XP12 - Its all Study Level

[Franz007 630]

5 hours ago, LRBS said:

Now if we try to find any precise definition or split hairs about study level I'm sure that this conversation will never end.

I think that‘s exactly the reason why there are endless discussions and complete different opinions 🙂

[Franz007 630]

5 hours ago, LRBS said:

I'm afraid that for some of us in the airlines this "study level" is quite defined and not so much for others.

That may be the reason. I can perfectly understand that in a professional environnement that word has a different signification than in the non-professional Desktop-sim-world.

Edited January 20, 2023 by Franz007

[Franz007 630]

5 hours ago, coastaldriver said:

Franz - the term 'study level' is not used by regulatory authorities or the industry. I have only come across it in the flight simulator world (XP, P3D, MSFS). The key test used in the real world is 'accuracy' and fidelity - that is how well does the simulator replicate or is capable of performing compared to the real aircraft. I only used it in the initial post to say the XP is a high fidelity simulator that requires you to get to grips with the aeroplane you intend to fly, in that regard it requires study! Some of it quite in depth depends on the aeroplane!

I agree with that. That‘s exactly how it is understood by most of us non-professional Desktop-flightsimmers. It‘s an addon that has an amount of systems simulated that is well above average.

[Franz007 630]

5 hours ago, GoranM said:

although it was never officially study level.  Meaning it was never certified.

I don‘t think non-professional Desktop-simmers are expecting it to be certified when talking about a „study-level“ addon. Otherwise the word „certified“ would have been used. I think that‘s where the confusion is coming from.

[GoranM 3,877]

1 hour ago, Franz007 said:

I don‘t think non-professional Desktop-simmers are expecting it to be certified when talking about a „study-level“ addon. Otherwise the word „certified“ would have been used. I think that‘s where the confusion is coming from.

There is definitely a misconception out there with some add ons. Let me explain my point. When the PMDG 747 was first released, it was heavily marketed as extremely realistic. (Forgive the reference to another sim, @Bob Scott but I’m using it as a very accurate example). Personally, I loved it. Bought it, flew it, and even followed a YouTuber back then who made several videos on procedures for it. It gave me many years of enjoyment. The term “study level” on its own could be considered just a gimmick in itself by the vast majority of people, but when a Boeing license was attached to the PMDG 747, people were losing their minds. I know. I was one of them. I didn’t know the intricacies of a -400 back then. I just took PMDG’s word for it. Boeing licenses were very new back then. Some were even speculating that United airlines were using it for pilot training, due to Robert Randazzo’s former employment with the airline. The hysteria was definitely real. 
I don’t think it’s a bad thing that some people, youngsters particularly, get excited at the realism some add ons offer. But it needs to be stated that these add ons are to be used for entertainment only. License or no license. To the uninformed, it’s very easy to get swept up in the marketing.  Maybe not so much now as it was 20 years ago, but I think it’s still there in some cases. Just my opinion based on observations. 

[Franz007 630]

Thanks @GoranM for this story i wasn‘t aware of. And i completely understand your point now. PMDG may have created some wrong espectations with that. And i think we should only use it in future as a non-official word to describe within the hobby-flightsim-world when an addon has all or most of its systems simulated.

Edited January 20, 2023 by Franz007

[mSparks 2,163]

4 minutes ago, GoranM said:

But it needs to be stated that these add ons are to be used for entertainment only.

I dont really agree.

If anything, too much emphasis is placed on "FAA certified".

The FAA certified the boeing 737 max training, their reputation was already in trouble before that, now Im not sure it will ever recover.

There is only one source that can be absolutely relied on, real world experience in a real aircraft.

But that isnt the only source available and definitely not the only source that should be relied on. 

Books, videos, lectures, local authority info are the staples that really underpin flight training.

Xplane is a phenominal learning environment to enhance every aspect of that training. sure as many many words not allowed beats learning the wrong answers to multiple pilot licence exam questions because the database they use for marking is borken and fixing it is to much paperwork and expense...

[GoranM 3,877]

1 minute ago, mSparks said:

The FAA certified the boeing 737 max training, their reputation was already in trouble before that, now Im not sure it will ever recover.

Absolutely. And the fallout from that included lives lost and (not nearly enough) monetary compensation allocated to the victims families. If a developer didn’t make a “for entertainment use only” disclaimer, there is potential for court cases against that developer. If Bombardier wanted to classify the 650 as certified for real world training, I’d have no problem with that. As long as they take on that responsibility. 

[mSparks 2,163]

18 minutes ago, GoranM said:

If a developer didn’t make a “for entertainment use only” disclaimer, there is potential for court cases against that developer.

not exactly sure how that works, because afaik responsibility is traced through the log book and it is the school/ATO that has the responsibility for anything training related, rather than the authors (including catching things you learn wrong).

[GoranM 3,877]

35 minutes ago, mSparks said:

not exactly sure how that works

I'm no lawyer, so I can't comment on the legalities, but it's generally good practise to remind people that add ons are not to be used for any kind of real world training.  I've seen threads from people making posts they sometimes wish a flight attendant would come out of the cockpit and ask if there are any pilots on board who can land the aircraft because the pilots flying have become incapacitated.  I was shocked at how many flight simmers said they felt confident they could land an airliner, simply because they had the PMDG 747 or 737.

[Murmur 3,981]

9 hours ago, GoranM said:

The term "study level" was coined by Robert Randazzo in FS9.  It was used to describe their 747-400

Well, I would have called its atrocious asymmetric engine flight dynamics anything but "study level". 😆  Level-D 767 was much more realistic in that regard.

Goes to show how subjective might be the term.

[mSparks 2,163]

54 minutes ago, GoranM said:

simply because they had the PMDG 747

well, they probably could, simply because doing so is two lever pulls, one switch turn and one button press. But yes, I get the point.

54 minutes ago, GoranM said:

I'm no lawyer, so I can't comment on the legalities

neither can any of the lawyers I've found.

As I understand the process (regardless of institution), "official" training is signed off by a test pilot, the organisation that certified them insurance covers any mistake they make.

Generally they come out of the military as far as Ive seen (where training accidents are somewhat common, and they learn what aircraft are actually capable of rather than what the manufacturer is willing to take responsibility for), the guys that do that sort of stuff round here leave me speechless, can tell the mechanics which bolt they didnt tighten properly simply by the way the aircraft vibrates.

54 minutes ago, GoranM said:

but it's generally good practise to remind people that add ons are not to be used for any kind of real world training

I think real world training globally needs a major overhaul to make the 744 mods or 650 look like a weekend hackathon, and I think xplane addons should have a significant role to play in that overhaul.

need to get XP stable first tho.

Edited January 20, 2023 by mSparks

[jcomm 6,117]

Back to Soaring, with the new weather features in Xp12 mSparks, I would suggest you try this when available:

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/271830-gliding-in-x-plane-12/&do=findComment&comment=2490629

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/271830-gliding-in-x-plane-12/&do=findComment&comment=2494278

[Humpty 752]

5 hours ago, cagarini said:

Back to Soaring, with the new weather features in Xp12 mSparks, I would suggest you try this when available:

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/271830-gliding-in-x-plane-12/&do=findComment&comment=2490629

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/271830-gliding-in-x-plane-12/&do=findComment&comment=2494278

Lol ! Don't tell me you have it installed again !

[jcomm 6,117]

30 minutes ago, Humpty said:

Lol ! Don't tell me you have it installed again !

Nope, nor MFS... Just making suggestions to those who use it 🤪

Me best piloteeee in the whole World! Me flies only 744...

Edited January 21, 2023 by cagarini