FSX payware GA aircraft vendors

[Tim Arnot 5]

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!

[ShezA 176]

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

[LAdamson 240]

>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

[Tim Arnot 5]

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!

[MatthewS 761]

>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?

[bkeske 0]

>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.

[G7USL 117]

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.

[N400QW 205]

"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:-)

[slashed2 53]

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.

[Guest]

>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.

[G7USL 117]

It's wrong to blame Aerosoft for something they didn't cause.Software suppliers have been mucked about for too long and now, they have been finally told that, yes the program is finished, can they supply fixes for the problems that 'SP-2' has caused!Give them a chance, cut them some slack please. A fix will come if your patient enough?

[bkeske 0]

Correct...it is designed by Digital Aviation, not Aerosoft, who simply distributes the product for them.SP-2 had no effect from the original FSX DO release other than a minor rear glass problem which DA provided a patch very quickly. That said, the DO was sold as a FSX release, as others have, but for the most part it was the FS9 'fixed up' to work in FSX originally. It was not a 'pure' FSX aircraft as, lets say, the Aerosoft Beaver was/is. Now, I I have been told by some developers that this is not always easy, Ron Hamilton w/ES has stated that a few times with their FSX aircraft. I can certainly understand that,have no problem with that, as long as everything works correctly. The DO does in most cases, except for some nagging issues which are more cosmetic than anything. But what it does have is a performance hit in FSX which it may not if a re-worked and 'pure' FSX model. I have not flown it much lately, so cannot comment on whether the performance has improved since SP-2. IMO, most all 'patched', 'ported', and to some degree 're-worked' FS9 aircraft for use in FSX may/will have some issues, it is just the way it is. For the most part I find better performance overall from aircraft designed specifically for FSX. Eaglesoft has done that for some of the newer models, and I believe the FSX Columbia and Twinkie *model* was actually designed as a pure FSX model (Ron can correct me if I'm wrong), So is the Aerosoft Beaver, and my wonderful RealAir aircraft. These aircraft have the least issues with FSX.

[N400QW 205]

"Eaglesoft has done that for some of the newer models, and I believe the FSX Columbia and Twinkie *model* was actually designed as a pure FSX model (Ron can correct me if I'm wrong)"--------------------------------------------------------------------Correct Brian, to be specific Eaglesoft currently has eight Aircraft in its FSX Fleet. A. Four of the eight are so called Hybrids built and released shortly after FSX RTM. They are Cirrus SR20, Cirrus SR22, Liberty XL2, and Beechjet/Hawker 1.5. All four are fully FSX/SP1/SP2 Compliant but are not yet DX10 Compliant. B. The other four were built and released near FSX/SPI/SP2 RTM. They are Cessna Citation II, Cessna Citation CJ1, Columbia 400, and Piper Twin Comanche. All four are fully FSX/SP1/SP2/DX10 Compliant.The differences between the two categories listed is that four are not DX10 Compliant and four are DX10 Compliant. All eight work very well in FSX/SP1/SP2. Users who like "DX10 Preview" should select from the B. category above:-)Hope this helps.

[Guest Nils79]

Ron,please could you give me a hint about the release date of the CitationX 2.0 ? Thanks in advance!

[N400QW 205]

>Ron,>please could you give me a hint about the release date of the>CitationX 2.0 ? Thanks in advance!Sorry Nils, we never post release dates. Look for CX2.0 beta test announcement. It's usually not too long after that we release:-)