How much realism do people want? Casual, study-level, or in-between?

[Editer]

After some discussion about the upcoming BlueBird 757, I got to thinking about “study level” planes.

This is the level of realism that (after 30 years of writing about flight sims) I think will make most of the audience, including both casual fliers and “core” flight sim fans, happy:

1. Realistic performance – it should hit the numbers in the same amount of time, and have the same limits, as the real plane.

2. Realistic handling – the plane should feel as heavy or light, as maneuverable as not, as FBW or not, as the real plane.

3. Realistic systems – the panel should look like the real plane, and have the same major flight instruments. You should be able to fly manually or on autopilot, and enter and follow flight plans, using the commonly used capabilities found in the real planes.
   3a) For growing subset of users, those systems should be detailed enough to go through a realistic startup and shutdown procedures.
   3b) For the users more into aviating than switchology, there should be automation of those systems. (IE: Let the people who want to do the work of 2 or 3 crewmembers do that, but don’t force everyone to.)

4. Sound. Too often overlooked. A rich sound set without audible looping and with lots of small touches (hydraulic whines, gear extension, switches, creaks, etc.) adds a ton to the experience.

5. Visuals. These are somewhat subjective, but the plane should be accurately shaped, have detailed textures inside and out, and all of the things that pop out of the plane should pop out of the plane. (There is, alas, a subset of forum users delight in pointing out the smallest texture issues, so try to avoid those so as not to bait those posters.)

6. Failure options: Systems should react as the real hardware does when abused. Don’t let pilots run the engine at 100% the whole flight unless the real plane lets them do that. Support the simulator’s built-in failure settings. Allow users to turn off failures, and bonus if you can support random failures as well.

I think we can all agree that feature list will satisfy the largest subset of sim users.

For folks wanting “study level,” they also want:

A) All systems in an FMC and other instruments to be 100% detailed, even those that aren’t typically used by pilots or that don’t apply in a simulator environment. Each instrument should be a 100% simulation of that instrument.

B) Fuses, hydraulics, and other internal plane systems fully simulated, not just simulated at the experiential level. (IE: You can simulate a hydraulic failure without building in the plane’s real full hydraulic system, but some study-level fans want that full system simulation.)

C) No automation of systems (such as fuel switching and balancing) that require manual intervention in real life.

Curious what else “study level” fans would like to see. I’ve been flight-simming since the Commodore 64 days and have flown a number of real planes, ranging from a Mooney 231 to a Cessna 310 to a T-34B to an F-15D (back seat of course), and I’m happy with 1-6 above. I’d love to hear what the "study level’ fans want to see in planes, because I often see the term bandied about without details on what’s lacking, just “it’s not study-level.”

I mean, I know the difference between the Bredok3D 737 and PMDG’s. But I’m curious specifically what makes a plane study-level that’s important for the folks who want it.

[Editer]

(Note: I didn’t address failures in detail, as that’s a big can of worms. The sim has some canned failures, and some planes have detailed failure situation simulations, and that’s great. There’s SO much more that could be done here, but some of it is held back by nervous airplane manufacturer licensing lawyers who don’t want their planes falling out of the virtual skies. Sim failures and what would make exciting failure simulation could be a topic of its own.)

[tclayton2k]

I just want to fly. If it takes 20 minutes to program an airplane before I even start the engines, I’m out. Back in the days of FS9, I thoroughly enjoyed flying the heavies, because they were easy to get started, I could easily let the AP follow the GPS once airborne, and the flight dynamics made landing a heavy plane more of a challenge than plopping a 172 on the ground. Today’s heavies require a degree in computer science just to get things ready to start. Smaller planes like the Twotter and Kodiak have nice system modelling, but I can still get cold and dark to in the air in short order.

[FlyingBear01]

I don’t know what study level means, I don’t think it actually means anything. But I tend to mainly fly aircraft (at least when I fly airliners) that others call “study level”, not because I use or want many of the features when it comes to failures or rarely used systems but because they are more likely to also model things I do care about.

But since you clearly put a lot of thought into that post, let me add a couple opinions:

@Editer

• Realistic performance – it should hit the numbers in the same amount of time, and have the same limits, as the real plane.

Within the normal flight envelope is the minimum required. Outside the normal flight envelope is a different thing. E.g., fuel flow at full takeoff power might not have to be fully accurate if measured over longer than 5 minutes (in some cases 10, in some cases 2).

@Editer

Realistic handling – the plane should feel as heavy or light, as maneuverable as not, as FBW or not, as the real plane.

Yes. Completely impossible due to controller limitations, so the goal is to somehow capture the illusion that it feels realistic.

Edited to add: There is also a whole lot of more objective metrics when it comes to handling. Everything from phugoid periods to the size of trim changes with configuration changes. This seems like a tricky balance, since without real-world hours on the actual aircraft it is often hard to know what is realistic and not. Some simmers would be happy anyway as long as they don’t know it is wrong. I consider such things important. Ideally the simulation should be able to teach me something about how the real thing behaves, not for training purposes but just out of curiosity.

@Editer

• Realistic systems – the panel should look like the real plane, and have the same major flight instruments. You should be able to fly manually or on autopilot, and enter and follow flight plans, using the commonly used capabilities found in the real planes.
  3a) For growing subset of users, those systems should be detailed enough to go through a realistic startup and shutdown procedures.
  3b) For the users more into aviating than switchology, there should be automation of those systems. (IE: Let the people who want to do the work of 2 or 3 crewmembers do that, but don’t force everyone to.)

Lots of tricky design choices to make here. “commonly used capabilities” includes things like secondary flight plan support and missed approach support in an FM(G)C which are used or at least checked on every single flight, yet many simmers consider such things unnecessary extras. On the other hand, proper simulation of a standby hydraulic pump auto/off switch that is never touched anywhere in the normal or supplemental procedures tends to be called out if it is missed. Some users want a simulation of the aircraft, others want the aircraft to support their simulation of a flight. Neither view is wrong, but they are different.

@Editer

Sound. Too often overlooked. A rich sound set without audible looping and with lots of small touches (hydraulic whines, gear extension, switches, creaks, etc.) adds a ton to the experience.

Completely agree, sound is enormously important.

@Editer

Visuals. These are somewhat subjective, but the plane should be accurately shaped, have detailed textures inside and out, and all of the things that pop out of the plane should pop out of the plane. (There is, alas, a subset of forum users delight in pointing out the smallest texture issues, so try to avoid those so as not to bait those posters.)

Subjective indeed. A quasi-objective assessment of visual realism would be “if you watch a movie from real-life and a movie from the sim, could you tell the difference”. From that perspective visuals is the area where current flightsims lack the most in terms of realism. Also from that perspective things like moving outflow valves are mostly irrelevant, but texturing and shape details are enormously important.

@Editer

Failure options: Systems should react as the real hardware does when abused. Don’t let pilots run the engine at 100% the whole flight unless the real plane lets them do that. Support the simulator’s built-in failure settings. Allow users to turn off failures, and bonus if you can support random failures as well.

So far in MSFS I have never triggered a simulated failure. They are usually not simulated well outside of addons that people would call “study level” (and often not even then). I always switch off all “use induced wear” type features since I have never seen anyone implement those in a way that is not completely gamey. Unless you do something completely crazy increased engine wear shows up as increased maintenance cost and is not observable to the pilot. Such functionality in the sim is always way overdone.

@Editer

I think we can all agree that

I don’t think those words have ever been true in the history of humankind. And it is a good thing, different addon providers will have different takes on this, try different balances of various aspects of realism, and such innovation brings us forward.

[hobanagerik]

Ideally, all of the above, which would suit everyone.

[Editer]

@FlyingBear01

Some users want a simulation of the aircraft, others want the aircraft to support their simulation of a flight. Neither view is wrong, but they are different.

Nailed it!

[BriL0ve]

I think this question varies on the person’s usage of the simulator, making it a little hard to answer for everyone.

[meh1951]

I want it all

“As Real As It Gets”

[Editer]

There’s a small but very vocal contingent who set the “study-level” standard to levels that haven’t actually been reached (“P3D did it,” ignoring all of the aspects of P3D that are still 2004 technology) and dismiss anything that doesn’t meet those standards as “dumbing down the sim for the X-Box (sic) crowd.” Despite the fact that the level of detail in planes like the awesome BN-2 Islander and even the Carenado offerings are enough to make many players happy.

I think the vast majority of the audience would prefer a focus on convincing rather than 100% accurate. Less focus on the esoteric, rarely used stuff in order to spend that time on the critical systems used in every flight.

I’d have preferred DCS had taken a different approach and gone for “convincing.” Then planes wouldn’t take 30 person-years to develop, and we could have 10x the number of aircraft in that sim that we do now. But alas, the vocal portion of the fan base is ecstatic about the system detail replication and forgives the lack of AI, campaign systems, etc. Some of us who enjoyed the combat flight sims of the 1990s would see DCS as a cautionary warning about “be careful about listening too closely to your most hardcore users.” Others, I’m sure, are quite happy with the situation — it’s a range. But I think if DCS was more accessible (without removing the detail, just don’t half-butt the easy mode like they do now) it’d have a much larger user base. I don’t want Ace Combat, but I’d love to be able to jump into Jane’s ATF and have fun and eventually crank the difficulty up to Falcon 4.0 BMS as I learn each plane.

[Fragman444]

This is what I wrote in the 757 thread which kinda started this topic and I am also very interested in what others think and I think that this topic should be in this “general comments” section as it can applied to those at Asobo for when they look to release or update their current stock…

Isn’t it funny…

I before MSFS came out, never had a clue about “study level aircraft” even though my experiences with MSFS started with… “for windows 95…”

Or I really didn’t give two flying Vs for those “study level” aircraft… maybe it was because I was at school/never had the money to justify getting one of these aircraft or that I thought… “why should I have to pay when I brought this game!!” or that… “I just want to crlt E the engines… yup I want to be at the terminal and set up various things and taxi but I basically just want to fly the ■■■■ thing!!!”

Gosh, it wasn’t until like two years before MSFS 2020 came out that I realized that I could get “free” custom liveries, new “free” aircraft and the like for FSX and it was only around then, that I first started dabbling in the world of…
“on line purchases!!!” Though Orbx NZ mesh and the like…

I was even three months late to the party when I was seeing everyone with “liveries” in MSFS!!!..
“OMG where did you get that from!!!”

But wow!!!

After a year into this new world of FS…I can now see just how addictive and expensive the online world is!!!

Now…

Getting back to subject…

It’s only been over the last year (having to re-learn everything/all the bad habits I picked up in FSX… Push those little nav, speed and altitude auto pilot buttons) that I have found a whole new love in flight sim and going through the correct procedures of starting a aircraft, and then buying these new aircraft that how much realism brings and how much… no… just how little I have touched the “defult/Asobo” aircraft… all through the lack of realistic modeling, inop buttons and procedures!!!

But regarding this 757… And for all other aircraft including Asobo stock…

Although I haven’t grasped the likes of fuses, failers and the like…

I just hope that what (wasn’t a must…) in my recent flight sim vocabulary… New simmers don’t fall into my bad habits and explore another world to just… Start on runway or in the air and away you go…
I do hope that some procedures are modeled like the navigation and the like but I totally understand and wouldn’t mind it certain aspects… the finer details if you like, aren’t modeled…
As long as we have amazing graphics and opening doors and the like and at least some basic almost real engine starting and proper navigation following like what we have in the A32nx…
I would be buying this product!!!

To keep this in “general comments” on topic kind of thing…

I just hope that Asobo come to the party as well and remodel their current stock to help everyone including themselves in introducing a whole new and addictive world of Flight simming!!! Going through correct procedures and having less "inop’ and more “op” and opening doors and the like
But still find that very fine line between complex and almost complex but “newbie learner just want to fly easy…”

[Michail71]

@Editer

A) All systems in an FMC and other instruments to be 100% detailed, even those that aren’t typically used by pilots or that don’t apply in a simulator environment. Each instrument should be a 100% simulation of that instrument.

B) Fuses, hydraulics, and other internal plane systems fully simulated, not just simulated at the experiential level. (IE: You can simulate a hydraulic failure without building in the plane’s real full hydraulic system, but some study-level fans want that full system simulation.)

C) No automation of systems (such as fuel switching and balancing) that require manual intervention in real life.

I’d be into A and B. I like working doors and windows too. I’d also like to see external compartments modeled.

As for C, some of those things can help for individual setups. Like trim is a serious pain without real force feedback. I’m often questioning weather auto trim would make a more realistic experience.

[NeoKingRthur]

I prefer somewhere in-between. Casual is too easy and doesn’t have much depth to it. But study level is too much in depth for my taste because I leave my PC for a majority of the flight. Especially on aircraft that requires 3 flight crews to operate, it becomes too much of a workload doing them myself.

So somewhere in-between myself. I need to have some kind of deep simulation that is complex enough to give myself a challenge, but not too deep that it becomes unflyable most of the time because I forgot to flip one switch at the right time.

[WellREDBarron]

Study level or in between here. I really appreciate planes with realism options so I can fly while learning.

[Synoxys787]

Personally, number 1-6 of your list is what I’d like all of the flight sim addons that I purchase to have. I primarily purchase GA aircraft which are much simpler by nature, but not so simple that any those features would not be missed.

Features you described as study level are nice, like circuit breakers and stuff, but ultimately my most important desire is being able to do normal operations in almost the same way I would in a real aircraft.

Basically that means that next to nothing listed on the checklist should need to be skipped because it’s inop or not modeled. Book performance numbers should be matched decently well.

And sound… please no more aircraft with horrible sound! The Twin Otter launched with sound so bad it made me decide to not purchase it.

[Portalearth420]

@Editer

Curious what else “study level” fans would like to see.

Let me just make this point on the phrase “study level.” Study-level is a term used back when one could purchase a flight simulator that was only for a specific plane that was certified with local aviation authorities (FAA/UK Equivalent) to allow a student pilot to practice at home with this flight simulator program and have that time count as if they were flying in real life. This type of software is rarely available for consumers/non-students and often cost an absurd amount of money (someone once linked me a true “study-level” a320 simulator that could count towards your real certification and a consumer license was like $15,000. It wasn’t any cheaper if you were an ATP student). I’m not even sure of the current rules regarding using certified home flight simulators towards real pilot hours as i’m not a real pilot but this software is the real deal.

A more modern phrase would be “High fidelity” aircraft. Obviously FS2020 is not rated to count towards real pilot hours so “Study Level planes” is kind of a misnomer. Most of these players are referring to a plane that effectively is a digital 1:1 recreation of the plane as it is in real life. Every button, switch and dial functional. Every quirk and defect simulated. If it can happen on the real plane, it can happen in the digital version. IL2 and DCS are great examples of “high fidelity aircraft.” These are usually a tad watered down due to the sensitive nature of some of the systems on the more modern planes but they’re otherwise the real deal. The Military’s of the world are able to get the “study level” version of those warplanes because they are actually trying to end up flying the real thing at some point. 99.9% of the hardcore flight simmers are just trying to get their fix whether they’re a real pilot, retired pilot or just some nerd in their moms basement. Honestly. the game already is able to cater to both casual and hardcore simmers, the platform (i.e the world you interact with) is just not there yet.

@Editer Now let me posit something different: Imagine everything you spoke of in your initial post was actually implemented to the base game. Now think about everything wrong with the game outside the the subject of the fidelity of the vanilla planes. Next, consider the amount of time it took PMDG to get this far with the 737. Now apply that to the 40 planes that come with the game depending base/premium/premium deluxe)+ the planes from the reno races DLC. Wouldnt you rather have a stable platform (which the devs have stated FS2020 is a platform more than a simulation game) before we start cranking the realism dial?

Authors note I’d like to mention that I’m for whatever way makes the player happy. If they just want to get in the air and fly over their house, then i’m right there waving as they go by! If they want to scratch that itch because they can’t go be a real pilot right then and there, you’re cleared for takeoff delta zero niner cleared to AWSME! lets not get too hung up on why this and that feature isn’t in game or why it’s important. We got at least 8 more years of support from the dev and an infinite amount of time for third party developers to make awesome stuff for the game.

[PablodNinja]

@Editer

There’s a small but very vocal contingent who set the “study-level” standard to levels that haven’t actually been reached (“P3D did it,” ignoring all of the aspects of P3D that are still 2004 technology) and dismiss anything that doesn’t meet those standards as “dumbing down the sim for the X-Box (sic) crowd.”

So true.

I don’t believe in ‘Study Level’, I think that is marketing wonkery that some add on devs like to say to make themselves sound more epic-er-ish.

I think flight model (meaning physical characteristics, performance and behavior in various conditions) absolutely must be right, or at least convincing. Anyone who can’t get this part pretty darn close to correct probably shouldn’t be charging money for their add-ons. Plain and simple.

I like your phrase ‘Switchology’. I vary a bit in this department. For some planes I want a very detailed procedural simulation… The FBW A32NX is really great in this department. From that kind of plane I want that kind of functionality. And I would expect similar from any Boeing or Airbus, big iron plane. It is key to how they are flown in practice, so it needs to be key to how they are flown in the sim.

Where that kind of ‘procedural simulation’ breaks apart is as we get into aircraft that are certainly real world complex, but are primarily ‘seat of the pants’ aircraft. A good example would be the Twin Otter. I think Aerosoft did a great job getting that one to be just complex enough, without being over the top. Those planes are often flown in a strict commercial context, but they are also flown in more VFR like operation, such as Air Taxi or Island hopping. Sure, thats a commercial flight, but its not anything like going 400kts in the flight levels.

So, I guess if we TL;DR this wall of text, what I’m saying is;
I think its silly to make a Boeing, or Airbus, or really any medium to large commercial jet without at least modeling all the systems needed to operate the real one in normal conditions (meaning a full hydraulic system model might be overkill, but cool for those who want to pay for it - in a normal flight you’re not thinking about it much).

And smaller simpler machines can get increasingly simple. The PA28 from JustFlight models WAY more than it needs to model, I love it, but how often does it ever matter that it does that? (But I do have to admit I had a system freak out in it one time and pulling the fuse to get it to shut up was kinda nice). For many people flying a piston single in MSFS, that level of detail isn’t really necessary.

But really it takes all kinds to make the hobby whole. So all thats on my wishlist is that the phrase “Study Level” just goes back to marketing purgatory. Because all it is, is someone trying to insist they are better than the rest. It doesn’t really mean anything. I can ‘study’ the label on a bottle of beer, that doesn’t mean that beer is better.

[FlyingsCool5650]

As a pilot, I want to know how to fly each plane for real. That means, for me, all systems simulated, the more the better. Ultimately, I want to do an external walk around, open panels, check everything I would check on a pre-flight. And at the end of the flight, I want to shut everything down, like I normally would, open the door or canopy, and jump out of the plane, and admire the view of across the airport, then walk over to the FBO or my car and drive off.

[Parorng]

If FS98 was ‘As real as it gets’, I want ‘realer’!

I want it as real as possible with today’s latest hardware - and that doesn’t unfortunately doesn’t include memory and hardware limited consoles!

[FusionHorse151]

walking up to an empty plane - walkaround visual inspection, pulling the flags and covers off - climb in and check the voltage, fuel, lights and controls - going through the checklist, turn on the comm radio and listening to the traffic/atc while prepping for flight, reviewing the flight plan or just checking the weather if its TnG’s
And if I could flip every switch and have them all work the way they’re supposed to - and if I could land and taxi to parking, shut everything down, put all the covers and flags back and tie her down - or better yet push her into a hangar - my hangar - at a designated ‘home’ airfield - now that would be the best.
The flying experience is so much more than just spawning in the pilot’s seat - taking off and landing, But doors and canopy’s that don’t open, switches and dials that don’t work, flight characteristics that are unrealistic, ending a flight while still seated in the cockpit and so many other aspects of MSFS in its current state are just - uninspired. As if those who did the heavy lifting had absolutely no personal flying experience at all. They essentially just copied FSX code straight over without adding any of that important ‘before and after the flight’ stuff that aviators LOVE

[crazymaherm]

I myself really love and enjoy realism study level flying. I don’t mind cold and dark startups and setting the aircraft for either short haul and long haul flights. Which is why I’m really looking forward to the pmdg 737 release after SU9 is released. I haven’t flown pmdg planes since FSX. I used to sim XP11 before MSFS20 was even announced but didn’t enjoy the dull graphics and the hard drive space killer ortho tiles.