Can anyone tell me the difference between these two payware addons? I know Carenado is a 172N and Flight1 is 172R, so the Flight1 is a more modern version. On the other hand, I've heard great things about everything Carenado, even though Flight1 stuff is very good too.The main reason I am considering one of these over the FSX default is that I am going to be real world 172 training next summer. I expect it will be a fairly new version, which makes me a little reluctant to go with the 172N, but again Carenado has such a great rep. It's so hard to decide!:(Any thoughts on either plane, but especially knowledgeable comparisons between them, would really be appreciated!Best, DAB

I have over 170 hrs on a real 172 and can tell you that Flight1's flight modeling was highly satisfying to me (except of spins or stalls). For example I pay close attention to aircraft reaction to such maneuvers as steep turns or cross wind landings. I know nothing however about the Carenado's 172 so am unable to provide you with a comparison.

I have over 170 hrs on a real 172 and can tell you that Flight1's flight modeling was highly satisfying to me (except of spins or stalls). I know nothing however about the Carenado's 172 so am unable to provide you with a comparison.

I have the same reaction as Michal's (have the f1 version only). Though my total 172 hours are probably less than Michals-for the cost-I might buy both though-you may find various aspects of each rendition valuable to your training-and for a fraction of the cost of perhaps an hour or two of rw flying you might save much more than that by being able to practice much on your desktop instead. That is a good thing!! I've done it many times over the last 20 years.

Carenado's panels, as is, aren't that great (Though they look and function great, read on). They lack modern instrumentation in many instances, as I do not count the default GPS. Also, Carenado's 172N comes as it would in it's original form from the factory, minus the dings/scratches--Old radios/nav equipment.As far as the 172N (November), I did my primary & instrument training in the 1978 November model (Total of 200+ hrs in that plane), and must say it performs very closely. I used the same climb/descent/cruise/approach profiles for the sim November on my buddies' copy of FSX, and it was extremely close--so much so that it actually helped profile development for the real aircraft. (Like Geof mentioned.)As for stalls, spins, and other "out of the normal" flight envelope maneuvers, FSX and FS9 are severely lacking. Though I must say I find the November hard to even get to spin in the real aircraft. Trust me, I tried! (and succeeded) :(Edit: I'd like to add that what you mentioned, "DAB", about the differences in models from say the November to the Romeo and up to the SP is a very valid point. They all more or less have the same feel as the next , but cockpit preparation flow can be very different (though they're all "easy"). More so when you consider individual owner/operators modifications, etc.

I thought the Flight 1 Cessna seemed pretty much like the real thing from what I recall, then again, I would also say the default FS Cessna is not a million miles off target either. Not a really solid recommendation, since I've not flown a 172 much for real, and never the same one for long, but there you go. Cheapskate 152s were more my speed!I would caution you against relying too heavily on FS for flight training regardless of whatever aircraft you load into it. FS is certainly of use, but more in the sense of being a 'procedural trainer' than a real emulation of the aircraft for the 'stick and rudder' stuff of ab initio training. So as you correctly note, it's probably more important to find something with the same instrument layout than it is to worry about whether it handles exactly the same as the real thing (I've found similar aircraft types all handle a little bit differently even when built the same week). Even if you find an FS Cessna that flies exactly the same as the aircraft you will fly for real, you will still find the feel of the controls, and how much you have to move them, will have to be learned on the real thing.Ironically, that limitation makes FS actually a good tool for learning complex airliners and IFR stuff, since that is all about looking at the instruments. But light aircraft tend to be more about lining up a spot of dirt on the windscreen with the horizon to keep it straight and level whilst desperately trying to spot the airfield so you don't feel stupid LOLOne thing you can do, and something I particularly recommend, is to use Track IR. That will certainly be useful, as it will get you into the habit of turning your head and looking out of the window, especially prior to initiating a turn, which you'll find Track IR can make into a conditioned response even though the head movement is smaller to control Track IR. That's especially important, because FS tends to make people stare at the instruments too much, instead of doing a proper brief but regular scan of them, which is actually more likely to let you spot anything out of the ordinary, since any change will be apparent from the last time you looked. When you get out on a real airfield and are bashing around the circuit, with other aircraft often in close proximity - invariably being piloted by similarly low hours pilots - keeping your eyes off the panel and looking out for things that you might be getting close to is extremely important from a safety standpoint.Anyway, good luck with the hunt for a virtual Cessna that suits and good luck with the real thing too. Don't worry, the real thing is easier to fly than a sim, and it loads instantaneously and always gets brilliant frame rates too.Al

I have the Flight1 172 and am happy with it for the most part. The thing that bothers me is how slow it gets when you put in flaps. The real plane does have a lot of drag when flaps come out but no where near what the sim does. The other harp is the trim. Its hard to trim for airspeeds at the 10, 20 and 30 degree flap speeds. I think it all just goes back to the amount of drag the flaps are simulating. Even with those problems (in my opinion) it is still a worthy investment.

Thanks to all for the great information--it is very helpful! DAB

I agree with Al. It's very helpful to have a model that has a similar layout to the aircraft you'll actually be flying. Something to consider: will the Cessna you train in have a carburetor/carb heat? If so, the Carenado model might be the better choice. I lucked out -- I started my RW training about a month ago in a Cessna that's a dead ringer for the Carenado 172N. It's been such a help for instrument and procedural familiarization.Whatever model you go with, have fun, and best of luck with your training!

I agree with Al. It's very helpful to have a model that has a similar layout to the aircraft you'll actually be flying. Something to consider: will the Cessna you train in have a carburetor/carb heat? If so, the Carenado model might be the better choice. I lucked out -- I started my RW training about a month ago in a Cessna that's a dead ringer for the Carenado 172N. It's been such a help for instrument and procedural familiarization.Whatever model you go with, have fun, and best of luck with your training!

I used the Real Air C172 .air file with the Flight 1 product, and have purchased and installed the Reality XP gauges into the panel, plus modified the aircraft.cfg to change the performance from the -R model to the -S. Also integrated the Reality XP GNS530 with it, and all in all this is a great rendition of the C172. I have about 300 real flying hours in this aircraft and my "hacked" rendition of it performs really well. I would also second Al's comemnts on real world training and FSX. For IFR (when I did my rating), it was perfect, as in real IFR all you are looking at is a set of instruments that are several feet away from your eyes- just like FSX on a monitor, and IFR flying is very procedurally based. However, when learning to fly your all VFR, and trying to build good judgement from the "seat of your pants" flying, and FSX will cause you problems unless you are able to mentally separate the two. Looking into infinity in true 3D is so different from looking at a 2D monitor that is several feet away from you, and while that might seem a trivial difference, it can become a problem that your CFI will have to "unlearn" you from, and that could cost you additional hours in training.But if you are learning to fly and have mastered the visual stuff in real life, FSX is excellent. Just be careful that you do things in the correct order. And good luck with your flight training, please keep us informed here about your progress!Thanks, Bruce.

Looking into infinity in true 3D is so different from looking at a 2D monitor that is several feet away from you, and while that might seem a trivial difference, it can become a problem that your CFI will have to "unlearn" you from, and that could cost you additional hours in training.

That's a great point. Something that might help you further close the gap between reality and FSX is the addition of 3D glasses and a fresnel lens to your simming setup. Both are great separately, but together, you really do feel like you're sitting in the plane. Using the lens/glasses combo certainly has helped raise my comfort level in RW training.Some related links:http://www.avsim.com/pages/0107/3D/3D.htmhttp://www.rickleephoto.com/rlcoll.htm