Admins, better delete now. OK, Clouds look good, night looks great, that's where this ends. For all real pilots out there, if you think this is "as real as it gets" GET REAL! Flight dynamics are as far from real as possible, I've never flown a plane (in real life) as unstable as this sim portrays! If real planes flew like this, I would turn in my license. As for the "plausable world", WHATEVER. This sim is a sad attempt at mimicing the real world, It still feels like your flying in a strange, uninhabited, false interpritation of what is REAL. I have an airport in Las Vegas in the sim, that dosn't acually exist in real life, c'mon. Cities are completely WRONG, and don't remotely resemble the accual thing. I even attempted to purchase the Carenado aircaft to dampen the effect, but to no avail. You can't throw together good clouds and night lighting, and call it a good sim. I understand that Lemar has a limited crew, but maybe they should throw in the towel. I think FLIGHT will well surpass this sim in realism, EVEN if it is just Hawaii. Sorry XP fans, I'm just being honest, I really wanted this to be a good experience. Really dissapointed.Peace :(

As a real pilot for 23 years I assume you are speaking of the default aircraft which are included-I agree-now go a little deeper if your curiosity and budget allows-cause I-m hooked-but I put it thru it's paces for about 3 weeks first before making a definitive...

Hehe. Thank you for sharing your knowledge, now I know so much more about Xplane. :(

Well unfortunately due to poor included aircraft and lack of default landmarks that many have taken for granted the last ten years I think this will be the reaction of many who try this great sim for the first time for a short while and discard it-a real shame...cause it has so much to offer for those who dig a little..

As a real pilot for 23 years I assume you are speaking of the default aircraft which are included-I agree-now go a little deeper if your curiosity and budget allows-cause I-m hooked-but I put it thru it's paces for about 3 weeks first before making a definitive...

Geof, I purchased the Carenado F33 and 172. The planes are GREAT, as Carenado make a great product, but sorry, the sim is lacking soooo much, and, I feel as though Microsoft has the flight dynamics closer to real. I know you like it, but it's lacking something fierce for me. You can't tell me that the take-off's and landings are as yours are in real life. The sim makes, even the best add-ons, feel just plain reakless. TO's and Landings feel like a debacle, at best. Can you say that the planes that you have flown in real life act like this? I don't have as many years flying as you (just 7 years), but I have flown many aircraft, from 150's to Cessna 421, but NONE act like this sim portrays. Airplanes are inharently STABLE, why dose this sim throw them around SO much? FSX seems to keep it under control more realiscally. I DO wish that this sim measured up, I didn't think that FSX was a great sim, do to many problems, but I had high hopes for this one, as I do Flight.

Hehe. Thank you for sharing your knowledge, now I know so much more about Xplane. :(

Thanx Jason, It's nothing personal. We all have our opinions.

The takeoffs and landings in the f33a are what sold me-had one for 11years. Answer is yes - and I have no loyalty to any sim.

Well unfortunately due to poor included aircraft and lack of default landmarks that many have taken for granted the last ten years I think this will be the reaction of many who try this great sim for the first time for a short while and discard it-a real shame...cause it has so much to offer for those who dig a little..

Geofa, I will not Disguard it, I just spent $100 on it, with the Carenado add-ons. (my wife would probably not let me) This is my first impression, I will attempt to better it. I just feel like it's got serious issues.

I agree about the defaults-awful-unstable etc. the f33-great-and no joystick adjustment mojo needed.

The takeoffs and landings in the f33a are what sold me-had one for 11years. Answer is yes - and I have no loyalty to any sim.

I'll go with you on this Geofa, because I have never flown an F33, but I have many 172's. Maybe it's Carenados design, but it's not realistic. As for the F33, I guess I'll steer clear of it, I like Mooneys better anyway. :( J/K

Yep -the default 172 is unstable as most of the defaults. Go with a stable ( e.g. ) add on and report back...As for the f33 if you are going to steer clear of it you will not have the closest feeling of one in a sim..Haven't tried the Carenado 172 but they have sure nailed the archer/f33

Well unfortunately due to poor included aircraft and lack of default landmarks that many have taken for granted the last ten years I think this will be the reaction of many who try this great sim for the first time for a short while and discard it-a real shame...cause it has so much to offer for those who dig a little..

I feel that this sim is great in some aspects, but SOOO lacking in others. The weather is something that Microsoft could take a lesson from, it's great. This is a sim though, and should simulate the real world the best that it can. Landmarks, as you know from flying, are a very real aspect of flying, not just clouds and pretty lights. I do alot of sight-seeing when I fly, so what I SEE is very important to me.

Yep -the default 172 is unstable as most of the defaults. Go with a stable ( e.g. ) add on and report back...As for the f33 if you are going to steer clear of it you will not have the closest feeling of one in a sim..Haven't tried the Carenado 172 but they have sure nailed the archer/f33

Maybe I'll try the archer, as it's my favorite rental for flying sight-seeing. I have it for FSX, but havn't tried on XP. Thax for the info.

Yep -the default 172 is unstable as most of the defaults. Go with a stable ( e.g. ) add on and report back...As for the f33 if you are going to steer clear of it you will not have the closest feeling of one in a sim..Haven't tried the Carenado 172 but they have sure nailed the archer/f33

Also Geofa, I'm talking about the Carenado 172, not the default.

Well to be honest the landmarks in fs while they exist are pretty lame and not rw looking at all. With that in mind- the promise is that Xplane should be populated with similar in a couple months if we can believe the promises. To be fair did we see similar complaints about FSX upon release ( deserts, landclass etc.).Me-first time I've landed a bonanza where I actually felt I was-chock up takeoffs too...and even real ( or I should say more real prop sounds than fs ever did)..Want accurate mp/ airspeed maybe not-but accurate feel-voila! As for the c172 don't know-no interest on my part there.

Well to be honest the landmarks in fs while they exist are pretty lame and not rw looking at all. With that in mind- the promise is that Xplane should be populated with similar in a couple months if we can believe the promises. To be fair did we see similar complaints about FSX upon release ( deserts, landclass etc.).Me-first time I've landed a bonanza where I actually felt I was-chock up takeoffs too...and even real ( or I should say more real prop sounds than fs ever did)..

FSX was lacking, that's an understatment. But we've come to a time where we expect more from our sims, with advancment. (deserts looked awful in FSX) I will continue to give XP10 a chance, It will just take ALOT of add-on's to make it seem "plausable".

Well to be honest the landmarks in fs while they exist are pretty lame and not rw looking at all. With that in mind- the promise is that Xplane should be populated with similar in a couple months if we can believe the promises. To be fair did we see similar complaints about FSX upon release ( deserts, landclass etc.).Me-first time I've landed a bonanza where I actually felt I was-chock up takeoffs too...and even real ( or I should say more real prop sounds than fs ever did)..

To me- It's better to have Lame looking accual landmarks, than good looking ones that don't even exsist.

Agree with everything Geofa has said.I notice your training for your IR.What initially got me into X-plane was practising instrument scans and limited panel scenarios. The gauges in X-plane and the failure models are excellent. Plus it is easy to set up approaches and subsequently review your performance.Suggest stick with it (not the world's most welcoming piece of software.)TIM

Agree with everything Geofa has said.I notice your training for your IR.What initially got me into X-plane was practising instrument scans and limited panel scenarios. The gauges in X-plane and the failure models are excellent. Plus it is easy to set up approaches and subsequently review your performance.Suggest stick with it (not the world's most welcoming piece of software.)TIM

I really don't try to use any "home sim" for training, although there are some good aspects. My instrument scan is good, and I don't feel that any sim imulates performance very well. Some things are just better left under the "hood". (IQ limiting devices) I will stick with it, but only as a Sim/Game. :biggrin:Tim