OK, I will try it once more and e-mail Austin my suggestion.

While you are at it, Always ask for Double what you need/want. At the very least, even if what you asked for is slashed in half, you got what you needed/wanted and if you get more, well, pat yourself in the back and celebrate.Couldn't hurt, could it ? That's the logic my mentor suggested using when putting together a budget for an upcoming project. It succeeded more often than not. And, whatever happens, you can't blame yourself for not trying !Like I said before, ask for the BET Optimized !Edit :BET Optimized = "Blade Element Theory OPTIMIZED"

Back in v9 I exchanged many emails with Austin. I was then devoted to jet engine tweaking for FSX, including those for a well known Airbus.... and tried using the exquisite AIrplaneMaker to get some good results... Nah, no way... (maybe that's why PMDG can't really consider airliners for xplane yet...). Xplane does not even model simple jet engine basics like fan windmill, very important for inflight restarts... Check the rather irrealistic N1 you get when your engine quits...

in FSX and FS9, without a gauge coded to simulate the engine windmill in a jet engine, shut down the engine will make it stop and that's it. No windmill, no windmill start.and I have a lot of time editing the JT8D-17 for the tinmouse FD.also, I would like to know the Real Life flight time in a C172 of every one here.I have at least 80 hrs in C172 and, even not being perfect, is a lot more accurate than the C172 FM in FSX and 9.

also, I would like to know the Real Life flight time in a C172 of every one here.

ZERO for me.For armchair amateur pilots like me, that is one good reason to have real world comparable aircraft as part of the default aircraft package ! I would tend to agree that a C172 default or a Piper Malibu would be good choices, considering the more detailed scenery that is possible with X-plane.However, one aircraft in each default category optimized for the XPX would be far more preferable. That way, whether you are an armchair pilot, a real world student pilot or a veteran military or commercial airline pilot, you get a chance to experience the different aircraft that are as close to the real world aircraft as may be possible to create in a flight simulator.Now that would be a good marketing point.

ZERO for me.

so I rest my case.

For armchair amateur pilots like me, that is one good reason for real world comparable aircraft as part of the default aircraft package ! I would tend to agree a C172 default or a Piper Malibu would be good choices, considering the more detailed scenery that is possible with X-plane.However, one aircraft in each default category optimized for the XPX would be far more preferable. That way, whether you are an armchair pilot, a real world student pilot or a veteran military or commercial airline pilot, you get a chance to experience the different aircraft that are as close to the real aircraft as may be possible to create in a flight simulator.Now that would be a good marketing point.

As I said with my little 80 hours in command of a C172M, the default C172SP in XP9 and XPX is light years ahead of performance and handling characteristics that a RL C172 displays when compared with its peers (FS9 and FSX).And as a licensed commercial pilot I will easily explain this for you and for a lot more simmers:The behavior in flight of 'FAR 23' aircraft is by far general for all. With exception of few cases, because of its mtow and eow, all GA single engine aircraft will behave in the same way. There is, almost no residual mommentum. If you release control force, in calm air, properly trimmed (by control tabs and elevator trim) it will mantain that condition. Start a turn and release the force in the control wheel, it will remain in that bank. etc. They are light, they are 5000lbs or less.With small corrections in the FM, you can achieve the "fine" tuning necessary to achieve a very close representation of real flight characteristics of a C172SP.But it is a common error for "hardcore simmers" to expect a small amount of the same momentum that we have in a 737. It is like expect the behavior of a cargo ship in a motorboat.In fact, you can expect a very small momentum in heavy weight GA aircraft (I only noticed a small delay in control command and response in a full loaded C210 (2 pilots, 4 passenger, full fuel) and in a full loaded PA-34-220T).and in the 73G simulator, but it was a narrow body jet liner and far off my coments.now, back to your arguments... Does exists, in MSFS's series, one default aircraft that displays the characteristics of flight of a real world aircraft?no.Does exists, in X-Plane series, one default aircraft that displays the characteristics of flight of a real world aircraft?no.But which of them the flight characteristics are more close for the real deal?my answer is X-Plane C172.

Do I assume that if anyone were to bother to fix/update any of the defaults, the installer will not only replace deleted aircraft, but also overwrite fixed files too?

The installer knows you made changes to the files and will ask if it should overwrite or keep what's there. But basically, what I do (e.g. I did some modifiocations to the default C90) is: Just make a copy of the original folder and place it to where my favorites are. Wich means actually, I never touch the "real" defaults again and let the installer do its work.

Just tried the default 747 for the first time and it's definitely one of the best default planes. Inertia, control response, it handles and feels similar to a RW 747 simulator.

Yeah Austin has a real good video of it doing sustained 90 degree banks around Seattle at 500 feet! :(

I heard from the X-Plane Blog that the X-Plane developer Shade Tree Micro Aviation doesn't make the better looking, but do make one of the most flight dynamic accurate addons for X-Plane. Did anyone try them yet? They seem to have developed a very nice Pilatus. I'm also curious to try Goran DC3 when it gets ready to see what XPlane 10 is capable from the hands of a first class X-PLane developer

Yeah Austin has a real good video of it doing sustained 90 degree banks around Seattle at 500 feet! :(

You mean implausible maneuvers like these?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHU86yuG1Aohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOzq7amavKsMarcoSeems like you can even do a 360 aileron roll on a 747 Level-D sim:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxs5v-mO2csMarco

You mean implausible maneuvers like these?MarcoSeems like you can even do a 360 aileron roll on a 747 Level-D sim:Marco

and you can probably do one in real life, but I don't think you'll get too many takers. Remember Tex Johnson did it in a Boeing 707 during it's testing. You can't however keep a plane level in a sustained high angle bank, without losing altitude fast, because of the loss of lift. At 500ft in in a 747 it would be suicide!!

Well, in a high speed bank it's all a matter of how much vertical component of lift there is. Mainly produced by wings plus some contribution of fuselage. Of course above a certain bank angle, max G-loads are exceeded. But if overstress damages could be "disabled" in real life too, I think you could pull a very sustained high bank turn even in a 747.

The behavior in flight of 'FAR 23' aircraft is by far general for all. With exception of few cases, because of its mtow and eow, all GA single engine aircraft will behave in the same way. There is, almost no residual mommentum. If you release control force, in calm air, properly trimmed (by control tabs and elevator trim) it will mantain that condition. Start a turn and release the force in the control wheel, it will remain in that bank. etc. They are light, they are 5000lbs or less.

Actually, they don't behave the same way. I don't have 80 hrs in a Cessna 172. At least I don't think I do, because I prefered low wing Pipers; and I don't care to go years back, to add up Cessna hours. Never the less, I do remember some maneuvers years ago in a 172 just for the purpose of comparing to a flight sim model. As I remember, I could quickly swing the yoke to the left or right, and the plane would "spring" back. It would actually go a bit beyond level, and then back to level. It had a lot of positive stability. The X-Plane won't do this, and the FSX model doesn't do it enough. X-Plane acts like my RV6............which does NOT act like a Cessna. The RV is more like a "purpose built" aerobatic plane, that just wants to stay at the bank angle that you put it at.Other than that, both the XP & FSX default Cessna 172s get me from point A to B with real pilot inputs. I don't really worry if the simulated bank angle is correct in these planes. IMO, the 172 is a bit sluggish in speed and climb rate for my tastes. That's because I live at 4600' msl to start with. I just don't see anything special about the X-Plane version, that I'd call light years ahead. I do prefer the XP virtual cockpit.L.Adamson

I find it fascinating that even experienced pilots will disagree over what feels real in a desktop simulator.

The RV-6a in MS Flight is pretty good, I don't know if it's "top-level" but probably the best default airplane I have ever flown, and I fly a 9 IRL.

Come on Ping Pong - a little bit of honesty mate. :( The RV-6A in MS Flight is a bought and paid for Add-on separate from the MS Flight program.THE default aircraft for MS Flight is that pathetic excuse for an aircraft the ICON A5 :( The best default aircraft I can think of is the Cessna 172 in the Fly! II simulator. Beautifully modelled, accurate detailed cockpit and handles great. For my money "If reality had a patent" Terminal Reality would own it..

The best default aircraft I can think of is the Cessna 172 in the Fly! II simulator. Beautifully modelled, accurate detailed cockpit and handles great. For my money "If reality had a patent" Terminal Reality would own it..

Fly! II or Fly! Legacy ?

I find it fascinating that even experienced pilots will disagree over what feels real in a desktop simulator.

A bit of sanity at last. Flight dynamics is really a SUBJECTIVE feeling that each individual will have sometimes wildly differing opinions on how a particular simulation truthfully simulates flight.I went back to the place of my previous employment. They had just installed a Aus$400,000 Kingair/Seneca simulator. A BIG 180 degree wrap around screen fed by 5 overhead projectors. A fiberglass cockpit with two pilot seals, dual controls (yoke and rudder) and center console for engine controls, elev trim, flaps and landing gear. The instrument panel was two led flat screen monitors with a mask with cut-outs for the instruments overlayed in front. By having interchangeable masks the panel could be either Kingair or Seneca. The whole thing is fully approved by CASA for pilot training. "would I like a go?" I got in and was quickly all fired up and taxi-ing. Turned onto the runway centerline. Hurtling down the runway and came time to ease back.. ease back... ease back (##### who left the flight control locks in??) Eventually the yoke started moving and we were climbing. "positive rate.. gear up" I turned to the boss and said "geez that took some force on the yoke - is that real" He replied "it had better be - force feedback was a $40,000 option!!!!". Being only used to the light centering spring on the Saitek yoke I will never get into an argument on the Avsim forums about fidelity of control and flight dynamics.Scenery was only modeled for about 5miles around the airport and was nothing spectacular. BUT the immersion factor was huge. I think it the peripheral vision plus the depth. The screen is about 10 ft in front of you. Eventually (about 5 mins.) it was time to land . I turned and lined up with the runway. Getting used to the load on the yoke. throttled back to 100 Kts, Flaps.. gear down and flew a strictly visual approach . Over the piano keys throttles to idle and just eased back on the yoke to let the aircraft settle onto the centerline.When I finally got out of the seat I was stoked. I felt like I had actually flown an aircraft.A feeling that I have never had with ANY desktop flight sim. "I want one" "I want one"I have a new found admiration of home cockpit builders and what they are trying to achieveAn even better simulation than what can be achieved with a desktop computer.Now if only I can convince the wife we should take out a second mortgage on the house.