After i read some more, looks like the F1 172 is leading the way. It was a nice aircraft and high in detail, but was similar to the default. To me and with my flight time, it was so close to the 172 default. Overall, very nice plane, just really similar to the FS 172.All are nice aircraft though.On the warrior, if you go with it, you ought to have a good system. It flys fine on high end systems or up to date systems. But lower ends have to suffer of 7 FPS or so.

I gotta say I love the 180. I don't have the 172, so I really can't speak to that one, I'm sure it is good though. The dynamics on the 180 feel very realistic and remind me of my time in one doing cross country solo.I also am fond of the piper look anyway.__Josh

I only have the 180 so can't speak for the other two. However the 180 is a very nice plane IMHO. It is a little pricey, but still is a lot of fun to fly. Hawk

I also don't see a whole big difference in the panels between the Real Air and the other one.Flight One has some Screenshots here of their 172:http://www.flight1.com/products.asp?product=esd172And I have posted some pics of teh Real Air 172SP in the Screenshot Forum here:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=177949&page=I guess it would be great if they offered a demo, but not many do that.I also adjusted the eyepoint of mine a bit.me ... ....

I have the Carenado 180F (just purchased) and Aussim Warrior.They both have their weaknesses and strength. The Carenado 180F looks better, especially in VC view. I'm no big fan of the interior fabric textures of the Aussim Warrior. I think the Warrior has better flight dynamics though. Also a version 1.2 patch is in the works to further improve the flight model. The Warrior also has more features, better panel and comes in a Warrior II and III version (using the same .air file though). So, the Aussim Warrior is probably the better choice. The Cherokee feels more original and "fun" though.I also have to recommend the Aerosoft Katana. Panel, modelling, textures, sounds and flight dynamics are all top-notch.

Man, it's getting more and more complicated.I thought I was sure with the F1 C-172, but then again looked at the Aussim pages where the Warrior has a special appeal to me.I have Carenado's Centurion, so I already have a plane with a C-172 like shape. Unfortunately (or not), the Centurion has a constant speed prop, and I want a less sophisticated plane.The Warrior has a different design, and that's what pleases my eyes.So, I'm currently as confused as before. There are no clear indications which FDE is superior. It doesn't matter if the FDE is not 100% realistic, but I like to avoid situations I had with too many other aircraft, e.g. pitching to 10 deg during approach with 80kts and full flaps. That cannot be realistic, and after all keeps me from seeing the runway. And, I don't want to tune the FDE again (which I also did too many times in the past).That said, the FDE is most important to me. Then comes the panel: too many products have sluggish gauges, e.g. the horizon reacts only when a pitch difference of more than 5 deg occurs! That's not what I want to see on my panel! I agree that analog gauges made like Reality-XPs are not invented by now, but I expect at least gauges I can fly after, which are big enough to be easily readable.So far, all three aircraft have nice exteriors, and they have good looking panels as well. And, no one said any FDE is extremely bad.Leaves the various other messages in other forums I looked at: there, people either praise one plane or they recommend to better go for another.I guess subjective experiences of each individual in a specific aircraft model prevent an objective opinion to emerge. Maybe different hardware is also a factor. So, I'm gonna think a while longer about what to buy (at the moment, I think of purchasing Aussim's Warrior: no cumbersome Flight1 software wrapper...).Thank you all!Andreas

Hi Andreas,it has been mentioned above, and yes the Meridian as all of what you are looking for.As for the Reality XP analog gauges, it is not that they are not invented by now, it is just that they are not released yet... :-)Hope this helps!

My top 2 pics would be the Carenado 210 (GREAT Add-on!) and the Flight1 C172.

I kind of understand the dilemma. On several occasions I've been very close to buying the C172 but always changed my mind at the last minute. The reason is because the C172 is so plain and friendly (read: boring). Sure, the PA28's are also quite common but the low-wing design is far more attractive than the C172's spamcan-design. If only it had a cantilevered wing it would look much better.I'd be more interested in a C182 with the glass cockpit. Indeed, even something like a straight-tail C172 with the vintage car steering wheel-type yokes would be more exciting because it's more of a classic aircraft.Another aircraft not to be overlooked is the Flight1 C152. It's been out since mid-2003 but it still looks really good.The Aussim Warrior is quite fun. You get both a pretty basic Warrior II panel layout and a very complete Warrior III with all the latest gadgetry. If you're looking for simplicity, the Carenado Cherokee 180F is also a great choice - it's really closer to the Cub than the Warrior and C172 in terms of avionics and interior styling.

Trust me on this one... there is a whole big difference! -unless you are flying with 800x600 screen resolution- :-)Yes, the RealAir one is a lot of fun to fly and the price is right!But ever since I got the Flight1 172, the RealAir bird has been sitting idle..

How about complicating things a little further and considering RealAir's SF260. It is light and agile and a lot less boring than the 172. I rather like it.I don't know how the panel and VC compare with the others, but they seemed pretty good to me.Alan.

Reading this thread, I kind of feel the same way..Either go for the Flight1 C172 or, if you want something more powerful, get the RealAir SF260 Marchetti. Either one is tops in its category.

I want to echo another poster's advice: Go to FSD and get 2 planes for the price of one! I've never owned a plane with flight dynamics from Steve Small that I didn't love to hand fly. I particularly love the Seneca. It has great flight dynamics, a true-to-life parameter exceeding system that has a custom gauge (ie MP, RPM, etc.) or whatever in the heck you call it, and a great visual model.And for your second aircraft, the free one, I'd look closely at the Aerostar. I'm still mastering it. The thing is an absolute bullet and has every system that you might want rendered. If you want a single engine plane, I'd recommend anything faster than the C172 or the Archer. Long slow flights in FS can be unappetizing after a while. Of course, everyone is different and you may enjoy that kind of flying more. I hope you find exactly what you're looking for.

I did this myself... bought the Commander and the Seneca. I agree on the great flight models... but there is no way you can compare the panels or the visual models in these FSD products to either Real Air or Flight1.Sometimes 50% off does not make it a better decision... IMHO

Well, even though you hurt my feelings with that post, Bert, I'll still be your friend.;)- you didn't really. I'm gonna stick to my guns though. I think their visuals and panel are on top. Have a great day Bert!:7