Which aircrafts are in the new study-level aircraft category called "study-level in a new league"?

User Support Hub Aircraft & Systems
, , ,
1

Hey

I just read some discussion about the pricing of the “new” Flysimware Learjet 35A for MS2024.

On Discord you can read something about:
”But ours is study-level in a new league, not just claiming study-level.”

They claim, real pilots are using it to train on it.

My question is:

Which aircraft are real ms2024 native developed products and not “just ported/converted”?

Which of them are beyond “study-level” or like Flysimware calls it “study-level in a new league”? Is Flysimware the BEST one?

My research didn’t show any other plane or developer, who claims this title or new category. Maybe someone has more information.

Thx

2

A2A and Black Square both have native MSFS 2024 aircraft.

EDIT: They don’t claim this title AFAIK.

1 Like
3

But not that good compared to Flysimware L35A?

Flysimware statement:
Even using Black Square as the example: yes, they added walkaround/preflight interactivity in 2024 with collision models and clickspots — cool feature. But that is not the same thing as rebuilding an aircraft around the deeper “modern systems” framework. And things like enhanced engine simulation or custom sounds (even excellent ones) are simply product updates — they’re not what makes something “2024 native.”

So, the question still is:
What is a real ms2024 native version?

4

While the general question is pretty interesting, especially for flight sim enthusiasts, in this case the FSW context makes it pretty narrow.

The Learjet is not better than other comparable high fidelity releases, but costs much more. There might be some small innovations where it comes ahead, but for any one of those, there are many others where it’s still behind the top competition. Plus, many interior textures are still pretty last generation/simply ugly.

That saying, like the Chancellor, it’s a massive work in progress, so you might be paying for the potential and the fun of checking out a new update every week/participating in the whole process on Discord.

I can understand people who think $65 is fine, and I can see the value in some ways, but for now it’s just a good overpriced base with a lot of fun and impressing ideas promised in future, IMHO.

5

Bruh, he’s out of his mind to say that. In no world is his work Black Square or A2A level.

1 Like
6

regarding flysimware, i fly the chancellor and it definitely is pretty good, it flies well and its system’s depth is very respectable (using the fuel flow computer requires a manual of its own)…. however i can’t say that it blew my mind, it’s just pretty good

i don’t know and i would like to know, i suspect the answer is few, if any

7

MSFS 2024 has been very unstable along its first year so maybe that’s the cause why the ratio of native aircraft has been lower than expected. Probably this will improve greatly this next 2026.

And as for good aircraft, “study level” if you want, I would mention Just Flight’s BAe 146 and Avro RJ. They’re not “native” (yet) but their complexity and fidelity place them in the top.

8

They have been rebuilt with fs2024 sdk so I’d say they are fully native. They don’t simulate maintenance and service failures, not even random ones. For me they are not on the same level as A2A, PMDG or Fenix level.

9

You’re never going to get an actual answer to this. Everyone has a different opinion. On top of that, each category of aircraft is different from one another. Comparing the FSW Learjet 35A to the Black Square Bonanza/Baron is a bit apples to oranges. I have them both. I think they are both really good. They are also completely different. And in a lot of ways, the A2A Aerostar runs circles around them in terms of modeling the quirkiness and persistent wear and fluid use of an aircraft, but is arguably the most simple aircraft in terms of systems complexity of the three.

I personally hate the term study level because it’s just a nebulous idea that means something different to everyone. One developer might claim it because they modeled working circuit breakers while another might claim it because they modelled the rate at which oil moves through the engine based on the temperature affected viscosity…. either way, NO ONE has put together a true bar raiser lately IMHO.

3 Likes
10

Moved to User Support Hub for community assistance.

11

Any body pilot the PMDG series? I love the 738 for both 2020 and now the 2024. The 2024 version is much more control true to IRL . Any other opinions?

12

I’ll refer you to this gem of a summary from Raul, developer and (I believe) owner of Flight Sim Reborn.

In short, it’s a huge range - something could technically be “2024 native” and be almost indistinguishable from its 2020 version to the average user. It could also be a complete ground-up rebuild of the aircraft that took tens of thousands of development hours and brings with it dozens, if not hundreds, of new features to the product that are platform-specific.

And just as there’s no legally defensible definition of “2024 native” there’s even less of one for “study level.” It’s purely a marketing term with no true quantifiable (or at least universally agreed-upon) meaning, so I would not put much stock in it, especially when it’s said by the creators of the product themselves.

1 Like
13

On their website, they say that two real-life pilots and one instructor helped with the development. That’s honestly not much if they want to claim their study-level is somehow better than, for example, Fenix or PMDG. Three real pilots helped? Seriously?

Even if twenty real-life pilots were involved, all of them would have to test things like the flight model on exactly the same hardware. Not every joystick, yoke, throttle, or pedals behaves the same way. Differences in feedback can exist purely because each pilot is using different hardware.

I always take claims like “tested with real pilots” with a grain of salt. Most of the time it’s just corporate marketing talk. Of course, real-life pilots are very useful when it comes to systems logic and procedures, and that’s where their input really matters. But that alone does not put an aircraft into some “new league” of study-level.

In my opinion, true study-level aircraft mainly come from developers like Fenix, iFLY, PMDG and Aerosoft. Low-quality addons come from CaptainS*am.

1 Like
14

The term study level comes from the very old Times of flight sim, I believe it was born back in FSX and was a title granted by users themselves not developers (initially and back in the day), now these days the term is exploited far too much.

The term is usually an indication of an addon aircraft that has enough systems deep in comparison with the real aircraft and the add-on is capable of replicating specify behaviors in accordance to the real world, mostly this title indicates a good product that was developed with the intention of creating a product as close as possible to real life.

I personally don’t like putting this title to my projects, I think, just like in the old times, this is a tag that people should grant after reviewing what we have created, you should earn it, not claim it :wink:.

Best,

Raul

5 Likes
15

Well it depends, I do work with real pilots on the type, and it is very important.

However the quantity of pilots is not equal to better results, what you need is pilots that understand simulators.

I normally have maximum 2-3 on a test team and is more than enough, while the rest of the team can test things, these pilots validate for the team that the behaviour matches the real aircraft behaviour.

Typical example, just 4 weeks ago, 25 beta team members, 2 pilots on type, aircraft phenom 300E:

Everyone is happy with the aircraft after they asked to reduce the rudder effects in the air, 23 team members express the aircraft flies better, the two pilots raised concerns about the rudder being too weak as when they land IRL at max cross wind component (28kts), they don’t floor the rudder, they have about 20% rudder left available.

So i had to redo the rudder, and despite the other 23 people wanted less rudder, the truth is, the aircraft behaviour IRL is as per pilots feedback, since my testing team is now experienced after 3 products releases, they often ask pilots if this is how things should work, etc. To which they reply with their feedback validating and explaining how the aircraft operates.

Real pilots on the type are crucial, they help me to obtain data not available on manuals, provide unique feedback impossible to obtain from normal testers, provide incredible information on avionics based on their day to day life that is also not available on manuals and most aircraft manufacturers will never give you even if you license, and lastly, they provide information on day to day challenges and failures so I can replicate those in msfs.

So, quite frankly, without real pilots testing and validating what I am doing, is like developing blind and all I could get realistically is a pretty 3D model..

Hope this give you guys an insight of things from the other side of the coin.

Best,

Raul

7 Likes
16

What you wrote about “the quantity of pilots not translating into better results, and the importance of pilots who actually understand simulators” is very important - I’d even say it’s a key point.

For some reason I forgot to explicitly mention that in my earlier post, but that is exactly what I had in mind. It’s good to see that this aspect is also crucial from your point of view as a developer.

For me, the key point is that it’s not only about pilots understanding the real aircraft they fly every day, but also about them understanding the simulator itself - in this case MSFS - and its limitations, behaviour, and quirks. That combination is crucial when validating things like flight dynamics and control response in a sim environment.

I really appreciate you taking the time to explain how this looks from your side and how real pilots are involved in practice during development. It’s valuable insight for all of us and helps to better understand what’s happening behind the scenes.
Thanks again for sharing your perspective.

1 Like
17

“Study level” and “tested by real world pilots” are two things that have driven me crazy absolutely forever in simming. I’ve previously been tempted to start a thread with a rant about both and perhaps this is as good a spot as any.

Background.

I come with many thousands of hours of flight time over 20 years of real world flying experience for the most part in an emergency response role, in all phases of flight, in all situations, IFR and VFR, across many aircraft types, in various locations around the world. I also come from 40 years of simming experience as a user, consultant, and modder.

———————————————————–

First, “Study Level”. There’s no such thing. Never has been. Likely never will be.

Whatever you (as the user) have as a definition of “study level”, the definition is in the name. But regardless, it has been strongly implied over the years that “study level” would mean an aircraft that can be used by real world students/pilots on type to use it to prepare for training or a ride. It has since been muddied by the term being thrown around by various devs who add in functional circuit breakers and call it a day, as well as influencers throwing the term around like candy, but I digress.

Can one, as a student/pilot of the specific aircraft IRL use the sim to become intimately familiar with, and therefore capable of “studying” to the point of passing a ride, the following

  1. all aircraft systems, no matter how big, small, or nuanced
  2. all systems failures and/or emergency situations
  3. how a specific aircraft handles in all phases of flight
  4. (perhaps most importantly) how an aircraft feels in all phases of flight

#1 and 2 it could be argued are theoretically possible but I’ve yet to fire up a sim aircraft that satisified both fully. In some study level/complete/100% accurate/etc aircraft I’ve fired up, I can find fault with these two things within minutes with zero knowledge of the real world aircraft. Allow me to open up an AFM and I guarantee I’ll find an abnormal/emergency item that the “study level” aircraft does not simulate. That’s outside of particular non-AFM system nuances that can only come with extensive time on type. In particular, some of the hugely popular “study level” aircraft such as PMDG are very, very far from being that detailed. “Study level” they ain’t.

#3 is also theoretically possible with enough work on the flight model and engine parameters within knowledge/programming/sim limitations. I’ve yet to fly an aircraft in the sim which doesn’t have a compromise in one area or another and by pure definition of “sim limitation”, some things such as icing impact (just one example) just simply cannot be or are not simulated to a “study level” degree.

#4 is impossible. Quite simply impossible. With the variety of control setups out there, what might “feel” like the real aircraft (excluding things like physical turbulence, G-effect, specific airframe nuances, etc) to one person absolutely will not to another. Compromises come in again, undermining the core definition of “study level”.

Myself, I prefer the term “high fidelity”. OK, you put in circuit breakers and some basic failures? Yeah, that’s high fidelity. I embrace that term. Black Square, A2A, etc are all high fidelity.

———————————————————–

Second, “tested by real world pilots”.

As mentioned above, an absolute key to this is having real world pilots that not only have extensive time on type but having extensive sim experience, ideally not just in a user but in a background capacity.

Without the sim knowledge, consulting pilots are told “X isn’t possible due to Y in the sim” and they have no choice but to believe it. Even with sim knowledge, real world pilots are more inclined to believe what a dev says is a “sim limitation”, even if it solidly is not. I’ve seen it repeated here in the forums ad nauseam. And oh boy - the number of “sim limitations” I’ve gotten around with a simple, non-invasive mod I simply cannot count. Honestly artificial “sim limitations” could be a whole other topic but that’s outside the scope here.

Let’s talk about the wrong pilot experience for consulting on a sim aircraft. Here are some very specific aircraft behaviours in some very specific aircraft that I have asked devs about and they have verified that real world pilots have backed up:

Note that these don’t all apply to one dev/aircraft but just come from years of experience with various

  • When you lower the flaps, the aircraft loses lift and drag, dropping and going faster
  • When you lower the flaps, the aircraft has an uncontrollable nose up/down movement. “Just ride it out”
  • When you lower the gear, the aircraft has an uncontrollable nose down movement
  • When you lower the gear, you won’t be able to maintain altitude
  • The aircraft won’t stay running at idle
  • The aircraft won’t stay running if you lean on the ground
  • The aircraft likes to idle high
  • It’s a high powered prop/turboprop/jet/whatever and so it taxis fast. Just ride the brakes
  • The prop has no drag IRL
  • The prop has excessive amounts of drag IRL
  • The aircraft doesn’t actually handle the crosswind the book says
  • The aircraft auto-levels due to dihedral
  • This aircraft is so high powered it basically doesn’t have a service ceiling
  • This aircraft would never be able to reach the book service ceiling

And so on. Those of you with a keen eye will see that a vast majority of these sorts of things come from consulting with a pilot that is either very inexperienced, very inexperienced on type, or just completely misunderstanding what is happening in a specific phase of flight. Yes, this could be a lack of connection of the real world behaviour to what the sim is doing as well. This could also potentially be a communication problem between dev and pilot, miscommunicating what is happening in the sim vs what is happening IRL.

This is outside of the average pilot’s tendency to exaggerate. What I mean by that is if you have a pilot of a specific aircraft type that is said to have X behaviour, he’ll tend to play it up like it’s a huge deal even if it’s not. I’m not immune to this. Ask me about flying something like a Metroliner and I’ll tell you how it’s a negatively-stable beast just trying to deviate from level flight. Ignoring the fact that it’s been 15 years since I flew one, if it were as bad as my simple statement about it, it would have never been certified. But the wrong dev might take that statement and run with it, making a version that is truly negatively stable and very difficult to fly. At some point in sim world we’ve come to equate “difficult” with “realistic” and I have no idea where that came from other than this tendency for pilots to exaggerate minor negative characteristics. Add into the equation that that characteristic flaw IRL probably doesn’t come across in-sim due to item #4 above, and the inclination might be to crank it up.

Now, even if you get the absolutely ideal pilot consultant for your new aircraft project, what is their setup? Are they in VR? Are they using an xbox controller? Do they have sim realism settings high or low? Do they have a $10000 full-motion setup in their basement? Are they playing on a laptop? Do they have curves in their controls? And the list goes on and on.

Personally I take “tested by real world pilots” as a bit of a caution as some of the most shockingly wrong aircraft behaviours I’ve seen in the sim have come after “real world pilot” testing. And I say that as one of the “tested by real world pilots” pilots for many past, present, and future sim aircraft out there. I’m not infallible and neither are they.

—————————————————–

All of that being said, don’t take that as hate towards any specific aircraft or dev as I enjoy a wide range of capabilities in the sim but I don’t do it with the false knowledge that I’m somehow flying a 100% accurate, true representation of the real thing. I understand that I’ll probably want to tweak or “live with” a few behaviours sim aircraft have and that might not just be a simple sim vs IRL limitation but in some cases it’s the charm of it too. We keep inching our way towards true IRL representation in sims. In some nuances it’s a long ways off. In others, it’s much closer. It’s not perfect and it never will be but I do love watching and being part of the effort even if I do have to look away from a few things from time to time.

It reminds me of a very old joke. A man goes to the doctor and says “doc, it hurts when I swing my arm above my head” and the doctor says “well just don’t do that”

10 Likes
18

Thank you so much for this post, very well said! You’re a great spokesperson for the confluence of the rw and sim experience that lends credence to the perspective of comparing and bringing the two closer. There’s another necessary and often overlooked aspect involved - the ability to communicate those things clearly.

2 Likes