Hey Guys,It's been a long time since I flew a real 172, but the default 172 seems to have a little something more than F1's. I can't quite pinpoint it and I was just wondering what you guys think. I just think the default feels a little more jittery and gives me a better sense of air movement. I don't know, but F1's seems to be gliding on rails in FSX. In FS9, it was much better. Can anyone else comment?Thanks,John

I haven't detected a significant difference. I like the Flight1 panel a bit more.

I too prefer the F1 aircraft.

I like the default more because I don't have to pay any extra money for it. As far as I can tell (reading the reactions) it's a waste of money to buy the F1 version! If the difference was huge and very clear I'd get it, but since the differences are apparently minor (or even in favor of the defalt one) you'd be stupid to spend money on it... (imho).

I tried the demo's of several payware single engine planes, they were all nice, but the default planes in FSX, as far as I'm concerned, are just as good or better. I have the FS9 Real Air freeware flight model and custom panel and I find the FSX default plane just as good.http://realairsimulations.com/list_box.php?page=downloads(Mind you, I admit to being blinded by the lovely eye-candy cockpits in some of the FSX planes. The Cessnas, and especially the Maule Orion - my new favorite - all have gorgeous VCs and I can't see buying a single engine add-on unles it was Five-Star spectacular.)

but the awful night lighting in the VC of the default aircraft is pathetic.

>I just think the default feels a little more jittery>and gives me a better sense of air movement. I don't know,>but F1's seems to be gliding on rails in FSX. As a guy with about 300 hours on a real C172 I can tell you that F1's is not on 'rails'. It is the best rendition of C172 available for the MSFS. 'Jittery' is unfortunately a very good description of frequent characteristic of Microsoft planes and it is neither desirable nor realistic.Michael J.