Study Level?

[VirtualAviator]

I'm hoping to start a conversation on what is "Study Level". Depending on who you ask it seems to be a moving target.

Technically, I suppose any aircraft that is modeled close enough to the real world counterpart to teach you something about one or more of its systems could be considered study level. One of my personal pet-peeds is when a aircraft is called study level but doesn't model the breakers. For me, pulling breakers can reveal a lot about an airplane's systems.

Edited April 24, 2023 by VirtualGAaviator
Grammar corrections

[Rick310]

The one system I had trouble with was the default King Air C90B Cabin Pressure system. It took me blacking out a couple of times before I read up and figured it out.

Breakers, interesting because I know the Carenado aircraft Dornier 228 and the C90B, the breakers do not exist.

I cannot find out what the fuel tank vents are used for and when to open or shut the vents? The documents with the aircraft does not talk about it at all.

VirtualGAaiator, Great topic, Learning to a good thing.

[Rick310]

OK VirtualGAaviator, I have study level all wrong. I get now, from you last post. 

Edited April 25, 2023 by Rick310

[VirtualAviator]

I purchased the Cessna Citation XL560 for XP12 for $60.00. The dev says the aircraft is "study level". Hmmm. I can say the aircraft is different. There are hidden gems that prevent the aircraft from starting until you discover them. I found this extremely frustrating. The dev says, in bold text, READ THE POH. Personally, I found the POH just as frustrating, TL;DR on steriods. What I can say about the aircraft is that I believe the dev put a lot of time and effort into the aircraft. It's actually not bad once you get past the POH and quirks. However, I think he took quite a bit of liberties (i.e. you can't remove covers unless the aircraft engines start up) in a number of areas. I plan to post a video on the aircraft soon. As for study level, hmmm... doesn't meet my definition of a study-level airplane.

[daemotron]

Personally I don't like the term "study-level", and I'm highly suspicious of developers actually using it to advertise their product. My rationale: the term can mean anything - and nothing. Does "study-level" mean you have to study a manual before you can use the aircraft model? Or does it mean you can study a real POH and apply anything you read in there to the model? Or does it mean you can use the model for studying how to fly the real thing? My personal expectation would be the second definition - number one's just goofy (build some stupid quirks into your aircraft the pilot has to read up in the manual - doesn't say anything about realism IMO). Number three is illegal, at least under EASA regime - you can't use a home simulator for real flight training. Certified simulators, yes - but I doubt the majority of consumer-level payware aircraft would qualify for a certification (since we're talking about "study-level" aircraft, the applicable purpose would be a type rating training).

I prefer when developers are just straight about the level of realism and the features they built into their product. In most cases I won't be able to verify claims regarding realism, since I don't have access to real world aircraft represented by the majority of add-ons available (there are a few exceptions). I do flight simming for my entertainment, not to become proficient with a certain aircraft type. I do like studying manuals and dealing with quirky aircraft systems, but let's be realistic about this - I don't know anyone who'd be able to study a dozen of different aircraft types with the same depth required for a type rating, and keep all this stuff in mind.

When I look at the aircraft models most appealing to me, then I'd say what makes them attractive is a mix of deep simulation, paired with certain game elements and some helpers to get around the limitation of being just one person without tactile access to cockpit elements. Let's take a look at a few of my favorites:

The HotStart Challenger 650 offers really deep systems, as well as some great game elements (HotStart FBO with all the bells and whistles, walk-around including manipulating covers and stuff on the outside of the aircraft), but also incorporates further elements to enhance immersion (particularly the play of cockpit and instrument lights vs. outside brightness comes to mind). Truth being told, I don't believe I explored more than 10-15% of its systems yet - I mostly fly from A to B, without going into the wash of failing systems.

The MU-2B is a completely different beast - game elements do exist, but are pretty minimalist (chocks, covers can be toggled from the menu). In return, the aircraft is quickly set up and ready for departure. The Moo isn't the most complex aircraft when it comes to systems and avionics, but what it has, is really well modeled in the TOGA rendition. Including its tendency to kill unheeding pilots Also I appreciate the different cockpit options the Moo offers.

Among airliners, I'm currently not too happy with what's currently available for X-Plane - the ini A300/A310 were pretty good in my books. They weren't complete (like the Challenger), instead they focused only on stuff that would be used by pilots in daily A to B flying, and offered some nice game elements. Sufficient for my purpose, particularly since what they implemented, was pretty much correct. I did use the real FCOM to operate it, but does that make it "study level"? The IXEG 733 has the potential to take that position, but would need to catch up with certain aspects. Currently the place is taken by the Q4XP and Rotate's MD-11 - both not study-level in any sense, but complex enough to highlight the unique quirks each of them has in store for its drivers.

The vintage airliner section has some better coverage - I'd count the Felis 742 and the upcoming LES DC-3 among the really good vintage aircraft (I can't judge how close they are to the original, so that's just by gut feeling).

And finally, small GA aircraft - that's where I have the most difficulty with the term "study-level". Most of them come with pretty boring avionics (like in real life) - yes, the G1000 is a useful device; once understood it takes away one obstacle to switch from one aircraft to another. Great. So how to make a piston ASEL "study-level"? I see two trends there - some developers come up with unique and interesting avionics (like the Torquesim Entegra v8, or the Thranda DGS cockpit). Others try their hand at replacing Austin's recip engine model. While I do see value in the first path, I haven't understood yet the value of a "custom" engine model (except if you're an aircraft engineer). From a pilot's perspective, it all comes down that you will face terrible difficulties in starting those engines (because they're scripted to be like that). I appreciate if things like engine flooding, vapor locks and spark plug fouling are implemented and affect the engine and its performance output, but having a script make you run the boost pump for an exact number of seconds with the throttle in exact one specific position (so the script ticks off the "engine is primed" box) doesn't have anything to do with "study level" in my book.

That being said, I'd still count the Torquesim SR22 Entegra among the best GA aircraft available for X-Plane, since it still ticks a lot of boxes - unique avionics, anti-icing equipment and convincing visual effects, paired with some game elements (tie-downs, covers and blankets) still make it a good package, despite of the stupid engine start thing. Its closest challengers are IMO the LES Sundowner (big plus: the engine...) and the different Pipers from vFlyteAir.

[VirtualAviator]

I bought the SR22 Entegra for its avionics. Too many devs stuff LR's G1000 into their planes. Some even tweak it. I've come to realize that emulating an full avionics suite is such a heavy lift and, that it improbable that many devs will step up to the challenge.  Perhaps somebody will began developing h-fidelity drop-in avionics. Then devs could drop it into their offerings. The PC-12 uses the Honeywell Apex Primus Suite. No one has stepped up to modeling it. By extension, there are no PC-12NGs or PC24s or any aircraft that uses that suite exclusively.

Your thoughts on "study-level" reminds me of JRR Toiken's thoughts on Good morning in the book, The Hobbit.

On 4/29/2023 at 2:31 PM, daemotron said:

you can use the model for studying how to fly the real thing

I'm hoping study level means your third option.  As long as you disclose that the intent is for simulation only I don't think you'll have any problems with legality. Of course, that's wishful thinking, albeit the Hot Start Challenger fits. Foxtrot Alpha, a real-world veteran Challenger pilot says he personally knows of pilots who've used the Hot Start 650 as a supplement to help get their type-rating for that aircraft. Perhaps one day, more simulation aircraft will be as thorough. Can you imagine paying $100 to $300 for true [quote] study-level [unquote] add-ons?

I agree whole-heartedly with your sentiment on the Moo. It's really a different beast. I can hardly wait to get my paws on the XP12 version.

Edited April 30, 2023 by VirtualGAaviator