Here is a comparison of some FS9 & FSX virtual cockpits for illustration:Default King-Air VC FS9:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/156184.jpgDefault King-Air VC FSX:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/156185.jpgCompare those differences now to the *BEAUTIFUL* difference between the Caravan versions:Default Caravan VC FS9:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/156186.jpgDefault Caravan VC FSX:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/156187.jpgAs you can all see *HOPEFULLY*, this is what I personally was talking about as far as what was updated and what wasn't.Default 172 VC FS9:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/156190.jpgDefault 172 VC FSX:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/156191.jpgDefault Baron VC FS9:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/156192.jpgDefault Baron VC FSX:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/156193.jpgDefault Mooney VC FS9:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/156194.jpgDefault Mooney VC FSX:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/156195.jpg

I just "discovered" the Jenny a few weeks ago, and thought that it was a really nice rendition and plan on flying it more.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

Well, for one, most people look at the PMDG 747 and say "forget that, how the heck will I ever figure that out". The Dreamfleet Archer VC is pretty archaic at this point, and is largely unclickable. But it was designed for 2002, hmm, about the same time the default FS9 planes were designed.People want a plane they can jump in and fly, they want to pull back and go up, and they want to do loops and rolls and look around and land. Certainly not everyone wants this, but that is what joe and jess public want. I know, take a look at my website.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

Thank you. That pretty much sums up what I feel about the default airplanes. 95% of them are really really good this time around. But the Mooney and King Air were sorta skipped over.

Id Rather Be Flying - Thanks very much for posting those comparision pictures! I found them very useful :) It seems the propeller-disk looks smaller in FSX? (the view from the VC)

This is why many of us are holding off purchasing FSX. What I'm seeing above along with steep hardware requirments and little improved over graphics is more than enough reason to stick with FS9 a wee bit longer. :-)

I knew my eyes was working okay when I saw a screen shot of the King Air VC :-)I have spend the majority of my Flight sim career in the default planes (primarly the 172 and B737) so the missing improvement of the King Air and the Bravo VC's in the beta concerns me a bit. Hopefully ACES will correct it for the retail release or in a later patch as they are a bit of a letdown compared to the rest of the aircraft VC's in FSX. Especially when we know what quality VC's they are able to produce (the 172 and caravan are looking amazing).But maybe tdragger or some of the other ACES guys that faithfully visits this forum can shed some light on this?As a side note it is a bit funny that the King Air and the Bravo is involved. As I remember when FS2002Pro was released those two aircraft had not been graphically improved from FS2000 and contained no VC.I smell a conspiracy... :-)

I don't quite get the whole thing about everyone thinking that speak for everyone else around here.Between Big Al here telling me I'm not allowed to like the default aircraft because they don't have enough buttons or something, to other people telling me that, as a member of the community, all I want out of FSX is improved AI/ATC. It's a little bit silly.To Big Al, I'd like to introduce you to someone close to me, called my opinion. He's very insulted by the way you attempt to invalidate him. The default aircraft are fine and there are plenty of people who use them regularly, myself included. This isn't called Big Al's Flight Simulator, so it's pretty dense of you to assume that it is being designed specifically for you. If you want to pour your money into button-filled payware, then that's your right. But that doesn't invalidate my right to enjoy the aircraft included (at no extra charge to me).Out of curiosity, is that how the payware scale goes? The more buttons, the higher the price? I should make a space shuttle. What a cash cow that would be :(

quote: "This is why many of us are holding off purchasing FSX"any stats here? Maybe you'll be the only one:-hah Rodger

I've finally come to the conclusion that Bill Gates, Microsoft and the ACES team, in particular, are responsible for global warming, cellulite, cat hairballs and the lack luster Yugo sales in the U.S. Did I mention that my wife has purchased two Mazada Protege's in a row but refuses to buy another one until they (finally) do something about the dismal cup holders.Folks, I can understand that there are a few people out there that probably won't buy FSX right away for one reason or another...what I don't understand is why a few folks have to be so verbose in their intention not to purchase it.Me, I've pre-ordered it. I could wax on in depth as to why I'm buying it but does it really matter?

Thanks for the comparison screenshots. Will this stop me from purchasing FSX? No, but I do feel let down. I liked the Mooney a lot and was looking forward to a decent VC.

>I knew my eyes was working okay when I saw a screen shot of>the King Air VC :-)>>I have spend the majority of my Flight sim career in the>default planes (primarly the 172 and B737) so the missing>improvement of the King Air and the Bravo VC's in the beta>concerns me a bit. >>Hopefully ACES will correct it for the retail release or in a>later patch as they are a bit of a letdown compared to the>rest of the aircraft VC's in FSX. Especially when we know what>quality VC's they are able to produce (the 172 and caravan are>looking amazing).>>But maybe tdragger or some of the other ACES guys that>faithfully visits this forum can shed some light on this?>>As a side note it is a bit funny that the King Air and the>Bravo is involved. As I remember when FS2002Pro was released>those two aircraft had not been graphically improved from>FS2000 and contained no VC.>>I smell a conspiracy... :-) There are several major (on my system) improvements in the default planes that are not discerned from screen shots. The sound is substantially better and the VC gauge smoothness is exceptionally better on my system. Additionally the level of detail and sharpness of the gauges has improved. If you don't care about the sound and gauges that are much better relative to fluid motion and readability, then no big deal I guess. :)Bob...

>I don't quite get the whole thing about everyone thinking>that speak for everyone else around here.>>Between Big Al here telling me I'm not allowed to like the>default aircraft because they don't have enough buttons or>something, to other people telling me that, as a member of the>community, all I want out of FSX is improved AI/ATC. It's a>little bit silly.>>To Big Al, I'd like to introduce you to someone close to me,>called my opinion. He's very insulted by the way you attempt>to invalidate him. The default aircraft are fine and there>are plenty of people who use them regularly, myself included. >This isn't called Big Al's Flight Simulator, so it's pretty>dense of you to assume that it is being designed specifically>for you. If you want to pour your money into button-filled>payware, then that's your right. But that doesn't invalidate>my right to enjoy the aircraft included (at no extra charge to>me).>>Out of curiosity, is that how the payware scale goes? The>more buttons, the higher the price? I should make a space>shuttle. What a cash cow that would be :(im glad you have our own opinion, but I'll just look at the facts.what are the facts? well to have one of the largest selling games of all time (the largest, I could be mistaken) yet such a small community for that size game, can only point to the default aircraft might be good enough for a few, but most get bored with them easily and go move on to another game. 30 thousand avsim forum members to millions of copies sold speaks volumesNow I dont mean to say they should simulate realistically every system and switch, what I mean is, they should be highly detailed, fly by the numbers, and feel like their real life counterparts. Since it is obvious they do not have the time to do this for each default aircraft, I have always wished they stick to what they can do best, create a great engine and allow 3rd party developers a chance to show their products (dumbed down so you can jump right in and fly) in the game when you buy it off the shelf. Imagine a PMDG 737 or 747 that if you want, you can use the default GPS, or you can select a realistic option and LNAV and VNAV with an FMC are there instead.The whole aggrevation I have with this series, is they could spend more time wasted with the default aircraft, and put it towards developing a better engine for others to work with. How about better ATC control? sid/stars, crossing runways, etc, the list goes on and on.

"any stats here? Maybe you'll be the only one"I'm holding off and many of my friends are doing the same. I know simmers all over the world and this is the general consensus. I will concede and say I don't have any official numbers but for those that don't feel like playing the slider game it would seem like a smart choice. I want all or most of my add-ons upgraded, Vista, DX10, and newer hardware before I take the plunge. Running this thing on my current hardware is out the question. Waiting for a new OS and hardware newer than we have on the market now makes the most since to me. I find it hard to understand anyone wanting to purchase this new sim only to find it looks and runs worse than what they already have with FS9. Yes everything is still up in the air as to how the final build will perform but I

"if this sim had more to offer than just updated graphics... "It does....http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg