Well, first, there is one born every minute (as my father taught me) and second, because of this sad fact in life I feel the need to **HELP** out those lost in some type of mind set that believes "I want everything perfect for 5 dollars". And of course there are always those new "wise guy posters" at products releases (unknowns with "opinion attitude" guised as experts in everything aircraft related but is always negative mixed with happy faces ) who spout loads of balogna without the bread. Does that help you? Best Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]http://www.rawbw.com/~bdoolin/shinault/Animation1.gifCaution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)AMD 64 3200+ | ASUS KV8 DELUXE | GFORCE 5700 ULTRA @535/1000 | Maxtor 6Y080M0 SATA 80 GIG | 512 DDR 400 | Windows Xp Pro | Windows Xp Pro 64 |

I am siding 150% with Dillon on this one. I want to buy an addon more close to the real 172's that I fly not a similar entertainment only one which is not much better than the default.Carmine http://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/Images/wave.gif

You guys are missing what is meant by "entertainment". ALL fs add-ons fall under this heading......Best Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]http://www.rawbw.com/~bdoolin/shinault/Animation1.gifCaution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)AMD 64 3200+ | ASUS KV8 DELUXE | GFORCE 5700 ULTRA @535/1000 | Maxtor 6Y080M0 SATA 80 GIG | 512 DDR 400 | Windows Xp Pro | Windows Xp Pro 64 |

"The shape of the 172N is NOT the same as the 172R"A great place to see the truth of this is at aso.com--browse the aircraft for sale there and you'll note differences in the 172's and the 182's as years went by--even the 177's.The 177 is an interesting one because over time, the tail grew larger, the windshield shape changed, and even the wheel pants changed their shape. I actually think the 60's vintage 177's are among the best looking GA aircraft--I almost went in halves on a 69 Cardinal until I put my PPL lessons on hold. Now that I'm starting for my Sport Pilot cert instead, I imagine the closest I'll come to any Cessna is a Trike--and almost all of them look ugly even parked next to a 172 :)-Jphn

I knew this post would open a can of worms like this...Jim Rhodes and Steve: I fly out of Henderson Executive, and Skypark depending where I'm at. I've also flown around the Phillipines, much of the east coast and new england, among other places. I wasn't saying that the plane should autofly itself, I'd be a pretty boring addon if it did, and a real 172 requires some forward pressure on the yoke after takeoff. All I'm saying, and the idea behind this post was...MS's 172 is not a piece of crap. Most of the -172's I've flown are 80's model 172N's.Randy J. Smith:>Any Tom Dick or Harry can fly a -172.Granted, that's a valid point and I learned to fly in one many years ago. I've got around 2000 logged hours (plus about 600 unlogged) in them, so I think I'm qualified to talk about the -172, I'll email you my logbook records if you want them. (The reason that 75% of my time is in Skyhawks is it was the only plane I could afford to fly a couple of guys around in) I've only flown around 20 hours in the new -172's so granted, I'm much more familiar with -172's which were built, judging by the way you talk, before you were born. You can teach a monkey to fly an airplane and there is nothing I dislike more than a pilot who thinks he's god's gift to mankind. You really need to calm down.

This 172 is not too far off from the "training" 172. In fact it is pretty close. It is not like we said "hey, lets take this stuff out of the aircraft and release it for $24.95". I think it should be clarified what we are talking about when we mention "training".The key differences are the supporting applications that are geared for the flight instructor/student relationship, as well as the tools that offer the proper setup, debriefing, configuration, scenarios, and more.I hope this clarifies some differences.

Just like I thought, he missed a Prozac treatment... :-roll

>Just my .02 cents, please add your comments, >The microsoft 172 is good enoughMy comments are these:The default 172 panel is an insult to everyone who every flew a real airplane (no matter which) in real life. It is a work of a 14-year old graphics apprentice whose familiarity with airplanes is through cartoons.Flight model is close to a joke, in pitch it behaves like a demented yoyo. Someone asked if if he could use this airplane for his preliminary training I told him to stay away from it at least by 200 ft ;-)So yes, I am here to say that MS' 172 is a piece of crap. I may have few strong opinions but this is one of them.I have over 200 hours on C172, the rest are low wing aircraft.Michael J.WinXP-Home,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8, Radeon X800 Pro,WD 36GB Raptor,1 GB PC3200

Flight1 uses the term 'Entertainment' in the context of the product being dumbed down in some sort of way... Not fully being what it could be...

Michael J., that is so far from the truth I have trouble believeing you actually wrote that. The default 172 flight model is great. Try it with the CH Yoke & Peddles and get back to me.

"I want to buy an addon more close to the real 172's that I fly not a similar entertainment only one which is not much better than the default."This will be easier said than done. The real problem is that the maker of such an add-on must design it to work on any number of varied pieces of hardware. And that's not easy to do and make the product perform consistently. For this reason I believe MSFS in it's "store-bought" state will always be an "entertainment" package.Cheers,GregEdited to add quotes.

>But there is also a difference between quirks and certain>areas of flight which are based on technique. I have never>seen any aircraft (and I fly plenty of them) that would depart>soil in the takeoff trim position and would not require a trim>change once airborne.>That is the point that Steve and I are making.Jim,Respectfully, most of us know that trim adjustment is necessary on takeoff. That's pilot 101 and although we all know you're a very experienced pilot, we're not all noobies. A little more nose up trim is usually needed to hold Vy in a full power climb on takeoff, but in my experience no plane has ever pitched nose up 30 degrees and immediately stalled (as the virtual Skyhawk does for me) simply because it needed a slight trim adjustment on takeoff. I continue to love the other Flight1 products I've purchased, and I'm sure in time the Skyhawk as well, but I think you are minimizing the degree to which this problem is being experienced (by apparently only some). I can assure you that with me it's not user ignorance with the proper use of trim (if it was I'd be dead by now), or improper expectations. I'll shut up now and this'll be the last you'll hear on the subject from me. Thanks for reading.-Neil

Good point, the hard data is out there to be found and used in order to support claims.Speaking personally, if I publicly questioned someone's visual model, I would want to have some hard data backing me up such as comparison screenshots of the SAME model. This would hold true even if I were an expert on the aircraft because writing about the differences is much less precise, objective, and instructive to forum readers than simply illustrating the differences. The only side-by-side, pictorial comparison I've seen regarding the Flight1 visual model was in another thread in this forum. There, the only substantial difference I observed was the wing dihedral (although this might be due to reasons other than the visual model).

>Randy why do you always have to blow a gasket over everything??? Your not on any kind of medication are you??? I agree. Sounds like an infomercial for Flight1. He attacked another guy in the other post on the 172 as well. Chill pill man.

Sounds like you are feeding the peanut gallery there Len, insted of sticking your foot in your mouth why don't you post something that has to do with this flight 1 subject and keep your personal bs to yourself? Best Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]http://www.rawbw.com/~bdoolin/shinault/Animation1.gifCaution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)AMD 64 3200+ | ASUS KV8 DELUXE | GFORCE 5700 ULTRA @535/1000 | Maxtor 6Y080M0 SATA 80 GIG | 512 DDR 400 | Windows Xp Pro | Windows Xp Pro 64 |