I look at it as a comparison between the best options on each platform. I would pay for a plane like A2A's C172 if available on X Plane.....

 

Actually no one has realised that this is a very sad comparison between a pay ware and a default class. I would rather compare it with the default P3d 172 or Fsx 172.

 

For fs9 there is a good one from RealAir. I like flying it.

 

I only fly the XP9 172 in XPX.

I look at it as a comparison between the best options on each platform. I would pay for a plane like A2A's C172 if available on X Plane.....

 

 

Well i feel its a wrong comparison,   the right comparison IMO should be A2A vs Carenado Vs Alabeo all 172 models.  

 

A2A of Fsx compared with XPX Carenado / Alabeo.

 

I would jump right away and purchase the A2A 172 if they make it for X plane.

 

I am done with FSX else I would have got the A2A,

 

Maybe we simmers need help from a RW 172SP pilot so that we can adjust the dynamics in X plane 10's 172 using Planemaker.

Guys,

 

as much as I am critic of many aspects of X-Plane 10, truth is presently, specially after the new datarefs introduced in 10.30 and not yet used in any add-on that I am ware of, I have to say that I strongly believe it is possible to go further into detail, complexity and accuracy in X-Plane 10 than in FSX, provided the developers know how to make use of all the tools available.

 

Then, the fluidity and the wind and turbulence effects which are default in X-Plane10 are superior to those in MSFS, which also helps making a ride in a small GA resembling more of the RL flying experience we can have.

 

A2A would certainly be welcomed in X-Plane's World :-)  We would have yet another skilled developer, and although we already have a few, the more the best!!!

Jose, read this yet?

 

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=81200#entry864573

Excellent post, as usual, by Goldstein. I will add some thoughts to it :-)

 

Together with him, Alexis and Ben Supnik, we exchanged a few emails sometime ago. I guess the new datarefs resulted from those debates.... Let's hope for the best :-)

 

 

P.S.: Just answered it : http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=81200#entry865061

Yeah lets hope. 

 

Can someone tell me how to check all that stuff mentioned by Goldstein. it would be very helpful for me to get more understanding of flight.

For my flying lessons I use a few different C172s. They each have their own tendencies. One of them require much more right rudder than others. Not sure whether FSX has a documented bug for the inclinometer, but I'd have just thought it is the tendency of the plane they tried to model.

 

I've had the problem you described in left turn, but it's not a simulator problem. In a normal turn, once you established the bank, you are supposed to return aileron to neutral. The plane will keep turning. the exception is when the plane tries to return itself back to level, or when you perform a very steep turn, when the plane has a tendency to bank even steeper.

 

I didn't know about Elite; seems interesting.

 

Yes, that's what I am saying... RealAir "cheats" by displacing the ball to the right by default ( look at it while on ground, parked... ). The turn coordinator is a long time problem with FSX....

 

 

 

 

Not sure I understand the second point....

 

 

Try to perform a coordinated level , descending or ascending turn. You step on the ball to coordinate, right? Then she slips a bit more away from you, then you step further... she slips further... ad nauseam....

 

Aviator, if you can, please download a demo of ELITE flight simulator. You'll fall apart when you see the Genview scenery, compared to what we have in FSX or X-Plane.... Take some time to configure your controller, and try, in the rather irritating short demo time to place your SkyHawk airborne... Then test turns, coordinated turns, rate 2 turns, etc... with it... it's another World, if you're really up to IFR training!

For my flying lessons I use a few different C172s. They each have their own tendencies. One of them require much more right rudder than others. Not sure whether FSX has a documented bug for the inclinometer, but I'd have just thought it is the tendency of the plane they tried to model.

 

I've had the problem you described in left turn, but it's not a simulator problem. In a normal turn, once you established the bank, you are supposed to return aileron to neutral. The plane will keep turning. the exception is when the plane tries to return itself back to level, or when you perform a very steep turn, when the plane has a tendency to bank even steeper.

 

I didn't know about Elite; seems interesting.

 

 

 

And, most certainly you do not have the rolling tendency (due to torque, because slipstream-induced yaw is faint to justify it as yaw-induced...)  reproduced in A2A's C172. I don't know for sure, but I really find it overdone, almost reminding me of X-plane....

 

Even if you, correctly, center the yoke ( return to neutral ), the continuous "ask for foot" will be there...

 

And, of course, I'm sure you're also aware of the limitations when it comes to performing a vanilla std rate turn in MSFS ( a2a's c172 included).... time it and see what you get, left or right turns.... Try it in ELITE and see for yourself ... Ah! X-Plane isn't much better than FSX regarding rate turns....

I find the XPX default 172 to be the best that I've flown in any sim including all payware. If behaves as expect for the most part. I liked the A2A but find that it doesn't respond to changes in power very well. It has a tendency to climb in some situations where I would expect it to descend. On my downwind legs, when I reduce power to slow down before base turn, I barely have to touch the controls to maintain altitude as the airspeed drops; I've even observed it starting to climb. I found it very unrealistic on final approach as I tried to use power to control my rate of descent but again found that reducing power often had no effect, or the opposite of what I expected. It seems to have a tendency to float. I've considered other factors such as wind, but this behavior seems to be consistently incorrect. 

Maybe if someone removes the ridiculous dark shading on the windscreen (or if I do, if I can figure it out) and it doesn't try to twist itself into a ball every time I throttle up, or fly straight and level, or descend, I'll fly it again.

 

Probably not though. I hate that thing.

I find the XPX default 172 to be the best that I've flown in any sim including all payware. If behaves as expect for the most part. I liked the A2A but find that it doesn't respond to changes in power very well. It has a tendency to climb in some situations where I would expect it to descend. On my downwind legs, when I reduce power to slow down before base turn, I barely have to touch the controls to maintain altitude as the airspeed drops; I've even observed it starting to climb. I found it very unrealistic on final approach as I tried to use power to control my rate of descent but again found that reducing power often had no effect, or the opposite of what I expected. It seems to have a tendency to float. I've considered other factors such as wind, but this behavior seems to be consistently incorrect.

I thought this was the case as well so I decided to try the same situations in a real 172 and found that I was wrong. The real 172 really does refuse to descend. I was able to maintain a steady 400fpm descent at idle with full flaps at 45kias.

 

I could also climb at a steady 800FPM with flaps fully deployed at 4000' MSL.

 

These tests were done with a 180hp version.

 

After doing those tests I revisited the XP9 172 and was pleasantly surprised with similar performance.

A2A's tendency to float is about the same as experienced in a real-life C172.  I was one of those who complained A2A floated too much initially myself, but having gone back and forth with real and A2A C172s, I am quite sure they float about the same.

 

Some of the posts aren't clear which plane they are talking about (real life or A2A or X-Plane default or others).  But it seems like some people are saying A2A require too much rudder, and some are saying the opposite.

 

I will just share my own experience.  The real life C172 I flew yesterday, for example, requires right rudder sometimes even in cruise (it has 180 HP, but another one with the same engine doesn't require as much rudder).  The other 2 C172 (160HP & 180HP) I fly regularly don't.  A2A, compared to them, is just another airplane somewhere in between.

 

I have noticed though, that taxi in real life during windy days, would require more rudders and yoke than A2A.  I am not sure that's something simmers necessarily want, as they probably find the task mundane.  I prefer everything true to life since I am using A2A for training.

 

Haven't tried the standard rate turn with A2A, though.  I just did my first basic instrument flight training yesterday.

, specially after the new datarefs introduced in 10.30 and not yet used in any add-on that I am ware of!

Well, as far as I know the Carenado C185F is the first one that used the new datarefs, and at once caused some corrections in the SDK http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=81095#entry863636

Ah! Thx Longranger - interesting stuff there indeed!

The 172 in X plane has a stronger prop wash and once in the air it is better.