Flying VFR with a real paper chart is really fun. You have to pay attention or you'll get lost. Keep looking for rivers, roads, towns etc. Also, you feel more connected with the world when you can follow along, pick out the names of towns on the chart as you fly over them etc. The scenery actually becomes an important part of the simulation, rather than just eye candy.

 

The problem is, unless you have good photoscenery or are flying in a particularly distinctive part of the world there aren't really many landmarks in FS. Roads aren't really a great source of position information like reality and neither are rivers unless the mesh is accurate. I totally get what you're saying but just flying by looking outside the window alone is a lot harder in FSX than real life so i always have at least one NDB or VOR tuned in.

The problem is, unless you have good photoscenery or are flying in a particularly distinctive part of the world there aren't really many landmarks in FS. Roads aren't really a great source of position information like reality and neither are rivers unless the mesh is accurate. I totally get what you're saying but just flying by looking outside the window alone is a lot harder in FSX than real life so i always have at least one NDB or VOR tuned in.

 

That's why I stick with OrbX regions or photo scenery  B)

Glad to hear you can skip things at startup if you want to. Also glad to hear it's optional every single time: with the Katana (I think) you would either always fly it in simple mode or in advanced mode. Anyway, I think I will buy this one! I won't buy the T7, I won't buy PFPX, I won't buy various Orbx regions, I won't buy FSGRW, so all in all I saved a LOT of money which I can now spend in this plane!  B)  ^_^

Hey Jeroen, I wish I had your resilience to buying addons! ......... I end up buying things for FSX then thinking "why on Earth did I buy this?"... the last one was the Carenado CT206H ..... don't like the real life plane, not really into Carenado's stuff at the moment, and wasn't looking for a GA single ..........  so heck knows what that was about!

 

But the A2A C172 will be a very worth purhase!

 

 

You can just turn off all the maintenance, wear and tear etc. and use it like any other FSX aircraft.

I'd imagine the A2A add-on will be similar. If you don't want to check everything before flying, you should be able to skip it, just hit Ctrl+E and take off. Sometimes when I come home from work I only have 30-45 minutes for a short flight. I'd rather spend that actually flying than clicking through dialog boxes in a virtual "hangar". However when I have more time (weekends etc.) I want to do everything properly.

 

My point was that the maintenance aspect of the katana is too time consuming compared to an accusim plane. I know I can turn of  wear and tear but that's the whole reason I buy planes like A2A, katana etc.

 

 

the last one was the Carenado CT206H ..... don't like the real life plane, not really into Carenado's stuff at the moment, and wasn't looking for a GA single ..........  so heck knows what that was about!

 

LOL Admit it, you're an addict.  ^_^

You can just turn off all the maintenance, wear and tear etc. and use it like any other FSX aircraft.

 

I'd imagine the A2A add-on will be similar. If you don't want to check everything before flying, you should be able to skip it, just hit Ctrl+E and take off. Sometimes when I come home from work I only have 30-45 minutes for a short flight. I'd rather spend that actually flying than clicking through dialog boxes in a virtual "hangar". However when I have more time (weekends etc.) I want to do everything properly.

 

 

 

Flying VFR with a real paper chart is really fun. You have to pay attention or you'll get lost. Keep looking for rivers, roads, towns etc. Also, you feel more connected with the world when you can follow along, pick out the names of towns on the chart as you fly over them etc. The scenery actually becomes an important part of the simulation, rather than just eye candy.

 

 

That last par. Will make A2A's Cessna and ORBX's Scotland and/or Northern Ireland the perfect complement.

 

I really love flying A2A's planes over ORBX's UK scenery, makes me feel like Snoopy vs. the Red Baron coming home from work!

 

 

 

The problem is, unless you have good photoscenery or are flying in a particularly distinctive part of the world there aren't really many landmarks in FS. Roads aren't really a great source of position information like reality and neither are rivers unless the mesh is accurate. I totally get what you're saying but just flying by looking outside the window alone is a lot harder in FSX than real life so i always have at least one NDB or VOR tuned in.

 

Indeed this is why so many of us GA flyers have invested in scenery despite some labeling it unnecessary eye-candy.  UTX helps, making roads, rivers and shorelines more accurate, but the majority of my flying takes place where I have Orbx regions (NOT FTXG, as that really doesn't address this) or good photo.

 

Even in real life, flying by pilotage can be challenging in many places.  Try flying across eastern Colorado into western Kansas for example.  Flat, with few rivers, lakes or towns and they all look similar.  If a major road goes where you do, better, but if it doesn't, you've really got to pay attention and pick out the small differences.  It's fun.  Turn on a GPS and start following a magenta line and half the fun goes away as it becomes simply droning across an unchanging landscape.

 

Not that there's anything wrong with keeping a navaid tuned.  That's still the right thing to do.

 

Scott

You DON'T need to learn to drive a stick because most modern cars are automatic.  Then again I ride a motorcycle, doesn't really count as "stick" or automatic...  :ph34r:

Slightly off topic but most modern cars IN NORTH AMERICA are automatic. In Europe, you will find manual transmission still makes up the vast majority of new car sales, even in the premium segments. Also if you take your driving test in an automatic, you cannot drive a car with a manual gearbox.

 

Same things applies to aircraft really, if you learn to fly in a glass cockpit with GPS you can't really fly a non-GPS equipped aircraft without additional training. I know some airlines are requiring or favouring big flying schools they are partnered up with to teach multi-engined stuff in Piper PA-34 Senecas instead of Diamond DA42 because they believe it results in more capable pilots.

I really don't think fsx is THAT detailed though. I learned to fly in Eastern North Dakota similar to the type of terrain you describe. In FSX it all looks the same even with UTX and GEX.

 

When I'm not in Orbx the best chance I have is roads, lakes and rivers, in that order.

 

Reference a VFR sectional and many obstructions or POIs listed do not exist in FSX. To me those would be nice to have. So I'm flying across eastern North Dakota (don't ask why lol) and if I can't see any landmarks I'm probably looking at the GPS. Sure I know how to use VOR's to find out position but the GPS is faster and more reliable. What if I have an emergency and I lost my bearings? This why even students should at least learn the GPS.

 

Maybe that's why I use the GPS more often in FSX.

Hey Jeroen, I wish I had your resilience to buying addons! ......... I end up buying things for FSX then thinking "why on Earth did I buy this?"... the last one was the Carenado CT206H ..... don't like the real life plane, not really into Carenado's stuff at the moment, and wasn't looking for a GA single ..........  so heck knows what that was about!

 

But the A2A C172 will be a very worth purhase!

 

 

Hey Dave, you know the solution for those pretty looking but possibly buggy Carenados?  Wait till they hit the F1 wrapper, then you can return them   I wish I had done that sooner, like you I occasionally got the Carenado 'oooh pretty!' disease, got some pretty looking bird only to find it was buggy or the FDE was less than acceptable.  Now I wait until the particular Carenado/Alabeo is on the F1 Wrapper system and it's nice 30 day return.   Some are excellent all around, some are hit and miss, you know how it goes.  :lol:

 

Its funny the FBO I used to rent from had a 1960 Comanche that was /U with just two Navs,, and a brand new(then) 172SP /G with some GNS and a big moving map.  they actually rented for about the same rate.  I flew both, but given the choice I would pick the Comanche every time.  Even when operating around SFO Class B airspace.  I just used victor airways a lot, then used the sectional with landmarks for my 'DME'  The 172SP was nice with all the gadgets, sure I immediately knew where the Class B shelf was but 100KIAS vs 160 KIAS for the same price.  Thanks to basic navigational skills being pounded into my head in the beginning, I was comfortable operating a high performance /U airplane around Class B.  The Comanche was like a vintage muscle car and the 172SP was like a new gadget filled Corolla LOL.   To each their own

 

 

I really don't think fsx is THAT detailed though. I learned to fly in Eastern North Dakota similar to the type of terrain you describe. In FSX it all looks the same even with UTX and GEX.

 

That's where good photo comes in.  Yep, tradeoffs there, but landmarks are where they should be, even in eastern Colorado (or eastern North Dakota).

 

I have to admit that photo still frustrates me around the airport, but for VFR work, real flights with reference to the surrounding environment are very doable and great practice.  But note my earlier comments about using the tools available.  I still have the GPS turned on, as well as local navaids tuned.  And on mountain flights (the majority of my flying) when VFR I'll usually leave the terrain page up on one of my RXPs.  No, I don't depend on it - that's what the sectional and my eyeballs are for, but I do reference it.  To not use such tools (properly) seems stubbornly foolish to me.

 

Scott

Concur. Photoscenery would be cool minus the no autogen and missing seasons that most (don't) offer.

 

Of course that would require me to buy a new SSD (gosh darn it!)

Er... help me here. You mentioned GPS twice and also RXP GPS...? So far I see there are three panel config options, is that correct?

 

Yes,

 

2 Standard GPS options,

1 No GPS option

2 RXP thirdparty GPS options.

 

 

And all hot swappable on the fly whenever you want via the click of a button. So you could start a flight with no GPS then end it with one, no re-loading the sim. Just like our other Accu-sim aircraft options.

A newbie question here: I've never bought an A2A plane before but when I look at their site it seems you have to seperately buy a plane and a specific version of Accu-sim for that plane...? Will this be the same with this C172? Or will you simply buy it all in one purchase/product...?

 

The Accu-sim C172 Trainer will be different over previous simulations as it will be an all in one purchase due to the popularity of the Accu-sim packages.