Default Aircraft in FSX

[ckyliu 1,749]

This is the start of a very long post - here goes...To my mind FS:ACOF never really lived up to its name in terms of the aircraft supplied with it. It seemed more along the lines of the "First 20 years and the last 20 years of flight". (I'm sure I will be corrected on this). I mean aside from the GA aircraft, everything in FS2004 seems to slot in to that title. There are no large classic propliners to speak of, no L1049 Connies, no Bristol Britannias, CL44s, Stratocruisers, etc and to me this seems like a fairly large chunk to miss out, large propliners dominated the skies throughout the 50s and in to the 60s. We also seem to be missing classic jets (early 60- late 70s), B707s, DC-8s, VC10s, Comets, Tridents or BAC 1-11 and the like - yet again this seems another rather large chunk to miss out.I understand that it was impossible for the MSFS team to create aircraft of every size and shape from every time period from 1901 to present day but still there seem to be some quintessential omissions - some backbone categories from various time periods. I've already mentioned two, there aren't that many but still I feel there is a sizeable chunk. At the end of the day (not sure if this is accurate but here goes), I suspect most users would fly aircraft from these categories more than perhaps some of those that made FS2004, the DC3 and Cub are popular, yes, (as far as I know) but I rarely here mention of the Vickers Vimy, Curtis Jenny and a few others - I always wonder if this time could have been better spent on the aforementioned.Also certain sizes appear to be missing, There's nothing 757 sized and nothing Saab 2000/Dash 8 sized and also an absense of anything Avro RJ85/CRJ-700/EMB-170. Again to my mind these are three major categories, large narrowbodies, larger turboprops and regional jets. Yet we have handful of small single engine piston props (Cessna 172, 182 and Mooney Bravo) - the 172 and 182 really have very few differences and seem to cover the same area, I admit the Mooney is a powerhouse the the 172/182s are slow.I wonder if the MSFS will fill these gaps (or at least ot my mind they are) in FSX and if other users here share my opinions on the subject or if I'm just being selfish and not reflecting other peoples views. Again I do stress I understand that resources are limited and their are other priorities - if we want an aircraft bad enough we can wait for developers to make it or even try and make it ourselves - there are alternatives. If there is enough drive they will appear sooner or later to varying degrees of quality.And now to my second point. Perhaps it's just me, but the supplied aircraft list seems to have USA mentioned a little too much for my tastes. Aside from the pre-1940s aircraft, there is very little that originates outside the USA. The Schweizer glider is of American origin despite the Swiss name, and although the Learjet 45 is now made by Bombardier of Canada, it was penned and built by Learjet of the USA.I personally woud like to see a little more variety. Boeing aren't the only company to make jet airliners. MSFS includes the 737, 747, 777 but not a single Airbus, BAe, Fokker or even other American products from Douglas McDonnell-Douglas or Lockheed. This is despite the fact that Airbus now sells more aircraft than Boeing. Perhaps this could tie in with my previous point and the MSFS team could fill those missing categories with aircraft built outside the USA - to provide a little variety. I'm not anti-America but I think it would be nice to see aircraft work a little different to the American norm - look at the huge differences between Airbuses and Boeings to a pilot for example. (I sometimes get the feeling FS is biased towards America quite a bit, most stuff seems to be based around US standards, practise and companies, but that's for another topic and another time).Anyway I'll shut up now and see if anyone can actually be bothered to read this far and contribute - wouldn't blame them if they didn't, it's a load of boring waffle but I had to mention this.

[tgibson 11]

Hi,I think the prevailing thought among people who frequent here is that addon developers take care of all of those segments, so there is no real need to include them in the default sim. As for those users who never obtain addons from the web (a group getting smaller every day, I assume), I'm assuming that MS has done some market research and is covering their needs with the default aircraft.Take care,--Tom GibsonCal Classic Propliner Page: http://www.calclassic.comFreeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.comDrop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

I hope that MS forget about volume and concentrate more on quality of the aircraft they create as default.I would rather see a handful of beautifully created aircraft with dynamics which exceed or at least equal the best from the third party developers rather than a mass of OK ish aircraft which remain unused on my hardrive.There are new generation aircraft which should be included throughout all levels of aviation and as you say Airbus (an A320 ? which reading between the lines will be in FSX)Having said all that we are still a minority in these forums and Joe Bloggs hasnt a clue buyer will still demand a high volume of "look good but nothing much else aircraft."Peter

[ckyliu 1,749]

I definetly have to agree with you Peter - especially the last line. You, me and most other people on this forum understand there is far more to a 737 overhead panel than a few light switches and some engine starters - however the fact is most people aren't going to know or appreciate this, they'll see it as an unnessercary (I'm aware I can't spell this word) complication and a waste - and as usual we'll be left to fork out extra cash and go buy the PMDG 737 for our kicks. I don't really blame the MSFS team for this, after all they have to meet the needs of the majority, not the hard-core.Actually, speaking of quality this brings me on to yet another (boring) point. Engine sounds, specifically jet. Why do the 777, 747 and 737 all use the same sounds? The GE90s, Trent 800s and PW4000s of the 777 sound nothing like a CFM56 (after all, they are a world apart in terms of thrust produced and date of design). Even the RB.211, CF6 and PW on the 747 sound different, though not as much as the previous example. Is it really that hard to introduce an additional sound set for the big engined jets, in addition to the CFM56s labourious wheezing (oops I'm reflecting my opinions here, please note thes are not on the quality of the souds, rather the sounds of the actual engine) and the Learjet's bassless whine? I want the deep throaty sound of an RB211-535 E4B being thrashed on my 747, not a CFM56.

[oktorn777 0]

Well we already saw some of the planes in the released fsx screenshots.Without particular order:Boeing 747-400Grumman GooseDehavilland BeaverAn ultralight aircraftCessna 172DG SailplaneBell Jetranger helicopterBeech BaronExtra 300MauleLearjet 45Looks like an interesting mix to me.And there might be more.;-)cheers,CG

[ckyliu 1,749]

CG, I do not deny that we do already have a rather intresting mix in FS, I just feel it could be better than it is. However, most of the aircraft noted in your post however already exist in FS and as such bring nothing new to the forrary, indeed some could just have been ported straight over thought it is more likely that almost all ahve been given something to "spice them up", a new paint job or something simple like thay and some might even have recieved a little more attention or been entirely reworked.The only "new" aircraft we've seen so far are the Grumman Goose, DeHavilland Beaver, an ultralight, a DG Sailplane and Maule. These all bring something new, but none cover the areas I've mentioned.

[DadJokeCinema 145]

Until FS9, I was one of those guys.I never flew anything but default aircraft, on default scenery, with no addons.And my first experience with Flight Simulator was in the late 80s when I was still a kid. The "stock" selection suited me fine for a long long time, and as I've gotten much more serious, I've seen a lot of my own growth in the type of addons I use. I know what a hot-button this is, but for most of FS experience, it was a "game" and not a sim. So I've seen both sides of the coin, and while I am now in the "make it real as possible" camp, I've had plenty of fun as a casual pilot over the years, putting around Chicago in vanilla 172.

[rich135 0]

Seems like there are plenty of third party aircraft, both free and professional grade. Given a fixed budget and staff, I would rather see MS resources focused on development of the FS engine, rather than components that third parties can easily produce.

[GusRodrigues 1]

or even after all, a good SDK for flight dynamic (.air files), explanation of tables of the archives .air, as they intervene with the flight dynamics and as to adjust such values in order to improve the flight.