provides a complex physics model and flexibility, and let the experienced addon aircraft devs do their best. Toliss, HotStart, Aerobask and Thranda, I'm cheering for you guys! 🙂

 

9 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Some aircraft can be started and flown without reference to any documentation

I'll draw on the sparky744 process because it's what I know.

Initially there was a lot of calls to write documentation and tutorials for the sparky744. I strongly resisted this - The reference material and documentation are the "real world" materials, videos, computer based training etc. Any part of the aircraft that doesnt match these is a bug that should be fixed.

For example, not to long ago there was a huge "argument" about how the APU should start. lot of references being thrown around to other 744s and how it was different from them. In the end someone found:

tiny little detail in that video that can easily be missed/ is not mentioned. If you dont wait a few seconds for the APU door to open enough after switching to on the

start switch does nothing.

This was "automagically" simulated because the APU start sequence was matched against the diagrams in the documentation, it was a few seconds to long because the arm angle and door opening speed was to wide and to slow.

_____

There is a completely opposite approach to this, which - up until recently - many many developers cross platforms used.

"If you dont know, make it up and document it", ship it as final and move on to the next project.

This, imho, is a terrible approach. So I do not agree that:

5 hours ago, LRBS said:

it's quite difficult to stomach this marketing gimmick

"Study level" quite clearly differentiates one approach from the other, and there is nothing wrong with marketing that highlights a developers goal to develop to a higher standard of realism. If anything its difficult to stomach developers that care so little they will, for example, happily stick 737 avionics in a eurofighter typhoon - and charge money for it. 

Now, "achieving" study level is a whole different conversation, so we end up with four categories:

1. Not Study level and never will be

2. Being built to replicate the real world aircraft to as high standard as can be achieved. Not matching are bugs to fix (and will be fixed).

3. Signed off by an aviation authority as usable for training.

4. A completely perfect replication of the real aircraft, all the way down to the change in tire pressure based on aircraft weight, all the unique subtlties in the avionics, and greenness of the grass looking out the window.

No one, as far as I know, considers "study level" to mean 3 or 4, 4 doesn't even exist yet anywhere as far as I'm concerned. 4 doesnt require 3, 3 doesnt require 4.

Calling it study level does not mean an aviation authority has already signed it off for training, such comments feels like a strawman perpetuated by developers of not and never will be study level aircraft.

Now reflecting back on the default aircraft in XP12. Good grief they are to a highly realistic standard, probably the only exception to that is the current F4 cockpit, which, aiui, is in process of being reworked, but to put that another way,

https://developer.x-plane.com/2022/02/x-plane-12-flight-model-update-supersonic-transition-delta-wings-and-mass-properties/

Is the worst of the XP12 default aircraft I have tried so far.

 

Edited January 19, 20233 yr by mSparks

Just to add to above's mSparks post that his sparky744 is the most interesting and plausible model of a 744 I have been able to experience among the many models I have tried in FSX, P3D and XP. 

Still not to the level of Aerowinx PSX, but mostly due to the platform limitations I believe. Sparky has been able to capture what I believe to be the most plausible response to control inputs when hand flying the 744, well and as ridiculous as this statement of mine can be seen because I never even got closer to a 747 yoke than in 1973 when I visited the first TAP 742 cockpit 🙂, I just add that I am comparing it to the feel of the Aerowinx PSX  🙂

Edited January 19, 20233 yr by cagarini

17 minutes ago, cagarini said:

but mostly due to the platform limitations I believe.

Ive not run into any xplane limitations that really held it up. More the time and complexity involved in replicating things and limitations in customisation of often simplified default systems that make just redoing parts of them the better option.

response to control inputs is an example of that.

planemaker has lots of nice tools to replicate how hydraulics drive the flight surfaces from control inputs.

But XP11 only simulated 2 hydraulic systems, and XP12 only simulates 3.

the 744 has 4 hydraulic systems.

But change a single dataref from 0 to 1 and its then relatively simple to create simulated cables that connect the yoke and pedals to simulated valves that consume simulated hydraulic pressure that drive each flight control surface defined in planemaker (matched to the 744 maintenance manuals) XP takes care of the rest.

I get more "fun" from that exercise than I do actually flying them.

There is one "dirty hack" that just went in, from flaps 25 to flaps 30 in the real one adds mostly drag and not much lift, so the angle used for the flaps needs setting "wrong" to replicate that - as per real world 744 trainee pilot - was quite serious when I said even X-planes bugs are study level.... 

But lets not make this about the 744.

I want to do some cross country flights in a glider, I have found I need more than the FSX glider tutorial to complete one. Please could we start a thread on doing a nice few hundred km glider flight over some lovely lvl18 ortho. maybe file some study level bug reports.

33 minutes ago, mSparks said:

I want to do some cross country flights in a glider, I have found I need more than the FSX glider tutorial to complete one. Please could we start a thread on doing a nice few hundred km glider flight over some lovely lvl18 ortho. maybe file some study level bug reports.

There's an area where I really would like to feel satisfied with XP. Unfortunately and although some MODs to the default AS K21 can bring it closer to reality, it's still not to the level of Condorsoaring in various aspects.

Also in XP12 it is not ( yet ) possible to model the aerodynamics of negative flap settings. I do believe that if sufficiently well motivated Austin could try to do it...

Soaring simulation is still a job for either Condorsoaring (they'r working for quite a long time in v3) or Silentwings. 

Allow me to get just a bit back to that 744 - we have two rated 744 pilots in this forum "Janov" and "jon b", both XP users and jon b in particular also a seasoned Aerowinx PSX user, and 744 captain, so, I would really like to have their feedback on the handflying of your sparky744, as well as in some details of teh systems modelling.

Why not start a thread dedicated to the sparky744 Project? 

Edited January 19, 20233 yr by cagarini

4 hours ago, cagarini said:

There's an area where I really would like to feel satisfied with XP. Unfortunately and although some MODs to the default AS K21 can bring it closer to reality, it's still not to the level of Condorsoaring in various aspects.

No doubt,

but we should still be able to plan and execute a flight like:

 

Or maybe make it an hour so its more VR friendly.

Austin has just been fiddling with ridge lift again, so its in dev, I think the biggest issue with the gliders is no one is flying the glider(s?). 

I have no idea how to plan a flight, presumably it needs some "climb to this altitude by this waypoint"

The best Ive managed in a glider so far is

3 years ago in XP11.

I dont blame XP for that. "Do a circuit" was my flightplan. Be nice to have a good start and end location, load it up with some quality scenery and set the weather for an ideal flight, maybe use the tow plane to get some altitude (then later go rw weather for a less than ideal flight)

4 hours ago, cagarini said:

we have two rated 744 pilots in this forum "Janov" and "jon b", both XP users and jon b in particular also a seasoned Aerowinx PSX user

There may well be current testing vs a level D sim from that general direction, but since Ive been asked not to share the videos, the best reply I can offer is, all input is always welcome, the 744 is fairly unique in being 100% open source and cc-by-nc licenced, so if anyone has a complaint they are not just welcome to get their hands dirty and fix it, but actively encouraged to do so.

Well, 

it took me a long while to stop carrying with me a manual calculator and maps when flying RW tasks, and start using navigation tools.

At least two are available freely and can be used with XP11, and I guess XP12 should work too(?):

- XCSoar

- Top-Hat Soaring

I believe LK8000 should work too. They just have to be made to point to the XP NMEA output. I used a plugin for that in the past but it's a long while since I last tried that....

A nice tutorial can be found here: XCSoar in X-Plane - Tutorials-soaring - X-Plane.Org Forum

Using XCSoar to plan your task, something that could "start as a simple" 100km triangle is the best way to go.

Define 3 waypoints, a departure / arrival airfield (should be the same 🙂 ) and set the weather manually, r using RW weather  provided you have the necessary support ( by this time of the year and in your area I guess only convergence and mountain could be used ... ).

When you get the go with small tasks, you can try AATs : AAT Tasks: Master Them To Improve Your Contest Flying! - YouTube

 

42 minutes ago, cagarini said:

XCSoar

https://www.xcsoar.org/

https://github.com/XCSoar/XCSoar

42 minutes ago, cagarini said:

A nice tutorial can be found here: XCSoar in X-Plane - Tutorials-soaring - X-Plane.Org Forum

movevr is unfortunately windows only.

But, the XP12 build of autoatc is well into supporting importing android screens crossplatform, and xcsoar is open source.. so I feel a fork may be in order 🙂

definitely have to look into this. thank you.

 

Edited January 19, 20233 yr by mSparks

15 hours ago, Pe11e said:

Yep, study level term is used for everything that has a proper and authentic FMC in it. 😄

I mean, if you want to study every corner of the cockpit, if modeled 1:1 with authentic textures and stuff, it's STUDY LEVEL. If you know what I mean. 😉

There is no doubt that XP12 default aircraft are WAY better than the default stuff in XP11, but the fact is that LR can't make every default aircraft a study level simply because they'll need to focus few/many months on each model, depending on a complexity. For example, A330 requires maybe even a year or two of pure dedication to add all systems and model them correctly. 

Buying complex addons is a reality, if you want "study level". The fact that a dev focused on one aircraft model for months or years (again, depending on a complexity of a real life counterpart), equals dedication, equals simulation complexity. Again, that doesn't mean the addon aircraft is super-realistic, all depends on a data the dev have in their disposal, and their coding skills, among other variables.

So, in short, I'm rather for a pretty good simulation platform that provides a complex physics model and flexibility, and let the experienced addon aircraft devs do their best. Toliss, HotStart, Aerobask and Thranda, I'm cheering for you guys! 🙂

For a non-airliner, you don't even need an FMC, for example, the AirfoilLabs 172 is, I would say, as near as you're likely to get to a "Study-Level" treatment of that aircraft i.e. you can interact with the system items a real pilot interacts with, for the same reasons the real pilot does, and with the same results (or consequences for failing to do so). By that definition, the A2A J-3 Cub (P3D), which lacks even an alectrical system is still a study-level treatment of that aircraft.