An excellent review of the Cessna 172. FINALLY someone pays attention to flying the airplane instead of glorifying doors opening and reflection glittering. While these are nice, one would judge that anyone caught using the default FS2004 Cessna 172 on a regular basis just wants to look, not fly.If Microsoft cannot get the 172 Cessna right how can we trust any of the other default aircraft. FS2002 was repleat with air file changes in an attempt (sometimes in vain) to correct what Microsoft can't, or refuses to correct - the flight model. Unfortunatly, most customers either do not know, or frankly do not care, if the aircraft flies realistically. They go into extended dialogs telling us that we expect far too much for a low cost flight simulator($60). They tell us to go and rent time in a real simulator if reality is what we seek. Microsoft makes millions from this product.Once agin thanks Ian for illustrating that Microsoft has once again said that the public would never care, nor appreciate, a truly accurate flight model so what we get instead are improved clouds. The customers that buy FS2004, in Microsoft's view, demand visual value not flight simulation.Ian's review stands in stark contrast to reviews that pander to Microsoft in order to remain on the next beta testers list.Dick KLBEPS: Ian do any of the default merit regular use???

Hi. We are in a minority, because we expect M$ to honor their title and commitment. Maybe these guys are having some issues, cheap labor?