Yeah. I spent part of my evening yesterday blasting around in murky conditions in their 172 that I painted up like one at JYO that I have about 40 hours in.

No GA developemnt its a big problem, REAL AIR was the best for the money!! A2A is great just a bit boring plane choices ...

 

My favorite GA airplanes (other than RealAir):

 

Carenado F33 Bonanza

Alabeo  Seminole

A2A  Comanche

JustFlight Socata TB20

Lionheart  Kodiak

Baytower RV7A

Carenado  C90GTX King Air

Milviz  T50 Bobcat

Carenado TBM850

 

 

Lots to choose from.. :smile:

because i use both x-plane and p3d, i do trust pmdg like the rest of you, fls. flight factor, jar design, ixeg for x-plane, i have never had any real issues with any of these companies.pmdg being the best for p3d and flight factor being the best for x-plane for me.

Emotions put aside the often praised developers have all their downside as well. First of all they are overprized. You can have the same plane at half price and the difference is perhaps comparable to the question do I drive a Korean or European car (PMDG/iFly). Both do the job just fine.

 

In other case you can have same technology at third of the price. Comparing for example A2A GA planes to Ant's Winjeel and Trojan or Sibwings An-2. Could mention few more if necessary.

 

Finally the question of flight dynamics. Majestic's Dash is praised because of that. As a real world pilot I had to uninstall it due to unrealistic flight model. My Carenado turboprops do it more convincibly.

 

All I am saying is that no need to categorize too heavily. The planes we fly in our sims are work of art and as such are interpreted individually. Don't overlook the gems offered to us quite cheaply.

I try to find a similar quality GA and there isn't one

 

What about A2A ? Could their planes not be considered similar quality GA ?

 

Jan Friberg

There are only two developers I've ever bought (or received) from when it comes to aircraft, PMDG (FSX) and Feelthere (FS9).  

 

What did I think of Feelthere's ERJ-145?  Well, I flew it around the world, so there.  Only thing I missed on the ERJ was the Maintenance computer, it was the only thing they didn't simulate, even the AWS was the same as the real thing.  At the time I was flying the ERJ, I was working for a real-word 135/145 operator, and even used their old checklists which worked great.  

 

As I posted in my intro to this forum, I got gifted the NGX, and am loving it.  My plan is still to fly it around the world, as I did with the ERJ, but have also got involved with a few VAs, so am putting it through its' paces there.  I wanted to fly the NGX in real life, but age and funds hinder that option, so have a ball with it in FSX.  

 

 

What about A2A ? Could their planes not be considered similar quality GA ?

 

In terms of mechanics and looks, they are.  If you get the Flight1 Garmin units they're closer but you have to have a source for navdata.  So, that's three airplanes compared to how many big iron?  I think a contributing factor is the vast majority of airports are big iron airports...very few regional, mixed use.  

 

 

I think the P3D GA scene needs a good A2A level Cirrus or Mooney

 

Agreed..with a G1000 database that can be updated and no 'canned' responses to support questions and have the nerve to send you a survey monkey and no change in how business is done. Having good support goes a long way in creating a good reputation.

I've started to wonder if P3D/FSX is becoming a heavy metal platform.  GA is so behind.  Business is almost non-existent.  I fly both heavy metal and GA and heavy metal has spoiled me with their beautiful graphics, amazing systems, Navigraph integrated nav systems, smoothness even at lower frames.  I try to find a similar quality GA and there isn't one.  Probably the closest thing in a 1980s era or later airplane would be the Flight1 Mustang or B200.  I'd love to have an IFR airplane that I could load up for a short or medium flight and just go...no passengers, no cargo, just me and the sky.

Hi Gregg, A2A has some nice GA aircraft. Great company, very realistic aircraft IMHO.

One of the most fun plane I have ever flown was a fictional business jet for FS2004. On top of that it was freeware. But PMDG is much better and more fun, more realistic. Else there are no other plane I am really interested in. 747-8 is an obvious purchase and I hope there will be a 787 in the future. Classic airplanes and GA in general are not my cup of tea.

 

I have my favorites when it comes to sceneries. Without namedropping anyone, there are some developers that defended their products even though it was crap. They refused to listen to critisism. But one company has actually change strategic and start to release really good airports.

 

Biggest problem with such a small community as ours is that some people that review products intend on being to kind on some crappy products. That leads to that some people make money on pure crap. But in general I would say that average quality is much higher today than it was two years ago.

But one company has actually change strategic and start to release really good airports.

 

Yeah, I see some change happening there though I don't know what dev you're talking about in particular.  LatinVFR has certainly improved.  SXAirportDesign seems to be doing better and seems to bo focused on regionals.

Finally the question of flight dynamics. Majestic's Dash is praised because of that. As a real world pilot I had to uninstall it due to unrealistic flight model. My Carenado turboprops do it more convincibly.

 

.... now there's something you don't read every day....

 

 

Gregg - don't know if you were aware that we have this incoming, "towards the end of Feb" for FSX and P3D :-

 

https://www.justflight.com/articles/pa28r-arrow-iii-new-images-development-update-3-feb-2017

 

I love their TB-20 (after a couple of updates), and this has GTN750 compatibility too, so have quite high hopes.

 

I agree that in terms of design ethos and quality, A2A are the best around, but echo that sometimes their aircraft choices feel a little uninspiring (personal view) and I too really hope they head back to the GA arena now their Connie is out.

 

 

Gregg - don't know if you were aware that we have this incoming, "towards the end of Feb" for FSX and P3D :-



https://www.justflig...date-3-feb-2017



I love their TB-20 (after a couple of updates), and this has GTN750 compatibility too, so have quite high hopes.



I agree that in terms of design ethos and quality, A2A are the best around, but echo that sometimes their aircraft choices feel a little uninspiring (personal view) and I too really hope they head back to the GA arena now their Connie is out.

 

Yeah, saw that.  Looks very much like the Arrow we had at our flying club (that I never flew).  I'd, honestly, rather see the 430/530 in it than the 650/750...more realistic by a long shot.  A good late 70s, early 80s complex trainer. 

JYW...That Arrow has a Garmin 100 in it! First gps I ever used in the rw back in 92. I used it in SE Asia in a helicopter. At the time I was just in awe of it.  It had it's own internal battery that was kept topped up by aircraft power..if the aircraft had an electrical power loss the gps would still function. Plus you could just slide it out and take it back to the hotel to put in the next day's flight. There was also a built in simulator mode that you could practice with. I wonder how well it functions in this sim aircraft. If it's good I'd buy it in a heartbeat. Thanks.

Dave

If you want exciting, fly the A2A Civil P-51. It is GA that is fun and exciting. You have all the the IFR/X-country capabilities, plus the fun of having a big V-12 up front. It also makes you work for the reward, which is one of the few high performance GA's does that for me. That's the thing, if you want the reward of high performance, there should be the challenge of mastering a high performance beast. A real high performance plane should give you the impression that it will kill you if you aren't on top of things. You should be on top of things in every airplane, but high performance planes like Mustangs, Bonanzas...etc really show you why.

I love RealAir of course, they have given me more happy sim hours since early FS9 than I could possibly count. My only 'complaint' is that the Legacy and T Duke give the impression that these very high performance planes are much easier to fly than they really are...ie the impression a low time 172 pilot could easily fly a Legacy for instance. IRL Lancairs have a reputation for being very unforgiving and have killed quite a few low time pilots. Kinda like the V35 and Cirrus "Doctor Killer" reputations, while they are fine planes, they require more experienced pilots than the ones who typically own them. The RA Legacy does indeed fly very nice, and that is the thing, flying 'very nice' is not necessarily a quality of a slippery little beast that is a Lancair Legacy, yet I can comfortably fly approaches by hand all day in the FS version. The sim version just doesn't quite convey the feeling of 'This is a high performance beast that I must be at the top of my skills with while respecting it's limitations...or it will kill me' IMHO the SF-260 gave me little better 'this plane will bite you' feeling than the Legacy does. Interestingly the SF-260 design is based on the Falco, which is another slippery little high performance plane with a 'rookie killer reputation', like Lancair.

The Turbine Duke is awesome, but it went from having 380HP/side to 580hp/side, combined with a short fuselage, that thing should Vmc roll like crazy on takeoff, yet engine out takeoffs in FS is rather 'gentile'. A high performance twin is supposed to instill a little fear or anxiety in you between takeoff rotation and reaching blue-line on the airspeed indicator. As awesome as the T-Duke is, I just don't get the sense of that high performance monster that is under the cowling ready to strike. It flies very nice tho, certainly.

With the A2A twin, I know a lot want the high performance Aerostar, I do to, but I think the Seminole should be first. You gotta walk before you can run. Accusim is like a pilot in training, would you want the Aerostar to A2A's 'gunnea pig' twin, or let them get twin engine physics down pat in something 'simple' first. That way when the Aerostar does come, it's twin engine physics will be highly refined. Also I think you will get more out of the Aerostar if you learn to master a Seminole first. IMHO if you want the airplanes to be realistic, then the training progression should be reasonably realistic too.

I would love to see A2A really explore bush flying too with a C-185, Beaver, Husky...etc. Following a magenta line from A to B is nice, but so is flying around in the weeds, landing on little postage stamp airstrips in the backwoods, is also very fun. The most important thing for FS is variety. Have some GA of all sorts, have some Warbirds, have some trainers, have some propliners, have some jetliners...etc. Thankfully A2A is attempting to cover a nice variety as is PMDG with their DC-6 project.

Cheers
TJ