I have the relair version of the Cessna 1272 (FS9). And as far as I understand it exists since the default flightmodel is bad and relair is supposed to react more like a real Cessna.How about other default planes? Are they also unrealistic like the Cessna? Are there any good replacements for the other in FS2004 supplied planes?

Well, the big hit of FS9 in my opinion is the default DC-3. There have been more repaints uploaded for this default acft than any other that I can recall in recent releases. The flight model feels OK to me, and I really had no qualms with it. But there is an updated flight model in the Avsim library which was tweaked by a RWP with DC-3 time, and it has made a nice little improvement. With this new airfile, the DC-3 is an awsome default plane to fly.Tim13

Try the default Piper Cub! It flies great!

Do you mean that only the DC 3 is good among the supplied planes and all other are bad?

>I have the relair version of the Cessna 1272 (FS9). And as>far as I understand it exists since the default flightmodel is>bad and relair is supposed to react more like a real Cessna.>How about other default planes? Are they also unrealistic like>the Cessna? Are there any good replacements for the other in>FS2004 supplied planes?The default model isn't "bad"..........Just doesn't do as much as the RealAir 172, such as slipping & spinning. It also seems more "squiggly" on the ground roll than it did in FS2002. But it is perfectly flyable & easily get's from place to place & lands easily........ using aircraft type control motions. Over the years, I sim flown "bad flight models"; such as severe oscillations with small pitch movements. Models so short on climb rate, that's nothing like the real one; or un-recoverable from simple stalls. Therefore, I wouldn't call the MSFS172 "bad", but certainly not perfection!L.Adamson

Your own experience should tell you if they are 'bad' or 'good'.How do they feel to you ?I am a real-life pilot but certainly have never flown behind controls of a Lear or 737. Yet what I 'feel' in FS2004 is far from what I would expect on a real aircraft.I am never looking for 'replacement' of the exact same aircraft in FS2004 - I am simply looking for any well made aircraft with good panel and good flight model. You might be looking for replacement of flight models only - I am usually looking for the replacement of both flight model and panel - as much as I dislike default flight models I dislike default panels even more so.Michael J.

My short list of what you can "feel" in a simulated PC model if...... you've had enough real life flight experience to relay a "mental" feel to the sim..And in reality, there is NO feel at all, unless it's a force feedback joystick, which I don't feel "feels real" :)The mental "feel" totally relies on sight. Close your eyes and there is nothing....It's like sitting at a stop light in your car, and the vehicle to the side moves forward, making you believe you're possibly coasting backwards, & then you hit the brakes. But it all relies on "sight".But with sight, it's very possible to get a feel of left drift tendencies during the takeoff roll and climb. Or that pitch up "feel" when flaps are deployed on a high wing Cessna.Other "feelings" such as side slipping in the RealAir SF260 are easily possible in VC mode, as is going over the top side of an outside loop! The feeling of "prop braking" is even there when using the FSD Pilatus Porter. Proper flight dynamics can also simulate heavy aircraft with slow responses as well as light ones that move by thinking about it.There really are times that I get a kick out of a certain flight model because it has very many simularities to the real one. Items that are always missing, are the feel of nausea & weight, or lightness from G-Forces. Stick forces are more of a mental thing...... but possible.L.Adamson

>And in reality, there is NO feel at all, unless it's a force>feedback joystick, which I don't feel "feels real" :)>>The mental "feel" totally relies on sight. Close your eyes and>there is nothing....Larry, I absolutely agree. I don't use FF stick but still in my own mind I am able to "feel" the pull up, trim relief or similar forces. And this may have to do with my hours of real log book experience. Having said that FS9 default aircraft just don't 'feel' right. I admit I did not test every single one of them. But their pitch characteristics runs exactly against my brain's built-in anticipation. It is so bad I actually have to stop flying immediately in fear that my 'good' memories get corrupted but these alien 'feel'.Michael J.

The default Beechcraft Baron 58 handels well with the FSD Twin Props Enhancement. It's a big improvement, but might take some tweeking to get everything squared away with your panel.

I also like the way that the Ford Tri Motor simulates flight, although I have never been on one. It does feel more right than other default planes.

I've found that some of the G-forces can be translated to your FS-view by using active camera. The input a pilot recieves from G-forces gets translated to the view and it adds to the experience. Pulling on the yoke at high speed makes the head latency display a larger G load. This helps a lot.

I fly a real Cessna 172 and the default FS2k4 flight model is not that bad. I have the RealAir Cessna as well but practice with the default 172. You really can't be a judge on this thing unless you have real life flight experience and can go back to your local airport and compare the two. Now the default planes in the earlier versions of FS left something to be desired but I don't have a problem with the current default GA offerings from Microsoft. It's all on personal preference but don't jump to assumptions when you don't have any real flight time to compare with. Simulated aircraft will always have something missing, hopefully one day this won't be the case but as of now the default FDE's aren't that bad (at least not to me).Dillon--

>But their pitch characteristics runs exactly against my>brain's built-in anticipation. It is so bad I actually have to>stop flying immediately in fear that my 'good' memories get>corrupted but these alien 'feel'.Can you elaborate thar a little more? Exactly how is it bad?

>I've found that some of the G-forces can be translated to>your FS-view by using active camera. The input a pilot>recieves from G-forces gets translated to the view and it adds>to the experience. Pulling on the yoke at high speed makes the>head latency display a larger G load. This helps a lot.Yes, active camera add's to the illusion, but I also keep it toned down. Around 10 years ago, I took an aerobatic course in a Pitt's S2B, where my head was thrown around quite a bit due to G-forces. One time, my headphones & sunglasses ended up in the tail-cone! But generally I could keep my head & eyes focused straight ahead or to the side to complete my manuvers. If "head latency" is turned too high, it's as though you have to wait too long to see where you need to see.................which is rather un-real, especially in aerobatics such as with the RealAir 260.L.Adamson

The real 172SP has a 180hp engine, and the default version seems grossly underpowered to me. I have about 230hrs. In both the SP and the 160hp. R model. The default SP flies more like the 172R.Here's the deal, the most perfect flight model will never recreate the total sensation of flight in the real thing. A sim and an airplane are just plain different. A sim is only an algorithm, nothing more. The very best we can do is design a simulation to "fly" by the numbers. Aside from that, it is all "eye-candy", but that's what makes it fun. Real world use of a simulator is not what most of us here view as simming. I've found that when I am using a sim for training purposes, or currency requirements, I seldom notice whether or not it "feels" like the real thing. Are the numbers there that I need to complete the flight maneuver? That is the question that most often concerns me. These numbers are usually RPM or power settings, airspeeds or directional/ altitude indications. They seldom relate to the flight model. Yes, it is true that a given airspeed should be expected for a given power setting/ configuration, but most flight training devices are so generic that we end up using "ballpark" figures.As far as full-motion simulators, well, they serve a different purpose and are EXTREMELY expensive. There, the flight model is only a small part of what creates the flight illusion.Aside from the occasional instrument practice, FS works well for just having fun. And if that's what you want it to do, it works GREAT! :)