Personally I had preferred if only a limited number of planes were implemented, but with greater fidelity, over having 30-something planes that only cover the basics and miss functionality (like VNAV for example). But I understand that it is more attractive for a general sim-aviation public to have more planes.
So both perspectives are perfectly valid really.
I don’t mean to sound argumentative, but…
… is counter to the flight simulation model. This perspective has been championed many times in many different forums. Unfortunately, an entire industry, not to mention a lot of livelihoods, would be decimated if the simulation developers were to get into the SL market. It is important to consider the simulation itself as the required focus of those developers. Providing an environment that will support the use of SL aircraft is the goal. The aircraft provide in the default hanger are there as teasers. Something to fly, while the pros build us the real aircraft.
Although both perspectives may be valid, we really don’t want our sandbox builders to build the sandcastles for us. We really just want a sandbox that will offer unending possibilities.
It means pretty literally nothing and everything depending on who you ask to.
Ultimately it’s a catchphrase designed to sell add-ons and to make people feel good with themselves.
What matters is the quality of the add-on. Study-level is just a marketing label and little more.
It is possible that some developers have co-opted the phrase for their marketing purposes but the term has been around for more than 50 years in aviation training and much, much longer to delineate the achievements of university students.
As much as some may like to minimize its significance as a description of the value of a product for actual study, it really does have a definition and as such is not meaningless.
It is meaningless in this context, as much as some like to overestimate its significance. 
The context you describe is much different.
How are materials designed to train real pilots and a simulation of an aircraft that adds actual responses to manipulation instead of just finger prints on a poster, a different context?
There’s a massive difference between commercial computer flight simulators designed primarily for entertainment and actual aviation training.
So while I can learn procedures and cockpit flow from a poster hanging on the back of a door, I can’t learn the same from a quality, full model of a cockpit in a sim?
You can learn several things that can have real-world application even by flying a default cessna. Being able to tangentially teach something that may be useful for aviation has nothing to do with “study level.”
In the course of my career, I have used a variation of each and every style of “study level” simulator depicted above. You can argue the semantics all you like. It does not change the fact that some level of training can be accomplished by any accurate representation of a real world cockpit. The more feedback offered, the more value can be achieved from that study.
To me a study-level means that the package is almost a most perfect replication of the aircraft, wether its a Cessna 172 or a Boeing 747. The sounds, the systems, the graphics, every detail contributes to be immersed and make you feel like you fly to real aircraft. You can also learn about the plane, for example how it flies, how to operate as in real life, etc. It can be very enjoyable if you´re interested in aviation! Personally I really hate payware aircraft with realistic systems but that fly like trash or bad sounds. Don´t underestimate the sounds, they are extremely important for a good experience.
Please. No need to yell.
I have over 10,000 hours in the 737 classic series 200. When I purchased the PMDG 737 NG for FSX, I thoroughly enjoyed learning the new systems. If you have never studied anything to fly any plane on your pc, I hazard that you wasted your money purchasing something like the PMDG study level aircraft.
I am pretty confident that after a half century flying nearly everything from a Stearman to a 737, I could probably get into ANY aircraft and fly it. They all fly like, well, airplanes. Pretty basic stuff. I am equally sure that there a likely going to be SOPs for those random flights that I will completely miss. A little study of the POH never hurts.
The concept of “study level” is very subjective
does MSFS2020 provide a decent amount of material to use to practice things such as landings, takeoffs and basic vfr work, perhaps
does MSFS202 provide enough realism to practice a clean break stall (either power on or off) without spinning, no (ref Broken stall dynamics) or steep turns without crazy altitude changes, no
If you’re using it to supplement existing skill sets (ie practice vfr landings) it could work (though be very objective)
Unfortunately, man, despite his infinite knowledge, has never been able to achieve an accurate model of flight in all regimes and with all its nuances. The most expensive sim in the industry is still nothing more than a procedural simulator. The whole purpose of those multi-million dollar sims is to be able to run pilots through emergency procedures and unusual equipment failures, without putting a $400 million dollar jet at risk.
I have spent a pile of hours in sims of various designs and seldom if ever was aircraft handling the focus. There is really no alternative to extreme maneuvers than sitting in an actual aircraft and doing it.
caveat - There are a handful of military sims, specific to one airframe, that have achieved some level of accuracy, but I think they are based on alien tech. 
Leonardo dubs their Maddog as study level, I think it fits the bill quite nicely.
Well it is also much cheaper and easier to manage when putting a large pool of pilots through type conversions for a new version of an aircraft or even just doing currency stuff on systems.
Though I agree, PC sims generally are not really all that much like real flying they are mainly button pushing and procedure simulators.
To be honest, if anyhting in game is study level, this thing definitely is:
It looks and flies EXACTLY like a real homemade cardboard box spitfire.
Perhaps another study level coming soon.
Typically it means about $75 
This topic is pretty well done, and every opinion is already here, but I only just noticed it so I’ll be brief.
Study level is mostly a way for someone to get more money from you. Because ultimately you can’t “Study” in MSFS as its not an approved flight training device.
That having been said however, there are planes out there that are pretty good for memorizing procedures, which switches to flip to do this or that. Many are very accurate and worth their price tag if that is the kind of realism you need or want.
But ‘Study Level’ as it gets thrown around in the MSFS world, its mostly just marketing hype. It’s a make believe standard for software that you can’t actually use to study in any official capacity anyhow.
We’d all be better off if the phrase went away and was replaced with something that doesn’t imply that you can use it for study… Such as perhaps ‘Realistic’. Realistic means just what it says, and it doesn’t make a false bill of sale that you can ‘study’ it. Study implies real educational value that some entity outside of MSFS would accept as equivalent to flight training. It ain’t.
Yeah you could potentially use it for practicing flows but a wall chart of the cockpit would work just as well. Though chances are most of the elitist types that are obsessed with “study level” aircraft do not even know the difference between flows and checklists anyway.
