I'm pretty disapointed with the King Air's VC. Besides the unflippable switches which I know will be fixed for retail, it just doesn't seem like as much effort was put into it as the other aircraft. I know its a beta, I'm just curious if this is going to improve at all?

There are also glaring issues with the A321 which I just finished flying around. It will not follow a Flight Plan heading with or with the heading select knob pushed in or out and selected on GPS. The only way it followed a heading was for me to select it manually and make sure the heading select knob was pushed on. The aircraft information screen pop up panel has buttons to select the different systems to work but they are non-functional, they only work on the 2D panel. As you said, the King Air looks aweful as well the Mooney didn't get much of a facelift nor did the Baron in my opinion. Other than that, the 737-800 looks, feels & works outstanding along with the rest of the aircraft. The exception is that they *DON'T* have a float model of the Caravan which is very disappointing, nor is there a wheeled model of the Beaver. Oh yeah and the lighting of the panels are incomplete other than the Maule with a SOMEWHAT preview of what the backlit gauges may look like in the final. But as Mike said, they are not complete and will be ready for release. The 172 model goes to a translucent look when the panel light switch is on. As well I hope that the panel/cabin light will get to work independently properly as this functionality is built in.

>...It will not follow a Flight Plan>heading with or with the heading select knob pushed in or out>and selected on GPS....The autopilot will not follow the GPS in Heading mode, you need to be in NAV mode with the NAV/GPS switch set to GPS.

>>...It will not follow a Flight Plan>>heading with or with the heading select knob pushed in or>out>>and selected on GPS....>>The autopilot will not follow the GPS in Heading mode, you>need to be in NAV mode with the NAV/GPS switch set to GPS.That's correct as I said already, it will *NOT* work when set like that:"There are also glaring issues with the A321 which I just finished flying around. It will not follow a Flight Plan heading with or with the heading select knob pushed in or out and selected on GPS. "

and I find it bizzare when the FS team feels insulted when people like myself make comments about the default airplanes being basically worthless for the most part and how they should spend their time making the game itself better. I wonder if they ever fly them?

<Whoa! Great idea! Thanks, Alex! ;)

You can critisize people or their work without using labeling-words such as "worthless"! Your tone of language is not of a constructive critisism but an insult! I hope this ends your "bizzare" puzzlement of why people feel insulted! You are welcome!

####, I never realised that the programmers hadn't thought of flying them, I mean come on it's a flight sim for goodness sake(Please note the above is sarcasm)Really what kind of people are the default planes for - the people who are the biggest fans, need all the widgets, and gidgets working?Or more for the casual buyer who doesn't know a pitot tube to a nav light?I'm guessing the defaults are aimed more for the casual user who just wants to jump in a plane, firewall the throttle and blast off and fly around and land.Personally if I want more than that, then I'm expecting to download them.Give them a break, I'm sure the developers know that this button or that button on the plane, or even the widget next to the gidget doesn't work properly.Roll on the full version, I for one will be purchasing it - not for the default planes, but for prospect of what is to come.How many people at a guess still fly the defaults (not downloaded - just the stock planes that FS9 has)

Personally I think most of the default planes have achieved a great state of realism...especially the GA airplanes and I truly enjoy flying them. Is it wrong to want the new high standard they have set across the board?

>You can critisize people or their work without using>labeling-words such as "worthless"! Your tone of language is>not of a constructive critisism but an insult! I hope this>ends your "bizzare" puzzlement of why people feel insulted! >You are welcome!why are you so defensive? there is no other word for those airplanes, not only are they simple and control bad, but they most certainly leave a bad taste in the mouth of first time flyers. How many people would be attracted to FS and want to learn more if they had, say a PMDG, Dreamfleet, or Level-D type airplane that could be flown easily if they choose?It is worthless and I dont understand why a certain developer decides to rush to the defense of the default airplanes which harm the product more than anything and take away much needed development personel and time to other more important parts of the game

I Personally feel that the default KA350 is leaps and bounds ahead of the the past default aircraft and besides not having all the bells and whistles of the Aeroworx version, it does well and my only complaint is that when taxiing, it's got a good grip on the ground. I like it though for a default aircraft.Eric Twww.freewebs.com/flightsimshowcase

Most of the default GA a/c for FSX are much better than the defaults for FS9. They're at least of the level of high-quality freeware. The 172 and Beaver have extremely fast VC refresh rates, and the 172 flies by the numbers, more or less. The DG glider is also a joy to fly, and makes soaring a breeze.

I'm at a loss to understand where this comes from Alex, you just have to be using a different FSX to the rest of us!!All default aircraft are improved over FS9, and some of the new ones are really very, very good indeed.Yes, OK, they are "simple" in terms of their cockpit functionality, but then how many LD767, PMDG747 (yes even DF727 as well) users start flightsim with everything set up and ready to go? A lot, is the answer.Dreamfleet Project ManagerGreatest Airliners - DC-8Greatest Airliners - 727 Whisperjethttp://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...BANNER_PAUL.jpg

>It is worthless and I dont understand why a certain developer>decides to rush to the defense of the default airplanes which>harm the product more than anything and take away much needed>development personel and time to other more important parts of>the game.I really like the way Mike handled your undeserved criticism. It almost negates the need for me to say something.Almost.I can say without a doubt that the A321 included in FSX is easily the most advance, and well executed default airplane of the FS franchise. Is it still rough in places? Yes, its a beta.But for a default aircraft to have realistic depictions of each ECAM synoptic screen, true FBW, and a superb external model, is clearly a large step forward.If you choose not to see it, thats your prerogative, but your criticism is misplaced and unwarranted.Nick

its not just the simple cockpit functionality, its the floating feeling that you get, the overexaggerated control sensitivity no matter what sliders you adjust, it just doesnt feel like you are flying that airplane. I dont mean cockpit functionality, I mean the looks and feel of a real airplane. The DF727 is my favorite old school jet to fly, imagine if Microsoft paid companies like yourself a percentage of the profit to develop a version of your best airplane to put in the next flight simulator and advertised your company in the game to help your future sales and to get novices to look at your company when they wouldnt even know of it. Instead people just buy FS and I'd say 80% or more just get tired of the bland default airplanes, have no idea about the community that adds to the experience, and finds some other game to play.And this version would have 2 options. starting from cold and dark, or automated, where you can just sit back and fly while your virtual co-pilot does everything. Id say that would get more people into FS, and allow the FS team to concentrate on what they do best, make a great engine.