How does these plane compare if you look at visuals (2D VC) flight model documentation extras. Which one is best? Why?Is there some other similary product that is better?I already got the Katana and SF260 addon and I'm looking for anothersingle engine GA plane for VFR flying but also with some IFR capacity?

The Dreamfleet Archer and F1 C172 are both equally good.Other great ones are the Aussim Piper Warriors, the Carenado Cessna 210, Dakota and the Beech Bonanzas. Plus the F1 Cardinal is very good.Real Air makes a fantastic Scout and Decathalon.:DThose are just a few of the great paywares. Plus all the freeware you can handle here.:D

These just happen to be my two favorite GA aircraft... The Archer is an updated FS2002 title... great 2d panel, so-so VC, pretty nice outside model, great handling.The F1 C172 is a brand new FS2004 title... super hi-rez 2d panel, fabulous hi-rez VC, very nice outside model, great handling.

>The F1 C172 is a brand new FS2004 title... super hi-rez 2d>panel, fabulous hi-rez VC, very nice outside model, great>handling. I have read somewhere that the F1 C172 only has a forward 2D view i.eif you look in another direction you don't see the scenery through the windows but without any part of the visible. Is it so? If so it's a thing I don't like.Is there anything about these two planes you don't like or which are better made in other products?

Before I took off for Florida, I installed the F1 C172 and I can only say it's top class--and very fps friendly as well given I still run an 800MHZ Win 98 system. Having just returned home to AZ, as soon as I get settled I'm going to enjoy the 172 some more.When I look out the sides, no problem seeing the scenery or the sides of the cabin and the wings. It has a very nice virtual cabin, cockpit, etc.... The 1.1 update also gave it a very accurate visual appearance.It doesn't display in FS2002 however, and probably won't unless Flight1 recompiles the mdl using the old SDK. Many developers are finally skipping FS2002--easier to stick to testing and debugging with one platform especially since FS2002 is showing its age.Attention to detail is top notch--the only thing I had noticed is within the VC, if you pull the yoke left or right and look towards the wingtips, the polys on the inboard edge of the wing outside the ailerons are missing. That may be by design--many developers will improve performance by removing polys that are in marginally visible areas. I only mentioned that so you don't think my eye is blind to flaws. You can find them in the most expensive models, since each one these days is made up of tens of thousands of polys.But truth is, like all of Flight1's other work, this is as best as they come.Now choosing between an Archer and 172 is a bit more challenging, since they are two different AC. Also remember that Carenado makes an Archer--take a look at their site. I have their V35 and I love it--it's quality work especially in the texturing.Since I had been waiting for a 172 for a long time, this one is a true blessing and has become my default GA aircraft.Hope this helps--Edit:Here's a link to some screenshots I posted before I left:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...&mesg_id=166519-John

Hmm... that is a tough one. Do you prefer to look under the wing or over it? :)You can't go wrong with either plane. The only differences between the two I would say is the documentation. The Archer documentation is very detailed, including detailed fuel planning. The Archer has been my favorite GA plane for a long time, and I have been using the Flight1 172 quite a lot lately as well.

The F1 C172 shows the virtual cockpit view when looking out the sides.In other words, you do see the aircraft (windows etc).Since the virtual cockpit is high resolution, this works very well.The 172 has replaced the Archer as my default aircraft...

I like the flight dynamics of the Piper Archer much mcuh better. Particularly in slow flight, Stalls and stall recovery.The 172R is more eye candy IMO. The 172R and the Piper ARcher's performance by numbers for IFR seems good.I fly both in real life.

Thanks for all those kind remarks. Seems like our 2+ year old Archer still holds up pretty well in today's market. :-)Regards,http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...R_FORUM_LOU.jpg