I'm looking forward to the arrival of:

• A2A for their small GA aircraft
• Majestic for their Dash-8 Q400
• PMDG for their 737; and
• FSLabs for their A320-family.

There are other aircraft developers (including those who specialise in XP payware) who are worth a look at, but once these 4 bring their products to the MSFS stable, I think we will see the leap ahead in flight simming (not just virtual sightseeing and meterology) that we all expected to see.
 

6 hours ago, W2DR said:

Nice scenery but, just speaking about the C172 compared to my RW experience, the aircraft sucks.

How many hours do you have in one in real life?  it's not perfect but it doesn't sucks either

I flight instruct in one and I own one, so I strongly disagree with you

Very satisfied with how flight feels, especially when landing. Landings are the most realistic in this sim I would say. In X-Plane flight dynamics are great but landing sucks - when you get low and slow, it feels like the ground sucks you in when in GA planes. I love how ground effect takes full force in this sim and allows you to hold planes off nicely.

 

I’m annoyed with a few bugs related to aircraft systems (on the C172, alternator off = positive charge, alternator on = negative charge..; leaning mixture in flight = higher fuel flow before it drops, and performance on takeoff is noticeably wrong), but otherwise it seems great.

4 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

How many hours do you have in one in real life?  it's not perfect but it doesn't sucks either

I flight instruct in one and I own one, so I strongly disagree with you

It doesn’t suck, but there are obvious issues.

For one, performance on takeoff feels way off. Normally I’d have no problem easily gaining airspeed and hitting 79 kts, but in the sim it’s hard to get it up there. Its initial climb is very slow (400 ish FPM at Vy), but then once you climb a bit and lean the mixture, performance magically improves (700 FPM at Vy)...

Also, alternator off charges the battery, and alternator back on shows discharge. Leaning mixture in flight initially produces a steep fuel flow rise until it drops again. 

And last thing: with my flight school’s R and S models, we start the planes like this:

Mixture Full Rich

Throttle Full Open

Master On

Fuel Pump on until 3-5 GPH

Fuel pump off

mixture cutoff, throttle 1/4 in open

Start

 

Setting throttle full open and mixture full rich and turning on the fuel pump shows an immediate 10 GPH (no moving needle, just appears at 10) when it should slowly rise up to 3-5 GPH...

3 minutes ago, FlyingInACessna said:

It doesn’t suck, but there are obvious issues.

For one, performance on takeoff feels way off. Normally I’d have no problem easily gaining airspeed and hitting 79 kts, but in the sim it’s hard to get it up there. Its initial climb is very slow (400 ish FPM at Vy), but then once you climb a bit and lean the mixture, performance magically improves (700 FPM at Vy)...

Also, alternator off charges the battery, and alternator back on shows discharge. Leaning mixture in flight initially produces a steep fuel flow rise until it drops again. 

And last thing: with my flight school’s R and S models, we start the planes like this:

Mixture Full Rich

Throttle Full Open

Master On

Fuel Pump on until 3-5 GPH

Fuel pump off

mixture cutoff, throttle 1/4 in open

Start

 

Setting throttle full open and mixture full rich and turning on the fuel pump shows an immediate 10 GPH (no moving needle, just appears at 10) when it should slowly rise up to 3-5 GPH...

Yes it's not study level, but not suck for sure. Unfortunately mixture is broken for all airplanes 

6 hours ago, W2DR said:

Nice scenery but, just speaking about the C172 compared to my RW experience, the aircraft sucks.

This is a totally ridiculous comparison.

Another one with very  unrealistic expectations.

No flightsim has an out of the box c172 that compares to real, none

you gotta wait for A2A and other 3rd parties.

 i say the ga planes are pretty welldone oput of the box.

If you walk into any flying club or airline protect/reserve room and ask "do you pitch for altitude or airspeed?" you'll be bombarded with 100's of different answers.

And so the question "are the flight dynamics realistic?" will not be answered uniformly, even from career pilots and veterans. I have hundreds of hours in the 172 and I think the flight model is fantastic. There are other pilots here with similar hours who think the flight model is garbage.

The only thing pilots ever agree on are work rules and landing fees.

Edited August 19, 20205 yr by WestAir
Spelling

I am a real life PPL and feel that the 172 in the game is under powered. I find myself having lower than expected air speeds especially on takeoff. Anyone else having this issue? Lowing the weight doesn't seem to really help.