This is exactly what I have said on two occasions now. It really would transform a new users initial impressions.

If I were Austin, I would hire some 3PD to make me ONE aircraft with a spot-on flight model to be included into the list of XP's default aircraft. This aircraft should be the one that the user sees when running XP for the first time ever. I would prefer that to be a simple GA aircraft, not the 747.

This is exactly what I have said on two occasions now. It really would transform a new users initial impressions.

Maybe someone who has a good connection can try to reason with him. I certainly won't try that again.

Let me just recapture a few points of this discussion (I didn't read all posts, so sorry if I missed something):

• everyone seems to agree that the flight models of XP's default aircraft are a little off
• 3PDs have shown that aircraft addons with accurate flight models can be produced
• so nothing is wrong with XP itself

However, from a customer perspective:

• people read Austin's statements such as "X-Plane’s accuracy (in flight model) ... make it the ultimate flight simulation experience"
• they download the demo to find out that this appears not to be true for the default planes
• they do not have the ability to decide whether this is because of poor modeling on the default planes or because XP is entirely broken
• not everyone will look into forums like this one to find out that the problem just lies with the default planes
• it's the first impression that lasts with many people. Not everyone is willing to give XP another shot if it didn't please them in the first place.

Conclusion to be drawn from this:If I were Austin, I would hire some 3PD to make me ONE aircraft with a spot-on flight model to be included into the list of XP's default aircraft. This aircraft should be the one that the user sees when running XP for the first time ever. I would prefer that to be a simple GA aircraft, not the 747.

Seems spot on to me.

Conclusion to be drawn from this:If I were Austin, I would hire some 3PD to make me ONE aircraft with a spot-on flight model to be included into the list of XP's default aircraft. This aircraft should be the one that the user sees when running XP for the first time ever. I would prefer that to be a simple GA aircraft, not the 747.

That seems like a very fair assessment. I've said before that Laminar Research could certainly take some steps to give X-Plane a better out-of-the-box impression, because as it is, you have to stick with it for a while to really start to appreciate the good stuff (but once you do, there's no going back!).

haha, if you delete them the installer will put them back with every update ;).

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?

Conclusion to be drawn from this:If I were Austin, I would hire some 3PD to make me ONE aircraft with a spot-on flight model to be included into the list of XP's default aircraft. This aircraft should be the one that the user sees when running XP for the first time ever. I would prefer that to be a simple GA aircraft, not the 747.

+1I once suggested hiring a few people to help with other aspects of this simulation, just as important as the default aircraft in regards to a perspective customers first impressions, and the "fanatical regulars" around here had me laying on a bed awaiting a lethal injection in no time. Glad to see I'm not the only one with their eyes open.Glen

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?

It depends. If you copy the aircraft to a different directory and apply the fixes there then the updater will leave it alone since it only looks at the default paths. Otherwise, it will ask if you want to overwrite the file with the default, which can be a pain if you have a lot of custom files in the default path since it'll ask about each one.

Maybe simply renaming the aircraft folder would be enough to prevent the updater looking at it.

In that case, the updater will restore the default directory and files but leave the renamed directory alone.

It depends. If you copy the aircraft to a different directory and apply the fixes there then the updater will leave it alone since it only looks at the default paths. Otherwise, it will ask if you want to overwrite the file with the default, which can be a pain if you have a lot of custom files in the default path since it'll ask about each one.

Maybe simply renaming the aircraft folder would be enough to prevent the updater looking at it.

In that case, the updater will restore the default directory and files but leave the renamed directory alone.

Thanks, sometimes asking a stupid question without actually thinking is quicker than figuring out the logical yourself :-)

Conclusion to be drawn from this:If I were Austin, I would hire some 3PD to make me ONE aircraft with a spot-on flight model to be included into the list of XP's default aircraft. This aircraft should be the one that the user sees when running XP for the first time ever. I would prefer that to be a simple GA aircraft, not the 747.

I believe Austin is good at programming or code; I do not think he is good at developing/producing a good aircraft using his own aircraft creation tool, Planemaker.Hence, I'd thorougly agree with the quoted conclusion. Howevever, I'd go a little farther and say he should do the same for at least one aircraft in each default category and call the folder "Blade Element Theory OPTIMISED" or "BET OPTIMIZED". The question is will Austin accept it and follow through with it ?How about it, Austin ?

Here we go again!

Conclusion to be drawn from this:If I were Austin, I would hire some 3PD to make me ONE aircraft with a spot-on flight model to be included into the list of XP's default aircraft. This aircraft should be the one that the user sees when running XP for the first time ever. I would prefer that to be a simple GA aircraft, not the 747.

I agree 100% with you. Just one good C172.

OK, I will try it once more and e-mail Austin my suggestion. I hope I'm not yet in his FSX-nut folder...Will report back.(Taking a deep breath...)

I think Austin could get into a deal with a very good developer for X-Plane, and include one of his airplane addon inside X-PLane as default, to showcase the FM he is making people believe comes with X-Plane without any extra charge. That would be simple and when someone complains about X-Plane, you could just say, go fly the xxxxxx plane inside your X-Plane installed and experience the true X-Plane experience.