What are most realistic default airplanes?

[spacedyemeerkat 421]

16 minutes ago, RaptyrOne said:

The drone is the one and only realistic aircraft in this sim. Hoping that will change but until then, that’s what I will fly.  🙂

Really? Really?

🙄

Edited September 22, 2020 by spacedyemeerkat

[Adrian123 1,015]

12 minutes ago, spacedyemeerkat said:

Really? Really?

Of course not. The fuel trucks are quite realistic.

[Ajb376 59]

12 hours ago, Rocky said:

If you use to own a Bonanza, you will probably say the Bonanza in MSFS is not very realistic. I never flew it for real but I think it is very underpowered in the sim. As a comparison, I used to fly the Carenado model in FSX and it was looking OK, but here is looks like heavy and slow... I didn't try the realsim mod though.

What do you think?

I honestly haven’t flown it yet. I was waiting for a 3080 and got impatient and picked up a 2070 yesterday so have just picked it up again. In mostly sightseeing. 

Bonanzas arent quick though. The a36/g36 is a bit of a workhorse and can carry a lot but doing 160 true is pushing it. I think I flew around 154 tas st 8k feet off the top of my head. The plane was normally aspirated. 

[Ajb376 59]

15 hours ago, z06z33 said:

Have you tried to pull an engine on yourself?Prop doesn't feather and if you pull an engine on take off the plane just tracks straight down the runway asymmetric thrust has no effect on the ground handling. Same thing during taxi,no effect.

I haven’t yet, but that’s very disappointing to here. I have done it on my own plane however. Image is from my commercial Checkride. 

[willy647 193]

Compared to the PMDG / FSLabs from P3D, none of the MSFS airplanes are any good. But hey, the default P3D airplanes are no better. Anyway, I wont be flying MSFS much untill the 3rd party planes are released.

[Rocky 128]

1 hour ago, willy647 said:

Compared to the PMDG / FSLabs from P3D, none of the MSFS airplanes are any good. But hey, the default P3D airplanes are no better. Anyway, I wont be flying MSFS much untill the 3rd party planes are released.

You are right if you talk about liners, the A320 Neo and the 747 are certainly not as good as FSLabs or PMDG.

But talking about the light aircraft, I think they are very good, much much better than the default aircraft we used to have in fs9, FSX. P3D did better by including aircraft from add-on developers (Alabeo for instance) and I am 99% sure Microsoft did the same for MSFS. The C152 and C172 are very good and very similar to what Carenado did for FSX/P3D. I am almost sure they designed this default aircraft, which is a very good idea IMO.

[Rocky 128]

4 hours ago, Ajb376 said:

I haven’t yet, but that’s very disappointing to here. I have done it on my own plane however. Image is from my commercial Checkride. 

On your picture it seems the end of the propeller blade is bent. Am I right?

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,798]

20 minutes ago, Rocky said:

. The C152 and C172 are very good and very similar to what Carenado did for FSX/P3D. .

They are not perfect but definitely an awful lot better.

My flight instructor back in the 90's banned students from practicing landings in MSFS. 

Apparently the "signs" of too much time on a simulator back then were:

- veering off course as you got closer to the runway because you were aligning the centreline with the middle of the windshield rather than the yoke (but could do crosswind landings perfectly)

- an excess nervousness about pulling the yoke fully back in the final stages of holding off 

- a tendency to try and force the aircraft on to the runway with forward stick rather than holding off longer

The first issue is probably the result of spending too much sim time in single seat WWII fighters were lining the runway up with the centre of your PC screen works fine. Not so much in a real Cessna on short final.

The other two are likely the result of an excess float and nose up tendency on back stick in many MS GA planes. 

[Nyxx 6,993]

I enjoy

172 G1000

Bonanza G36 with mod <my fav

CCL 

[sholay 45]

8 hours ago, willy647 said:

Compared to the PMDG / FSLabs from P3D, none of the MSFS airplanes are any good. But hey, the default P3D airplanes are no better. Anyway, I wont be flying MSFS much untill the 3rd party planes are released.

I do not expect PMDG/FSLabs quality. Not even Aerosoft's 😉

The question is - what is 'decent'. I am aware about mods, but still I wonder how Caravan - my favourite plane is doing in that regard.

 

&

[CharlieDont5urf 17]

The XCub with mod/s + liveries from https://www.bushleaguelegends.com/addons/msfs ist a joy too and an attempt to be accurate + as long as i can say bugfree.

[Bosco19 198]

IMO, most of the GA aircraft are NOT realistic - for various reasons - but the most annoying characteristic for me is their control sensitivity. Yes, I have adjusted sensitivity. Go beyond a very tiny control range and they all start getting jumpy and twitchy. Push a rudder pedal a little too far and the aircraft gives a massive and sudden shudder. This doesn't happen in a real AC! There, in smaller birds, you get an increasing feeling of feedback pressure in the pedals the harder you push, and the wind starts to get a bit scary-sounding against the outside of the AC. Perhaps this twitchiness was designed in purposely as a substitute for the missing physical forces? The net result is that you are forced to be VERY gentle on the controls! If you can condition yourself to the gentle responses required, some of the planes give a fair representation of the real thing, especially the Cub-types. I think sims like this CAN be very realistic for procedural practice, but you must accept that no sim is ever going to replicate the real experience 100%, which is why, IMO, designers should focus more on generic flight and control responses - perhaps giving us easier access to tweaking - so that we can easily change the handling and performance "feel" until we are satisfied, as individuals, that it all seems realistic (whether it is or not). Foe example, I had to self-retire from flying because of age-related vision loss. I want to boot up this software and re-connect with with my 30 years of real aircraft experience. It's never going to be totally realistic - but it can come pretty darned close.  And the recent visual technology improvements add to this immeasurably. Yes, some stuff is pretty far off...ie...Being unable to get a Bonanza up above 8500 msl to clear Haleakala without stalling out!

[z06z33 763]

11 hours ago, Rocky said:

On your picture it seems the end of the propeller blade is bent. Am I right?

Its called a Q-tip prop

[Ajb376 59]

11 hours ago, Rocky said:

On your picture it seems the end of the propeller blade is bent. Am I right?

Ha! Nice catch. This is called a Colemill Foxstar conversion and 4 bladed "Q-tip" propellers. Each prop has a "wingtip". This is for sound and efficiency purposes. The baron also has an extended wing with wingtips themselves. I bought the plane with this conversion.

[sholay 45]

What really puzzles me is that they have this 'Partnership Series' videos published on YT. There is whole bunch of test pilots, aeronautical engineers, and software developers telling us stories of their cooperation.

And of course how realistic are results of this cooperation.

Yet in just couple of weeks some random amateurs are able to correct stupid mistakes and omissions made by international teams of aviation experts and professional software developers.

I WOULD LOVE to be able to ask this question to somebody from Asobo - how come?!?!?!?

But of course I know that even if I would be able to ask the question and somebody would answer, the answer would be of this kind of smooth, nice PRish BS. Like in the Reddit AMA with Lockheed Martin's P3D team some time ago: 

 

 

&

 

&