Sign in to follow this  
McCrash

FSX payware GA aircraft vendors

Recommended Posts

I am one of the users of the FS series who has settled on the comfortable balance that FS9 is my jets/turboprop/VATSIM sim, and FSX is my GA/Biz GA/VATSIM sim. They are both terrific sims!As I already have a hangar full of FS9 aircraft and seeing the dearth of freeware offerings for FSX as of yet I wanted to purchase a couple of GA aircraft for FSX (a twin and a single prop maybe).There are many posts on the various payware GA aircraft available for FSX but this is scattered. I wonder if the forum members could reply to this post with a list of the companies who are into payware GA aircraft and the aicraft they offer. Ideally a 1-5 star rating for the aircraft could be provided but if people think that is sensitive then no need.ThanksShez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

As far as FSX only GA prop planes there aren't a TON yet. Here are my suggestions:Aerosoft Beaver X - 5 starsEaglesoft Cirrus SR-22 - 4 stars (5 stars if you have a good PC)Carenado Cessna 182Q, Cessna 206, Mooney M20 - 5 starsI know you said FS9 was for turboprops but I also suggest the Flight1 PC-12 - 5 starsOf all of these I would suggest the 182Q the most. It is technically a FS9 portover but it is fully compatible with FSX (w/DX9 only) as well as the free patch off of their website.I would watch for some of the dreamfleet stuff to be moved over to FSX too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RealAir Simulations = 10 stars! Buy everything they make! No joke. They make the two best GA aircraft I own. The SF260 and the Citabria/Scout/Decathlon package. Not only do they have the best flight models I have seen, they also have a super crips and clean art style which I really like, and the sounds are great as well. I rate the SF260 higher than the Citabria package, but thats just because I like performance aircraft, but the citabria package is more dynamic as it has bush planes, acrobatic planes, float planes and more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Throw in the Eaglesoft Twin Comanche - 5 stars for the plane and FPS.Same can be said of the Digital Aviation Cheyenne although that's a turbo prop.I'll reiterate the Citabria/Scout package for bush and the SF260 for just plain fun.Also, some of the default aircraft are top notch including the Grumman Goose and the Maule although not as complex as some of the 3rd party offerings, but they certainly up the bar for default FS aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>RealAir Simulations = 10 stars! Buy everything they make! No>joke. >Same thoughts here!L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, DreamFleet is about to release in the coming days the Dakota for FSX.Hope this helps!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. Actually I meant Turboprops = Propliners (i.e. ATR, Saab), I count the PC-12 as a GA aircraft so it would be on my list.Shez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our FSX Columbia 400 offers turbo performance and is TAA. TAA= Technically Advanced Aircraft. Zane Gard has a recent review here at Avsim.:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks! Great suggestions.Actually the GA/Biz turboprops are within my scope.Any opinions on the FSD Navajo and the Flight1 B200 in FSX?Shez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I second the Eaglesoft's Twin Comanche. Thats my fav non turbine Twin right now. Something about it ..just feels right. I don't have to look at the gauges or anything.. even if I fly looking outside, I feel like I am in a real twin.We need more twins!MannyIf you have the FS9 Aeroworx's King air, you can port it to FSX. It works fairly good. Especially their analog gauges. Thats what I use for the Twin Turbo.I cannot get the F1 ATR to work in FSX. I do not have VC lighting at night. One of the best features of the F1 ATR was the VC lighting. So thats out for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron,I really like the Columbia from Eaglesoft. It is on my list :).Shez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Ron,>>I really like the Columbia from Eaglesoft. It is on my list>:).>>ShezThanks Shez, the turbo performance is a really nice feature. She's also FSX/SP1/SP2/DX10 compliant:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also highly recommend the RealAir Scout Package and the Eaglesoft Twin Comanche. I'd also like to add a plug for the FSD Piper Saratoga.JimDell XPS 420 Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 3.0 ghz3 gb dual channel 800 mhz DDR2 RAM512 mb nvidia 8800GT500 gb SATA drive 7200 rpmSoundblaster X-Fi Xtreme Music22" Acer widescreen LCDWindows Vista Home Premium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The two planes I fly most right now are the Eaglesoft Twin Comanche and Real Air Citabria (part of the Scout/Citabria/Decathalon package). Third place is the Real Air Marchetti (correctly pronounced MarKetti btw, not as FS does!)The Twinkie (look out for a new paint in the library over the next few days - I'm just doing the final round of testing on it), gets a 4.5, losing half a mark for its lack of DME and ADF, making it poor for procedural IFR unless you use the GPS (which I dislike). The Citab gets a full 5. It also hasn't got a DME, but makes up for it by being aerobatic (if you don't throw at least an aileron roll per flight, there's something wrong with you!). The SF also gets a full 5 - full IFR panel AND aerobatic! It doesn't get flown so much now purely because it was about the only GA plane worth flying on FSX for a long time, so it's now having a well deserved rest.I do have the Eaglesoft SR22 and Columbia, er, Cessna, er, Columbia 400, but I find the performance hit on my PC is such that I don't really enjoy flying them. Perfectly good planes though, and I'm sure they're great to fly if you have more grunt.One thing I really like about the RealAir planes is their avionics setting UI - click and drag the mouse up or down. Very usable, especially in a VC where you're being bounced around. I wish more plane designers would adopt the same technique. Nothing worse IMHO than tiny obscure clickspots that you have to repeatedly click - if you can find them that is!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the inputs Tim!What system do you have which is being dragged down by the Columbia?Shez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The Twinkie (look out for a new paint in the library over the>next few days - I'm just doing the final round of testing on>it), gets a 4.5, losing half a mark for its lack of DME and>ADF, making it poor for procedural IFR unless you use the GPS>(which I dislike). I could care less about ADF & DME (waste of $$$), and am totally in favor of GPS. However, I see that we live on different sides of the Atlantic, where proceedures and use of equipment varies for various reasons. Which..........is why I see your point.:( L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind GPS in real life, where it's as unreliable and prone to drop-outs, jamming etc as everything else, and is simply another tool in the box.We've had half a handful of GPS/RNAV approaches undergoing trial for the last year or so, and these are starting to go live, but the vast majority of instrument approaches here are NDB-DME, VOR-DME or ILS-DME, and will be for quite some time. (My local airport has only had an ILS installed in the last six months or so. Rumour was they got it cheap off eBay... LOL)Of course, there are no GPS approaches here in FS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>One thing I really like about the RealAir planes is their>avionics setting UI - click and drag the mouse up or down.>Very usable, especially in a VC where you're being bounced>around. I wish more plane designers would adopt the same>technique. Nothing worse IMHO than tiny obscure clickspots>that you have to repeatedly click - if you can find them that>is!>Absolutely agree. It makes things so much easier. Why didn't Microsoft think of this as a standard feature in FSX?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I do have the Eaglesoft SR22 and Columbia, er, Cessna, er,>Columbia 400, but I find the performance hit on my PC is such>that I don't really enjoy flying them. Perfectly good planes>though, and I'm sure they're great to fly if you have more>grunt.I will have to agree with most everything posted here, but I would take exception to the Columbia being too much of a performance burden within FSX. I think it performs admirably, in fact, the FSX version seems to be better than the FS9 version. Now, one of my all-time favorites is the Cirrus, and it does indeed seem to struggle in FSX, but I have a feeling this will eventually get corrected by ES, in fact, the 'sterling' turbo SR22 is being totally re-worked for FSX and I expect it to perform much better....fingers crossed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is only one REAL G.A. aircraft, the one that breathes and lurches just like the real thing.An aircraft that simulates reality more than any other.The Digital Aviation Dornier Do-27!Nothing else comes within sniffing distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"in fact, the 'sterling' turbo SR22 is being totally re-worked for FSX and I expect it to perform much better....fingers crossed."Correct Brian, FSX C400 does well in FSX/SP2. SR22 G2/G3 will perform better. However I do have screens of the current SR22 G2 in FSX/SP2 with between 35 to 55 on my modest rig:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes, the Do, couldn't agree more, although it's not for the feint of heart. If DA do nothing else for FSX but this aircraft I'll be happy and by that I mean update it to be SP2 compliant. I'd be willing to pay for it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>There is only one REAL G.A. aircraft, the one that breathes>and lurches just like the real thing.>>An aircraft that simulates reality more than any other.>>The Digital Aviation Dornier Do-27!>>Nothing else comes within sniffing distance.Not a bad plane for an FS9 port. To bad its not an FSX aircraft, otherwise I might fly it, but disappearing props are no longer acceptable to me with so many good FSX planes out there. Aerosoft lost a lot of business from me by selling me an FS9 port as an FSX aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this