A2A working on Cessna 172?

[simmerhead 885]

Cryptic message about C172 work being done on Twitter from Lewis Bloomfield of A2A Simulations!

[audiohavoc 24]

Yes, and a Piper.

[Tom_G_2010 6]

Swweeeeeettttt!!!!!! :Applause:

 

 

My vote would be for a 1977 172N with original steam gauges and a fully upgraded avionics stack. :Praying:

 

I wonder if sending them a picture of my sim pit project would be enough of a hint

[simmerhead 885]

Finally some "accusim" GA aircraft!

[RudiJG1 172]

Finally some "accusim" GA aircraft!

 

http://www.a2asimulations.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=36&zenid=08ac16baf21e7494be7e6f606a2fb9c3

[simmerhead 885]

http://www.a2asimulations.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=36&zenid=08ac16baf21e7494be7e6f606a2fb9c3

 

Had that girl since she was released. A very fine birdy, but a tad slow for everyday use. Since I often have the chance to fly a C172 and Arrow, these are the aircraft I really crave for in the sim. Of course a good King Air of PMDG standards is on top of my list, but seems nobody is up for the challange.

[Nurmblitz 59]

Waste of skills and resources. Market is flooded with good or superior quality ga planes. A2A is master in its field of engine management simulation, it is really beyond my comprehension why to offer a plane that even microsoft has modelled well in fsx.

[simmerhead 885]

I beg to differ. Market is flooded with planes, but not good or superiour ones. I've got four different C172s in my hangar, and none of them are superiour. A higly accurate C172 is most welcomed by many since this is an aircraft many fly in the real world. What A2A showed with the Cub is that they can make excellent flight dynamics as well. Most FSX aircraft are either too stable or too responsive. A2A has, at least with the Cub, managed to make things feel right.

[xplanery 250]

Indeed, I think A2A will be able to make a Cessna 172 that will be totally superior to any of the existing ones that aren't really particularly good compared to stuff that A2A has released before.

[Tom_G_2010 6]

Waste of skills and resources. Market is flooded with good or superior quality ga planes. A2A is master in its field of engine management simulation, it is really beyond my comprehension why to offer a plane that even microsoft has modelled well in fsx.

 

As compared to a real 172 the stock FSX 172 is way off the mark!

 

The payware add on 172s that I have (Flight One and Carenado) come much closer but still have short comings. I welcome another vendors shot at it, in particular one with a reputation like A2A's.

 

As for a waste of skill and resource, not if they produce a more faithful copy of the original. If the word hits the street that it's a step up in fidelity and people purchase it for that reason it could net them a good ROI against their development dollars. Meeting a consumer need/desire and making money doing it is hardly a waste, it's good business.

[RudiJG1 172]

Having tried most if not all 172s available so far, I have high expectations for both the A2A and RealAir versions...and knowing myself, I'll probably get both! :lol:

[Nurmblitz 59]

There is discussion going on about this matter just a few clicks away. It seems that the default c172 is in good use in some flight schools, so it can't be that bad.

[Griphos 138]

It's that bad. It's just that the flight schools have limited options. Having flown lots of hours in a real C172, I can't fly the default. It's just too far off.