How would you rate the default C172?

[Sizel 4]

You cant go wrong with A2A and RealAir. Sortof amusing that they're both making the same aircraft at the same time. Though 172's might be quite different depending on model and variant.

 

As long as it's not a glass cockpit it's a certain buy, whichever is released first.

 

+1 Personally i Say no to glass cockpits.

 

Too many dimensions

 

Far out man!

[Hirschi 1]

+1 Personally i Say no to glass cockpits.

 

First, I was not the biggest fan of the glass cockpit as well. No real gauges and the last thing I need during flying is to fight through menus and submenus. But the longer I used and trained with it the better became the familiarization. Now I like it because everything is well arranged around your view spots and if you set it up properly, you have all the infos you need right where you expect and need them. It's a shame that Microsoft didn't implement a better G1000 into the default a/c.

But I think its totally personal preference. Some like a cockpit full of analogue gauges and a 3rd seat for the navigator, other like modern "bling bling"

 

Regards

Hirschi

[Mean Aerodynamic Chord 269]

I don't know much about those models, but I think that the SP is a newer version?

This is what the N looks like: (This is actually a picture from Carenado's 172N)

 

And this is what the 172SP looks like: (Real photo)

[FlyGeordie 17]

The default FSX C172 is one of the better stock VCs, texture-wise. And since installing the Alexander Metzger FDE for it I now fly it more than the Carenado C172N, as I prefer newer 172 variants, due to flying them in the real world (never flew any 172 older than a 'R' model).

[ChaoticBeauty 6,692]

@linux731: Thank you for the comparison. I was wondering why the Carenado version had a white cockpit.

[LAdamson 240]

First, I was not the biggest fan of the glass cockpit as well. No real gauges and the last thing I need during flying is to fight through menus and submenus. But the longer I used and trained with it the better became the familiarization. Now I like it because everything is well arranged around your view spots and if you set it up properly, you have all the infos you need right where you expect and need them. It's a shame that Microsoft didn't implement a better G1000 into the default a/c.

But I think its totally personal preference. Some like a cockpit full of analogue gauges and a 3rd seat for the navigator, other like modern "bling bling"

 

 

For simming, on a monitor, I don't prefer glass.........as it seems to take up too much screen space to see anything. For real life, I'll take Glass (such as the Garmin 1000 & beyond) anyday, over the six pac. I'm a real life fan of exact coordinates, real time in flight weather, and synthetic vision if worse goes to worse.

[LHookins 3,113]

For real life, I'll take Glass

 

It's time to post that incredible pic of the glass cockpit again.

 

Hook

[Hirschi 1]

For simming, on a monitor, I don't prefer glass.........as it seems to take up too much screen space to see anything.

Hehe, I always feel like "dwarfs on a plane" but shift+return is my addition to the preflight checklist.

 

Regards

Hirschi

[Bartbear 10]

For me the default C172 was ok, but after installing RealAir's tweaks available at the link below, and adding the C172 2D cockpit found in the library here, it has become one of my favorites.

http://www.realairsi...?page=downloads

 

I use the RealAir air- file to. It's really good with slips and spins.

The download page says: 'Cessna 172 for 2004' but it's compatible with FSX with no problems.

[billn53 12]

I use the RealAir air- file to. It's really good with slips and spins.

The download page says: 'Cessna 172 for 2004' but it's compatible with FSX with no problems.

 

Ditto what Bart says. I'm presently earning my instrument rating in a G1000 Skyhawk and the RealAir mod makes the default C172 perform much closer to what I see in the real aircraft.

 

As others have noted, the Microsoft rendition of the G1000 leaves a lot to be desired. Fortunately there are some payware products (e.g., Mindstar Aviation's G1000 panel) that are much better.

[Sizel 4]

First, I was not the biggest fan of the glass cockpit as well. No real gauges and the last thing I need during flying is to fight through menus and submenus. But the longer I used and trained with it the better became the familiarization. Now I like it because everything is well arranged around your view spots and if you set it up properly, you have all the infos you need right where you expect and need them. It's a shame that Microsoft didn't implement a better G1000 into the default a/c.

But I think its totally personal preference. Some like a cockpit full of analogue gauges and a 3rd seat for the navigator, other like modern "bling bling"

 

Regards

Hirschi

 

Your right. I agree. I just don't like the look of the glass cockpit and prefer Analogue Gauges. It tends to be a FPS drain too. Each to there own and all that : )