The default 172SP flies more realistically than the X-Plane 10 one, even if it isn't completely realistic.

Why do you feel the need to increase the font, bold it, italicize it, color it and underline it? Are you that hateful towards the competition that you feel you have to drive your point across that much?I know how to get rid of it. HE said he uninstalled it. Not me. You can't uninstall X Plane. I wanted to know how he actually "uninstalled" it seeing as it's impossible to do.Neither does the FSX one. Maybe because you haven't flown all of them in real life?

I haven't EVER flown a 747 BUT, the PMDG one is realistic.Please Read:I fly the PMDG 747. I love it.-Flies beautifully.It flies NOTHING like the 747 in XPlane. The XPlane 747 is WAY to sensitive and flies like something from a child's toy. I would assume that the PMDG 747 is accurate considering it's licensed by BOEING.WAIT!!! Is there a stamp on the XPlane 747 licensed by Boeing? NO

The default 172SP flies more realistically than the X-Plane 10 one, even if it isn't completely realistic.

Exactly.... THANK YOU

I haven't EVER flown a 747 BUT, the PMDG one is realistic.Please Read:I fly the PMDG 747. I love it.-Flies beautifully.It flies NOTHING like the 747 in XPlane. The XPlane 747 is WAY to sensitive and flies like something from a child's toy. I would assume that the PMDG 747 is accurate considering it's licensed by BOEING.WAIT!!! Is there a stamp on the XPlane 747 licensed by Boeing? NOExactly.... THANK YOU

Ummm, the PMDG 747 took 4-5 years to make. And it's payware. Try again.EDIT: To compare the default 747 in X Plane to the payware PMDG 747 is a HUGE compliment seeing as that's the first thing you chose to compare it to.Isn't the Ariane 737 (quite possibly one of the worst add ons for FSX, according to the community) also licensed by Boeing?Don't put too much faith in licenses.

totally poop.FSX IS KING!!!

I see the maturity level in this thread is really high.

Ummm, the PMDG 747 took 4-5 years to make. And it's payware. Try again.EDIT: To compare the default 747 in X Plane to the payware PMDG 747 is a HUGE compliment seeing as that's the first thing you chose to compare it to.Isn't the Ariane 737 (quite possibly one of the worst add ons for FSX, according to the community) also licensed by Boeing?Don't put too much faith in licenses.

I see you've completely ignored the bit about the Cessna 172.What Ben seems to be trying to say is, that X-Plane is supposed to be a highly realistic flight sim by default. (MSFS has never focused on that) The fact that they can't offer a remotely realistic flight model for the 747 by default is concerning, especially if this is supposed to be a professional sim. Sure the PMDG 747 is an add-on, but look what can be accomplished in MSFS. The flight model may not have taken 4-5 years. We have no idea. They aren't the most difficult thing to make if you know how the real plane flies.

Ummm, the PMDG 747 took 4-5 years to make. And it's payware. Try again.EDIT: To compare the default 747 in X Plane to the payware PMDG 747 is a HUGE compliment seeing as that's the first thing you chose to compare it to.Isn't the Ariane 737 (quite possibly one of the worst add ons for FSX, according to the community) also licensed by Boeing?Don't put too much faith in licenses.

Well I am sick and tired of arguing with such a XPLANE ######.It is VERY obvious why FSX has SO MUCH many more devs backing it than XPlane.MS Flight Sims are the popular sims of now and of the future.There is probably 10 times as many devs working with FSX than XPlane........I HAVE ATTEMPTED IN EARLIER POSTS TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT I LIKE XPLANE. I JUST WISH IT CONTAINED A BETTER GUI AND BETTER FLIGHT DYANMICS. THE SIM AS A WHOLE IS QUITE DECENT AND SOMEWHAT IMPRESSIVE. THESE ARE KEY COMPONENTS THAT WOULD DRAW IN NEW CUSTOMERS LIKE ME.

I would be MUCH more apt to switch if the experience actually was easy and enjoyable. The sim is WAY WAY to dull and lifeless.

From an earlier post......

I see you've completely ignored the bit about the Cessna 172.What Ben seems to be trying to say is, that X-Plane is supposed to be a highly realistic flight sim by default. (MSFS has never focused on that) The fact that they can't offer a remotely realistic flight model for the 747 by default is concerning, especially if this is supposed to be a professional sim. Sure the PMDG 747 is an add-on, but look what can be accomplished in MSFS. The flight model may not have taken 4-5 years. We have no idea. They aren't the most difficult thing to make if you know how the real plane flies.

Brandon, I just feel like I've gone in circles with you countless times. I've described what is involved in making a flight model, and yet you continue to ignore that. For what reason? Who knows. I can't help you see what is involved if you continue to scream "No, it should be like the real thing. Default or payware, doesn't matter! It's x plane. It claims to use Blade Element Theory. It SHOULD be like the real thing!"It just doesn't work that way. And I'm afraid that nothing I say or do will convince you otherwise. So let's just agree to disagree and move on.

Well I am sick and tired of arguing with such a XPLANE ######.It is VERY obvious why FSX has SO MUCH many more devs backing it than XPlane.MS Flight Sims are the popular sims of now and of the future.There is probably 10 times as many devs working with FSX than XPlane........I HAVE ATTEMPTED IN EARLIER POSTS TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT I LIKE XPLANE. I JUST WISH IT CONTAINED A BETTER GUI AND BETTER FLIGHT DYANMICS. THE SIM AS A WHOLE IS QUITE DECENT AND SOMEWHAT IMPRESSIVE. THESE ARE KEY COMPONENTS THAT WOULD DRAW IN NEW CUSTOMERS LIKE ME.

You're going nuts with colorful, bold, enlarged text trying to discredit X Plane and I'm the ######? Umm, ok. Considering I have FS9 and FSX installed on my computer atm (with a few hundred dollars worth of add ons), I find that statement rather confusing.Did you know Aerosoft, Carenado, REX, are developing/have developed for X Plane? Probably not.

From an earlier post......

I'm sure you won't be missed if you choose not to get X Plane.Have a nice day!

I can't help you see what is involved if you continue to scream "No, it should be like the real thing. Default or payware, doesn't matter! It's x plane. It claims to use Blade Element Theory. It SHOULD be like the real thing!"It just doesn't work that way. And I'm afraid that nothing I say or do will convince you otherwise.

I don't believe I mentioned the Blade Element Theory once or "screamed" anything of the sort.

I don't believe I mentioned the Blade Element Theory once or "screamed" anything of the sort.

quoted from a few posts back..."What Ben seems to be trying to say is, that X-Plane is supposed to be a highly realistic flight sim by default."I'm not ignoring your query about the default Cessna 172. But I have repeatedly stated, and made quite a lengthy post about what is involved in making an accurate flight model. I could make a crude C172 flight model in less than a day. But it would take me weeks to make it as realistic as a real Cessna. I made a Beechcraft Duchess and it flies 98-99% accurately, when compare to the official charts in ALL areas of the flight envelope. That flight model took me 2 months to make.It's like making a steak with peppercorn sauce.. I can cook that at home. But I can't cook it like a professional chef can.To assume any Joe can come along and make a cessna flight model to the same standards as a payware developer who spent many months studying aviation engineering terminology is quite unfair.

To assume any Joe can come along and make a cessna flight model to the same standards as a payware developer who spent many months studying aviation engineering terminology is quite unfair.

Totally agree with your comment above, without a doubt.The question I have is this, with the default 172 in the demo, which end of the spectrum created the aircraft/flight model/whatever? Was is an "any Joe" or was it a payware developer? Given it's odd ground handling characteristics, odd bobbing up and down at slow taxy speeds, weird braking sounds, poor resolution graphics etc etc, I would bet on the former.The thing is why would one put such a poor example of the aircraft developers craft on an initial release demo, as an example of what can be done in this sim?Surely it does the whole exercise of a pre-release demo no favors. I actually am warming to version 10, especially after the last two service releases, but someone please tell Austin his default aircraft are cr@p. He should go get Carenado to develop one great GA bird for him and include it in the demo if he want's us to take the sim seriously, and goodness knows, there are many of us out here that are willing to give it a try and have an open mind.

Totally agree with your comment above, without a doubt.The question I have is this, with the default 172 in the demo, which end of the spectrum created the aircraft/flight model/whatever? Was is an "any Joe" or was it a payware developer? Given it's odd ground handling characteristics, odd bobbing up and down at slow taxy speeds, weird braking sounds, poor resolution graphics etc etc, I would bet on the former.The thing is why would one put such a poor example of the aircraft developers craft on an initial release demo, as an example of what can be done in this sim?Surely it does the whole exercise of a pre-release demo no favors. I actually am warming to version 10, especially after the last two service releases, but someone please tell Austin his default aircraft are cr@p. He should go get Carenado to develop one great GA bird for him and include it in the demo if he want's us to take the sim seriously, and goodness knows, there are many of us out here that are willing to give it a try and have an open mind.

Don't quote me on it, but I am almost 100% sure most of the default aircraft in X Plane 10 (including the Cessna 172) are recycled from V6 or V7, through to V8, V9 and now V10. I do know the default aircraft for V9 were all ported over starting from V6.To be totally honest, it's not as easy as people think to make an accurate flight model for X Plane. It's mostly number crunching and making sure some numbers have the correct influence on others. Making a highly accurate flight model can take weeks for an ultralight/GA to several months for a simple turboprop to almost a year for a heavy airliner. Building the shape in Planemaker is literally the tip of the iceberg which can be done in a matter of one to several hours. The shape is easy. It's the underlying systems and other factors that determine the flight characteristics and this is the part that takes months. Of course, many people leave these other systems and flight characteristics at default values because they don't know what to change them to. So X Plane itself decides the values. A couple of values I'm talking about are radii of gyration, various co-efficients, CoG aft of datum and forward of datum, etc...To put things in perspective, I wouldn't say the default Cessna is crap. Crap is a strong word. I'd say it's good enough to get you going. Just like any default aircraft in any sim. Should the sim be judged on its default aircraft? That's a matter of opinion. When I started with X Plane 9, I wasn't persuaded by the default aircraft. I was persuaded by a work in progress video of the CRJ-200. Others were persuaded by what the sim as a whole represented. And maybe some were persuaded by the default aircraft. For me, it's a subjective topic. I don't think anyone should judge it just from flying the default cessna for literally 2 minutes. There is a lot more to X Plane than just the default Cessna. If people ask questions, instead of passing judgement after a 2 minute test flight, they might be surprised.Small edit: You won't find an A2A or PMDG quality default aircraft in FSX. To think so would be very unusual. Default aircraft have never been highly realistic. Is the default FSX Cessna more realistic than the default X Plane Cessna? Subjective. Some say yes, some say no. I don't want to make excuses, but it's the truth. Default aircraft for any sim is not meant to be hyper realistic. It's meant to get you in the air with an acceptable amount of realism.

"Is the default FSX Cessna more realistic than the default X Plane Cessna? Subjective. Some say yes, some say no."With all due respect, no, it's not subjective. Or, not simply subjective. The default X Plane Cessna tips over in flight. It's unstable. It slides across the runway without having applied any thrust. It gets thrashed in the lightest of turbulence (though that may not be the flight model) and jerks around as if it has no mass... I don't remember the other things at the moment but I seem to remember the climb rate being pretty off too.The FSX default 172 is, basically, fine. Certainly not perfect, but far, far closer.That said - Having evaluated both for training purposes, I ended up being very happy with FSX for my PPL training and now continue to do so for my instrument, albeit now with RealityXP instrument add-ons and a modified main panel (that only shows the panel, no out-the-window view). This is primarily not because of the flight model, but because the flight model should not be so far off as to distract from learning the other things. It certainly should not interfere with learning and practicing the maneuvers as dictated for the Practical.I own XP9 and am very much looking forward to see what 10 has to offer - all the discussions about what drives the flight engine are interesting, but are also, as it applies to how people perceive the various aircraft fly - and how they "actually fly" in the sim - irrelevant.Andrew

With all due respect, no, it's not subjective. Or, not simply subjective. The default X Plane Cessna tips over in flight. It's unstable. It slides across the runway without having applied any thrust. It gets thrashed in the lightest of turbulence (though that may not be the flight model) and jerks around as if it has no mass... I don't remember the other things at the moment but I seem to remember the climb rate being pretty off too. Andrew

Could you show me screenshots of this?I have never, in 3 years of having x plane, had the default Cessna tip over in flight or slide across the runway without giving it any thrust.

Hi Goran,I don't have it here at work - but I am sure someone can back me up on these aspects. They're not mysterious.FYI by "tip over" I mean that left on its own, the default XP Cessna will not stay upright in a realistic manner. It flies as if it's top-heavy and simply wants to spiral (aggressively) out of straight & level flight. I can assure you that 172s will stray a bit off straight and level, but not nearly in such a pronounced way.Stationary aircraft moving on the runway - it happens to me every single time, and with even a light wind, it's worse. A light wind will push my default 172 off the runway, even with the brakes on.Just google either one of these issues for more reading than you probably care for...I'm looking forward to hearing more about the changes to flight modeling and weather in XP10... as well as for FS11.cheersAndrew