If we’re pointing at WT, it’s because the NXI, at this time, doesn’t allow for what you’re asking…
We can only do what we’re allowed/able to do.
Apologies but that’s as far as we can go…
3 Likes
Strange, WT replied to my question that the info is there so it’s up to the developer to display it.
(And I shared that info with you on your support forum)
It’s there in (f.i.) the 172
In regards to the EIS being cutoff, we’ll take a look. It’s very possible that WT has made some changes to the spacing and formatting that is now causing these issues - it was sized correctly at release, as we were working with them to ensure compatibility.
Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
1 Like
how wrong you are, the dc 6 is absolutely study.
You’re right to some degree, but i’m gonna have to disagree. No sane person would say “I think the default a320 in game is study level.” Personally i wouldn’t even consider the FBW mod “Study level” however it does greatly expand on the fidelity of the default a320 to a more realistic experience.
“Study Level” generally refers to a plane with a high level of detail (all the stuff is clickable, flies like the real thing, systems mirror the real thing, they fail like the real thing etc) so much so that you could almost use it to train for the real thing. That’s where the phrase gets synonymous with say a Level D simulator running proprietary software used for training real pilots. As previously pointed out, because it’s not certified by the FAA, you are not able to use it to attain hours towards your pilots license. We say a plane in the game is “Study level” because it’s a lot easier than saying “A plane that’s close enough to the real thing you might as well use it for real pilots training”
“As real as it gets” has been the tagline for Flight Simulator for a long time. All things considered, what we have is “as real as it gets” because the next step up is flying the real thing. So I do agree that Flight Simulator will never achieve the same level of realism as a professional flight simulator or flying the real thing.
I love the attempts from some users in this topic to completely ignore and disregard your question so as to argue over the true meaning of the term study-level as if you were on here seeking philosophical discussions. If you were to truly take to heart these replies you’d sooner just throw the sim away because you can’t afford a Level-D sim. It’s very disingenuous. Don’t let this pedantry sway you from seeking real answers. I started flight sim back with FS98. I grew up with PMDG aircraft. I read manuals on Boeing FMS’s and systems. I use that knowledge today when I fly the 757. That knowledge has followed me throughout my entire career. The truth is if you have to read manuals on systems and expanded procedures to understand why you’re doing what you’re doing, then you are studying. If that knowledge can be applied to the real airplane then that studying was reflective of reality and probably very valuable. End of discussion. You don’t need an airliner’s level of systems to require studying. The DC6 and the P38 are great examples. Again, you must read manuals to understand how to use the buttons and switches. You have to read manuals to understand limitations. Exceeding these limitations has consequences that, in these study-level aircraft, is usually modelled. You don’t need a level-d with motion and projectors etc to achieve study level either. I’ve taught many students on devices that had an FAA approval that were less realistic than some of the study-level aircraft across multiple different simulators.
7 Likes
In your opinion… Not in mine. Not that I don’t like it… It’s a great product, and extremely detailed, yes.
I’m pretty sure it’s not usable for training, though, which would be my definition for “Study Level”.
1 Like
Thank you for your reply. It was quite educational.
Yeah, I am hoping to talk planes.
I already know if you ask 100 people what, “Study level” is, you will get 100 slightly different answers. That said, I quite liked yours.
It does seem that GA gets ignored a bit when folks talk study level. I understand. A study level single engine Piper isn’t ever going to be as complex or as showy as a study level four prop passenger plane from the Golden Era.
2 Likes
Cardboard cutouts is the traditional way of doing systems operation training in real life. A non-functioning bitmap would have good training value as well.
Study level is a dumb term that should be retired. It is so ambiguous that it conveys no information whatsoever, and it never did.
6 Likes
Pretty much narrowed it down to the Just Flight Piper Arrows (turbo and piston) or the PMDG DC6.
I am intimidated by the DC6. But she sure is pretty and what I have seen of this add on looks amazing.
The Pipers are more my skill level, and likely match my peripherals better.
1 Like
As the owner of both you’ve put me in a very difficult position. I can’t recommend both enough.
What sorts of peripherals are we talking about so we can see how well they’ll do.
Let me add: you can bind four throttles, one prop, and one flaps in the DC-6. I have tried the landing gear via FSUIPC to no avail; gear up and gear down assignments work for up and down, but nothing for the neutral setting you use to relieve the hydraulic pressure.
Mixture for each engine is a 3 setting lever and does not use a mixture axis; having one bound will actually do weird things under the sim and cause problems. Carb air per engine can be bound via FSUIPC or equivalent, but not via MSFS. I have not yet had occasion to use it, and it’s a cure, not a preventative.
Otherwise the three control axes are normal.
1 Like
Honeycomb Alpha yoke, Logitech radio, Saitek throttle quadrant (3 lever), and pedals. So, very much a GA setup.
2 Likes
Good starter setup to be sure. Yeah that’ll do you for the Pipers, and you could do it with the DC-6 if you started with the Automated Flight Engineer, but you’d struggle trying to throttle up and down manually.
My first setup for the DC-6 was a Logitech yoke and two quadrants, then you’ve got all four throttles, prop, and flaps all set. If you’re willing to get another quadrant you’d be all set for it.
1 Like
Thanks for your answer, as I was wondering exactly that.
And while I would start with a flight engineer, I would like to be able to do everything too, once I learned enough.
I am not buying a second Saitek quadrant… I would rather save for a Bravo. So, the DC6 will have to wait for that upgrade.
Arrows it is!
Thank you.
1 Like
The Arrows are quite nice, as is the Warrior II. Just flew the Warrior this morning… such a nice aircraft. Just Flight got it right.
SWS Kodiak is worthy of consideration as well. Best Turboprop in MSFS, IMHO.
However, the PMDG DC-6 wins hands down for complexity and total immersion. And yes, you can learn to fly it without the AFE. Just takes a bit of study… 
3 Likes
You know you can just link all 4 throttles to the single axis, There is very little need to throttle up the individual engines separately (unless you’re playing around with engine failures of course)
If you want to get fancy link the 2 inboards to one lever and the 2 outboards to the other, then you can taxi with one set of engines like they apparently do in the real thing.
The mixture axis is useless since the DC6 uses 3 position levers which you basically set and forget for most of the flight. The last lever can be used for prop rpm (of which the plane only has a single lever in reality).
You could also potentially rig up the reverse detent input to toggle the water rudder and increase throttle simultaneously to get the reverse thrust working.
1 Like
That’s not a great solution because some engines have a bit of character and don’t have exactly the same performance.
Number 1 for me requires a little more throttle, stuff like that. You can probably turn it off but the DC-6 deserves better than to be shoehorned like that.
It’ll still be here when he gets a Bravo.
1 Like
Sure if you’ve got money to burn go for it… but I’ve spent a lot of time since release with the DC6 and have never had any issues with flying it this way regardless of any ‘character’ between the engines. They more or less behave themselves fine.
The DC6 is still the most complex aircraft you can get for MSFS so if he’s after complexity he should go for it instead of waiting to get the perfect control setup first.
1 Like
I really appreciate your comment.
This will be my first, “Study level” purchase, and complexity is not my primary goal. I am mostly interested in realistic flight modeling and systems.
Like, I want to test a, “Great” add on plane against all my other planes. Get a feel for the improved realism.
After decades of flight simming, I have finally decided to sit down and learn to fly properly.
So, it makes sense to me to start small with GA trainers and work my way up to bush planes, classic warbirds, and airliners.
It seems like a way to stretch my enjoyment further. And if I skip straight to the DC6, I fear I will not be as interested in the simpler planes like I currently am. So I am not in a hurry to master the most complex plane(s). I just want a taste of, “Study level” so I can compare the purchase to non-study level planes I own, and see if I am finally ready to delve into a more realistic experience going forward.
Don’t get me wrong I love the Arrows and they’re great planes. I’m sure you’ll enjoy flying them.
I’ve shelved them since a few updates ago because I can’t deal with the yaw instability JF introduced a couple of updates back. I hope the next FDE update coming improves this aspect since they are very annoying to fly even when carefully coordinating turns, on approach at low speed they develop a nasty yaw oscillation that makes landing a real nightmare for me, especially when trying to hold a clean sideslip in a crosswind.
If you’re talking classic warbirds, the Flying Iron Spitfire can’t be recommended enough, it’s probably the most challenging actual stick and rudder experience I’ve had and great fun to get right. The Milviz Corsair also comes highly recommended, though I don’t own it.
2 Likes