If thats your default settings, shows how much you have used it ;) Or do you just fly the trike out of Friday Harbor that often?

I have these default settings as well, and I use FSX everyday ;)

The very first time I installed FSX (during beta testing), I changed the "default flight" to be the C172 on the bloody ground with the engine off and battery/avionics off. Real planes don't suddenly appear in the air flying...

While that's true... an ultra-light isn't a real plane.

The very first time I installed FSX (during beta testing), I changed the "default flight" to be the C172 on the bloody ground with the engine off and battery/avionics off. Real planes don't suddenly appear in the air flying...

That's exactly what I mean by 'building the flight'. I also have a few cold and dark flights saved. I just haven't made them default, so I always see the above opening screen. It is indeed funny why the default flight starts in the air. Doesn't make sense.

While that's true... an ultra-light isn't a real plane.

Lol. However, a lot of ultralights fly circles around all the Warriors and Skyhawks. It's amazing how advanced these aircraft have become!

That's exactly what I mean by 'building the flight'. I also have a few cold and dark flights saved. I just haven't made them default, so I always see the above opening screen. It is indeed funny why the default flight starts in the air. Doesn't make sense.

Actually, it makes perfect sense if the goal was to provide instant gratification to "completely new users!" After all, what could be more captivating to a total noobie than to already be airborne in a very simple low and slow ultralight flying over some pretty nice (for default at least) scenery?On the other hand, considering that most of the most critical things for both GA and larger aircraft aren't even present in the ultralight (such as avionics, fuel pump(s), parking brake, etc., they cannot be sourced from the "default flight" when loading any other aircraft. That is why I reset the "default flight" to be on the ground, parking brake set, cold and dark. You see, the "default flight" maintains at least twenty-seven states more than a regular "saved flight." It's this extra data that makes the difference when loading any other aircraft... ;)

I see Bill, thanks for explaining. So if I understand correctly there is a difference between a cold and dark saved flight and that same saved flight made default? Never to old to learn I guess. I didn't know that...

I see Bill, thanks for explaining. So if I understand correctly there is a difference between a cold and dark saved flight and that same saved flight made default? Never to old to learn I guess. I didn't know that...

Yes, that is precisely why many of the more advanced addon aircraft developers make a point to recommend (insist even!) that one load the default aircraft before loading the addon.

My default flight is wherever I happen to be developing scenery for, with the Finney Crosshairs in slew mode.

No, I would disgree with that generalization.I just tried the XP demo. Pretty, but that's about all I can say positive about it. It's not that it's horrible... it's just not good enough for purchase. The base flight models are severely (not marginally) flawed. They're far, far worse than any of the base FSX flight models. The King Air C90 flat out shocked me at how horribly wrong it's flight dynamics are. Not a 'wee bit'... like WAAY off.Either the weather in XP is unsafe for casual flight (constant, severe turbulance)... or the inherent stability that aircraft have (by design) is completely absent from XP.As for the user interface... I'll be nice and not even say anything further regarding it.I could go on and on... but to be honest... it's not what they claim with regards to realism (I found certain laws-of-physics requirements in flight dynamics missing)... and it's certainly not worth the asking price for it's flaws.

To be fair, I don't think you spent enough time with X-Plane as this sounds like a knee-jerk reaction. The interface takes some getting used to, I'll concede that, but it's logical and efficient once you figure it out (which doesn't take long), and while I can't say anything about the accuracy of the individual planes, I can say that you can get that stable feel you think is missing if you fine-tune the joystick and control settings (allowing the simulator to automatically compensate for roll, for example). When I first tried the XP10 demo, I had a heck of time getting the 172 to fly straight and level with the default settings, but now after tweaking things properly, it feels like it should -- or at least like I think it should.

To be fair, I don't think you spent enough time with X-Plane as this sounds like a knee-jerk reaction. The interface takes some getting used to, I'll concede that, but it's logical and efficient once you figure it out (which doesn't take long), and while I can't say anything about the accuracy of the individual planes, I can say that you can get that stable feel you think is missing if you fine-tune the joystick and control settings (allowing the simulator to automatically compensate for roll, for example). When I first tried the XP10 demo, I had a heck of time getting the 172 to fly straight and level with the default settings, but now after tweaking things properly, it feels like it should -- or at least like I think it should.

The UI violates pretty much every known rule of UI design. It's just really bad. Sorry.As for the rest... one shouldn't have to spend literally hours working on their joystick configuration to get an aircraft to behave properly. That's a base flaw in the code's design to mandate that. Imagine if you purchased a brand new 172 and you had to spend hours getting the control yoke to correctly control the aircraft. I think, for the price... you might question your purchase.

As for the rest... one shouldn't have to spend literally hours working on their joystick configuration to get an aircraft to behave properly.

It doesn't take hours. For me it was around 15-minutes, 20 at the most -- basically setting a null zone for my joystick and deciding how much assistance I wanted from the sim to compensate for roll, yaw, and pitch. It's certainly not the labor intensive process you make it out to be.So now the question is whether or not a consumer should be expected to do that. Here's the thing: conveying the feeling of flying an aircraft while you're sitting in front of a computer is a very subjective thing. What feels right to one person will feel wrong to another (there's also a lot of variation in what hardware we use; some of us have relatively low-quality joysticks while others have high quality yokes that might just as well be attached to a real airplane). What if the default settings go too far the other way and suddenly all the planes are rock solid stable as if they're driving on invisible roads? People would complain about that. What if they tried to split the difference so that it's not too twitchy and not too stable? Well, people would complain about that, too.I suppose they could make a better out-of-the-box impression with settings at the middle point, but anybody who's serious about simming is going to crack open the settings and tune things to their preference anyway. Maybe Laminar should consider forcing that point with a first-time pop-up telling you to adjust your joystick settings before flying.

It doesn't take hours. For me it was around 15-minutes, 20 at the most -- basically setting a null zone for my joystick and deciding how much assistance I wanted from the sim to compensate for roll, yaw, and pitch. It's certainly not the labor intensive process you make it out to be.So now the question is whether or not a consumer should be expected to do that. Here's the thing: conveying the feeling of flying an aircraft while you're sitting in front of a computer is a very subjective thing. What feels right to one person will feel wrong to another. What if the default settings go too far the other way and suddenly all the planes are rock solid stable as if they're driving on invisible roads? People would complain about that. What if they tried to split the difference so that it's not too twitchy and not too stable? Well, people would complain about that, too.I suppose they could make a better out-of-the-box impression with settings at the middle point, but anybody who's serious about simming is going to crack open the settings and tune things to their preference anyway. I suppose Laminar could force that point by having a first-time pop-up telling you to adjust your joystick settings before flying for the first time.

For the price-point... it should have something already in place.

For the price-point... it should have something already in place.

You completely missed the point: There's no such thing as "one size fits all" for this sort of thing. Whatever Laminar comes up with as the "default" setting will still be "wrong" for the majority of simmers who will still have to take the time to tune things to their preference. That's not going to change whether the sliders start full right, full left, or in the middle.

You completely missed the point: There's no such thing as "one size fits all" for this sort of thing. Whatever Laminar comes up with as the "default" setting will still be "wrong" for the majority of simmers who will still have to take the time to tune things to their preference. That's not going to change whether the sliders start full right, full left, or in the middle.

With some settings already in place... there is functional example of how to set things up.

With some settings already in place... there is functional example of how to set things up.

That may be, but it doesn't support your claim that customers shouldn't be expected to tune the software to their liking. Actually, I think anybody who picks up a serious flight simulator and doesn't expect to have to make some adjustments has the wrong expectations.

XP has always been like this, if your new to X-Plane it is different from the MSFS series.How many actually use the default settings in FS9 & FSX, I've always had to change the settings to work the way I wanted.So what's the big deal?