There isn't a SINGLE "barn door" modeled with real systems detail for FSX.

 

Did you ever get the A2A Mustang we discussed a while back?

Hi,

 

I thought the Flight1 version did a pretty good job or am I mistaken? A2A is special though, I agree. I just would rather see something a little more interesting.

 

Bob

If you go to A2A's website and look at all the sponsorships for the 172 project. I think A2A may have seen a big giant dollar sign associated with GA trainers. There might be a lot of money in developing virtual aircraft that are at professional sim level, especially if they are recognized by real world flight training institutions.

What if a big flight academy like ERAU or ATP inks a deal with A2A for continued flight training development? They may ask for A2A to build a multi engine trainer, especially since building twin time is very expensive. If they do a multi engine trainer, I hope they go for something a little more midsize like a B58, Seneca, Twin Commander..etc.  A B58 or Seneca would have a little more functionality for programs like Airhauler and so on as well as being good multi engine trainers.

Some folks at A2A are bemoaning the fact that A2A appears to have left the vintage warbird segment in favor of GAs. I don't see that, A2A will always be associated with quality warbird simulations. They will still eventually release their F-104 and F-4. A2A no doubt has other vintage projects up their sleeve too. And if you think about it, within the context of FSX, warbirds are simply fast vintage GA airplanes with big engines. B) 

An Accuimmed Beech 18 tops my list. It is vintage, round, radial powered, it is a small airliner, it is a corporate airplane, it is a private GA aircraft, it is a cargo plane, it is a bush plane, it is an airshow plane, it is a military transport and trainer. I think something like the B18 would appeal to a very wide range of simmers.

And the they should hook up with Pilot Edge to get the radio work in.

I hope this aircraft is DX10 compatible (cockpit shadow) and free from the "mouse cursor cause fps drop" bug.

I hope this aircraft is DX10 compatible (cockpit shadow)

 

Their modeler said it would be DX10 shadow compatible (when I asked on their Facebook).

 

 

If you go to A2A's website and look at all the sponsorships for the 172 project. I think A2A may have seen a big giant dollar sign associated with GA trainers.

 

I don't know how big the dollar sign is/was, but I'm sure they saw a market in training aircraft for their technology and jumped in.  Good for them.  What surprises me, or perhaps amuses would be a better word, is the level of disdain some seem to have for someone doing a serious job with the ubiquitous 172, and for the 172 itself.  As though the plane somehow doesn't deserve the treatment.  I can think of only a few planes that deserve it more.

 

Don't want to go too far down the whole "trainer vs entertainment product" path here, as it's really more a matter of where on the continuum something sits rather than the hard and fast line some attempt to draw, but this effort definitely seems aimed more towards those looking for a high quality training aid rather than something to pass the evening.  I would hope those dismissing doing a "silly 172" to this level would consider that there are those who very much want this before getting too carried away with the criticisms.

 

BTW, before completely dismissing what I'm driving at, consider that I'm not the 172's biggest fan IRL either.  I couldn't wait to move on to something a bit... sexier when I was going through my learning progression.  But I learned a lot in those "barn doors", and scared myself more than a few times in the learning process as well.  It's a great platform to learn from, and a detailed simulation is very welcome in my eyes.  Of course I'm also anxious to see what RealAir do.

 

Silly 172.  :-)

 

Scott

Hi,

 

I thought the Flight1 version did a pretty good job or am I mistaken? A2A is special though, I agree. I just would rather see something a little more interesting.

 

Bob

 

Hi Bob,

 

I'm going to say something, and I really don't want to sound like a b****, but you should really try an A2A product before you go on about what would be more interesting. The systems depth (even just the way the engine runs) is so far above and beyond basically anything else out there it's not even comparable. I mean that in the most genuine sense. Every switch does something, every switch has its own sound, and every twist flick or selection makes some kind of an impact as it should. There's no clicking the magneto switch to start and getting a perfect start every time. No prime switch that does absolutely nothing and so on. On the A2A Mustang for example you can actually leave the mixture level on cutoff, flick the battery on and run the primer for a few seconds, and run the engine off the primer alone.. the moment you release the switch the engine chugs off whatever fuel is left in the lines and then sputters out, unless you either flick the mixture to run or give it more primer. It's that well simulated. Best piston engine simulation by a country mile.  OK, I know I sound like I'm being paid to say this, but their stuff tends to have that effect on people.

 

I guess what I'm getting at here is the 172 may be a ho-hum trainer but the depth of the simulation itself has to be experienced. It's just that good.

 

Besides, in the end, if you dislike GA aircraft so much, don't buy it, and A2A will definitely be bringing more warbirds later on. From your perspective, you should be happy that the Accusim 172 will fund further developments

I'm assuming that even though there is the ability to add in the RealityXP GNS there will be no need to add in any RealityXP gauges....the ones in the 172 will be as good?

Very much looking forward to this.  Thank god I'm going out of town for the rest of the week - August was a bit rough on the ol' flight sim budget - when I get back it'll be September, and I'll have a bit more coin once again to go through! :lol:

So will there be an Accusim addon for the 172? Or are they just doing it all in one? I think it's the later right?

I hope there is an option for no GPS.  Trust me, at 90kts, you have plenty of time to look out the window and at your sectional to figure out where you are :lol:   Especially in a training aircraft it would be good to build on dead reckoning skills.  I imagine A2A will offer a variety of avionics options for those with RXP..etc.

There is.

“Have you tried playing some video games ?

........ There are some great ones where you can go really fast and shoot at baddies and things. ”

 

Yes!

Falcon 4...BMS 4.32

BOB2....vers 2.12

 

Obviously these video games aren’t as detailed as FSX and crucially none contain a Mosquito.

Anyway I’m sure you’ll find the Cessna 172 an interesting and  exciting airplane to master.

I'm assuming that even though there is the ability to add in the RealityXP GNS there will be no need to add in any RealityXP gauges....the ones in the 172 will be as good?

 

I trust they will be a lot better :smile:

I'm wondering why so many people are referring to '90kts' when talking about the 172.   The 172R that I flew in had a cruise of 115kts at a sensible power setting in cruise.     It seems this poor old 172 has been relegated to the performance of a 150 or 152 in some people's minds! :lol: