How do the default planes rate?

[Guest pvs1]

Sorry if this is a silly question, but how do the default Microsoft aircraft rate compared to the best freeware and payware aircraft?The most obvious difference seems to be in the panels. The default aircraft tend to have much simpler, and presumably less realistic, panels, with much larger dials, while the better offerings have more complex panels, but with smaller dials. Speaking as someone who isn't running the sim in a very high resolution, I find that the more complex panels are often more difficult to read and sometimes to control. In spite of their relative simplicity, the default aircraft panels are a lot easier to use, especially in a lower resolution.Then there's the level of detail in the aircraft exterior. While a highly detailed aircraft may be great to look at, it does tend to reduce frame rates, so the simpler default aircraft also have an advantage in that respect.Given my current system therefore, I find that the default aircraft are easier to operate and are more frame rate friendly, although I must confess that I prefer the better freeware offerings and rarely use the default aircraft. I suspect though, that I really need a more powerful system with a bigger monitor and a higher resolution to really get the best out of them. Are those complex panels sufficiently readable in a high enough res?But what I wonder about most is the flight dynamics. Irrespective of ease of use and frame rates, just how realistic are the default aircraft's flying characteristics? Is is just my imagination or are they really simpler to fly than the best freeware and payware offerings?Maybe they've been given easier handling characteristics to appeal to newbies, or maybe they really are relatively easy to fly? I don't know. Any views on this? If the flight dynamics have been dumbed down, then that would justify me not bothering to use them much, but if not, then why not use them?Just wondering what the FS community's views on the default planes really are.Paul

[Guest Shalomar]

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!I'm willing to give up traffic and run at 60 miles max visibility, and I've been getting away with FS9 on an Emonster 550 MGH!It depends what's important to you. If you are also willing to lock at 15 FPS you might be surprised what you can get away with.There are freeware textures (Bluesphere project) that replace the default seasonal textures, IMO looks better with a *reduction* in load. More grunt left for the plane...But you can have your cake and eat it too: There are a lot of flight model enhancements, for everything from the Bell 206 to the Cessna and Extra. I'll edit this with a few links when I look them up.A Bunch here, including the Beech 350, Cub, Cessnas and Extrahttp://homepage.iprolink.ch/metzger/index_e.htmlIf you want the same plane redone without a big load- Cessna 172 by Realair in the library RAS172_fs9.zipFor the Baron, the B58TC.zip in the Avsim LibraryBest Regards, Donny:-wave

[Guest]

they are usually easier to fly compared to airplanes that people have created and worked with real pilots to tweak to be realistic.Some default airplanes have updates here and other places to make them more realistic. I don't fly the default airplanes because every one I fly has a better freeware or payware option. Since I use the VC, detailed systems and beautiful graphics make the defaults a thing of the past

[Guest Alan van der Vyver]

Hi!I only have experience with the Cessna 172 (compared with the RealAir variant) and the Cessna Grand Caravan (compared with the Feelthere variant), but in both cases I have found the default aircraft a bit more difficult to fly.The freeware and payware aircraft tend to be a bit better behaved across a wider range of circumstances and this makes them easier to fly. Some add-on's, like the RealAir 172, can be made to spin or side-slip and I suppose this could be considered more difficult, but these are deliberate manoeuvres and they are not common capabilities for any flight simulator aircraft.regards,Alan

[Moose4 0]

I'm the same way. The default planes are actually, to me, considerably harder to fly than a good payware version. They're too..."twitchy," I guess. They seem extremely sensitive in pitch, hard to control, not very damped. As one example, I do pretty well with the Aeroworx Super King Air B200, a quality payware addon...but I can't fly the default Super King Air 350 at all. It's difficult to control.Try downloading the replacement RealAir Cessna 172 airfile (which is excellent) and fly the default 172 with and without it. You'll see the difference.Lewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia

[Guest pvs1]

>I'm willing to give up traffic and run at 60 miles max>visibility, and I've been getting away with FS9 on an Emonster>550 MGH!>>It depends what's important to you. If you are also willing to>lock at 15 FPS you might be surprised what you can get away>with.I can usually get quite decent framerates (30-40), so that's not usually a problem, except when there's a lot of buildings and other aircraft around, and a lot of weather. Trouble is, I tend to want to put everything on full, and I can often get away with it, except when things get busy. I've noticed that some freeware planes cause a big hit on framerates. Again, it's not usually a problem, but it can be when there's a lot of other stuff going on.But that wasn't really the main point of my post, it's the realism factor that's my main concern.>There are freeware textures (Bluesphere project) that replace>the default seasonal textures, IMO looks better with a>*reduction* in load. More grunt left for the plane...I daresay that's true, but I do most of my flying in the UK with VFR photo scenery, so terrain textures aren't relevant there. I'll take a look at that though, thanks.>But you can have your cake and eat it too: There are a lot of>flight model enhancements, for everything from the Bell 206 to>the Cessna and Extra.I wasn't aware of that,>A Bunch here, including the Beech 350, Cub, Cessnas and Extra>http://homepage.iprolink.ch/metzger/index_e.html>If you want the same plane redone without a big load- Cessna>172 by Realair in the library RAS172_fs9.zip>For the Baron, the B58TC.zip in the Avsim LibraryThanks Donny, I'll try those out.Paul

[RFields5421 1]

Of course the default aircraft are designed to be simple and easy to fly - how else will people with no concept of flight be able to get a plane into the air and land.If people cannot get up and flying quickly - Flight Simulator will cease to exist.One of the "traps" in the default aircraft are the realism settings.I've found that when using the easiest realism settings - control settings - are MUCH harder to control - the react too quickly to the slighest control input.Move the settings up to the middle - the aircraft doesn't jump around nearly as much.The impact of the realism settings is so much that you can make the best / most realistic payware aircraft fly like a dime store toy, or make the default simplistic aircraft behave very much like the real thing.You simply cannot compare flight dynamics unless you list the realism settings.

[Guest Shalomar]

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!It kinda works the opposite for choppers. At "hard" they are SO sensitive, but when I took some advice and brought it down to "medium" I did much better. A HSIHUD.zip from Hovercontrol helped a lot also.Best Regards, Donny

[Guest pvs1]

>I don't fly the default airplanes because every one I fly has>a better freeware or payware option. Since I use the VC,>detailed systems and beautiful graphics make the defaults a>thing of the pastI must admit that I just can't get on with the VC, even though I keep trying. I realise it's more immersive, but I do a lot of IFR flying and I find that the 2D panels are way easier to read and operate for that sort of thing.Paul

[Guest pvs1]

>I only have experience with the Cessna 172 (compared with the>RealAir variant) and the Cessna Grand Caravan (compared with>the Feelthere variant), but in both cases I have found the>default aircraft a bit more difficult to fly.Really? Interesting.>The freeware and payware aircraft tend to be a bit better>behaved across a wider range of circumstances and this makes>them easier to fly. Some add-on's, like the RealAir 172, can>be made to spin or side-slip and I suppose this could be>considered more difficult, but these are deliberate manoeuvres>and they are not common capabilities for any flight simulator>aircraft.Fair point.Exactly how do you put the 172 into a spin BTW? The documentation says to pull back on the stick and move the rudder full left or right, but do I need to go into a dive first or something? And do I need to disable autorudder first?I've tried flying without autorudder, but without pedals I just can't control the rudder accurately enough - twisting the joystick is too awkward to control.Paul

[michal 44]

I wouldn't touch a default MSFS aircraft even if someone paid me for it.Their panels/esthetics are simply an eye sore and their flying qualities are an insult to real life pilots.I would even argue that if you ever want to get a real pilot's license you should stay away from default airplanes as you can only acquire bad habits.If you ever tasted some outstanding payware/freeware aircraft I don't see how you could keep flying default aircraft. It is beyond my understanding. *:-*Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/images/asv_beta_member.jpg

[Guest pvs1]

>I'm the same way. The default planes are actually, to me,>considerably harder to fly than a good payware version.Really? I find that surprising.>They're too..."twitchy," I guess. They seem extremely>sensitive in pitch, hard to control, not very damped.Yeah, I know what you mean, that's bothered me too, but some freeware planes are as bad or worse in that respect. I tend to prefer bigger, heavier planes anyway, and they aren't very twitchy at all. I don't spend much time flying the smaller planes.But isn't that just a controller sensitivity issue? Surely this may vary from one controller to another? Is there an easy way of tweaking this for myself?Perhaps my controller isn't so sensitive (currently using an MS Sidewinder FF Pro), or maybe I'm just more used to using small adjustments?>As one>example, I do pretty well with the Aeroworx Super King Air>B200, a quality payware addon...but I can't fly the default>Super King Air 350 at all. It's difficult to control.Really? Now I'm very surprised! I find that one of the easiest default planes to control. What I really have trouble with is the jets, all of them, big and small. And it's not just the defaults either, I find all jets difficult, but all props comparatively easy. I really can't figure out why I have such a problem with jets.>Try downloading the replacement RealAir Cessna 172 airfile>(which is excellent) and fly the default 172 with and without>it. You'll see the difference.I have done. Yes I agree, it's less twitchy, but to be honest, not being an expert on these things, aside from the controller sensitivity, I really can't see much difference. Maybe I just don't know what subtle differences to look for?Paul

[michal 44]

>I have done. Yes I agree, it's less twitchy, but to be>honest, not being an expert on these things, aside from the>controller sensitivity, I really can't see much difference. Controller sensitivity really has little to do with it. It is how the airplane adjust itself to the new deflection of control sufraces. Does your 172 behave like a 2200 lb. airplane or as a demented yo-yo? If you don't see the difference try the best 172 there is -a payware Flight1's 172 and you will see how 172 should fly - regardless what your joystick's sensitivities are. Flight1 has 30 day money back guarantee - if you don't like it they will refund the money.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/images/asv_beta_member.jpg

[Guest Alan van der Vyver]

I confess, I have never even tried to put it into a spin. I have concentrated on trying to achieve smooth, predictable and accurate flight instead. I would imagine though, that it is difficult without rudder pedals. I find normal flying quite difficult without them. There are a number of hardware and software additions that are very important to enhance your flight simulator experience. I think rudder pedals are quite high on the list.I must admit that, in spite of the low esteem in which the default aircraft are held by many on these forums, I have not found the two or three that I have flown to be that terrible. I have found noticeable improvements in some freeware and paywares substitutes. I assume they would not exists as substitutes if they did not offer something the defaults did not. But, I have also not found the differences to be dramatic. Having said that though, an accumulation of subtle differences can make a big difference to one's overall appreciation of an aircraft model.I found my own skill level to be a much bigger factor. I initially struggled with the default 172. I found the RealAir one noticeably better. I did not purchase the Flight 1 version, because frankly, I am not that interested in the 172. After many months of flying all sorts of other light aircraft and generally improving my skill level, I returned to the default 172 the other day and found it much more manageable than the previous time I had flown it.regards,Alan.

[Guest pvs1]

>I wouldn't touch a default MSFS aircraft even if someone paid>me for it.Finally! Thank you! Someone's finally said it, in no uncertain terms. I've always had this impression but it's nice to have it confirmed. I wonder how many other people feel as strongly about this as you do?>Their panels/esthetics are simply an eye soreI don't know about eye sores, but you've got to admit, the panels are a lot easier to read, especially at lower resolutions. Perhaps they aren't very realistic layouts, but they're certainly quite functional IMO. I'm hoping to upgrade to a bigger monitor soon, at which time I hope this factor will no longer be an issue.> and their flying> qualities are an insult to real life pilots.Really? That bad? I've always suspected that the default aircraft were suspiciously easy to fly. Some of the more difficult freeware aircraft that I've flown have led me to believe that there's a lot more to real flying than the default aircraft would have you believe. My current favourites are the Boeing 377 and Shupe's Dash 7.>I would even argue that if you ever want to get a real pilot's>license you should stay away from default airplanes as you can>only acquire bad habits.Interesting. What bad habits would those be specifically? Although I'm not currently in a position to consider it, if ever I have the cash to spare, flying for real is quite high on my list of things I'd like to do, so learning to do it properly is quite important to me.>If you ever tasted some outstanding payware/freeware aircraft>I don't see how you could keep flying default aircraft. It is>beyond my understanding. *:-*Well if you re-read my original post, I did state that I "rarely use the default aircraft". I was just wondering whether ignoring them was really justified or not, because they don't seem that bad to me, but maybe that's just ignorance on my part? Never having flown a real plane, I just don't know what feels real or not.I'm no expert on these things, hence my post. I've often wondered just how good, or bad, the default aircraft are, so any and all opinions on this subject are welcome.Also, like I said, I'm not running in a huge resolution at the moment (only 1152x864), and many of the panels in good freeware can sometimes be quite difficult to read in such a low res. I get the impression that at least 1600x1200 is required to see the details properly in many of these panels.Paul