Cessna 172 Stock - Flight Dynamics vs 2004 RealAir 172

[nudata 10]

I thought I would be clever and substitute the Aircraft.CFG and AIR files from the FS2004 RealAir 172 into the default C172. In the past Microsoft has been criticized for poor flight dynamics with the 172. Not bad, just poor. Therefore, I extrapolated that the FSX C172 was also "probably" poor. Thus the substitution. The aircraft appeared to perform ok. Not being a pilot I assumed that the Gold Standard from FS2004/FS9 was working better than the default. Then I began to worry that I was fooling myself. If FSX had some changes to the flight dynamics area my flying experience in the FSX RealAir 172 was a fiction. Not a good thing when you are already stretching your imagination.So, my questions - 1. Are the FS2004 flight dynamic specs compatible in FSX?2. Is the stock Microsoft Cessna 172 so close that any fiddling is useless?Regards,Dick BoleyA PC, an LCD, speakers, CH yoke

[Dondo 0]

Well, I can't speak for everyone, but I do fly a 1976 Cessna 172/G when I have time/money, so when I can't do that, I fly the FSX version of the 172. Aside from obvious differences (my Cessna doesn't sound anything like the Cessna in FSX, for some reason it reminds me of a diesel engine) and the panel is all clean and nice, my Cessna panel is quite a bit older....anyway....I think the flying characteristics in FSX are close enough to the real world flying that I really can't tell all that much difference. Although, to be honest, X-Plane feels more like flying then FSX, probably has to do more with frame rates then anything else though....;) The part of FS flying that doesn't feel quite right to me is power on stalls and forward slips. Something just doesn't look/feel right. Could be the lack of feeling. But, I would say that the FSX Cessna 172 flight dynamics are 98% accurate...if you are a fly by the numbers kind of pilot.My opinions only.Dondo

[LAdamson 240]

I know that RealAir's SF260 flight dynamics were NOT fully compatiable with FSX, and required a re-write. So how that translates to porting the FS2004 172 to FSX...........I don't really know.L.adamson

[LAdamson 240]

>Well, I can't speak for everyone, but I do fly a 1976 Cessna>172/G when I have time/money, so when I can't do that, I fly>the FSX version of the 172. Aside from obvious differences>(my Cessna doesn't sound anything like the Cessna in FSX, for>some reason it reminds me of a diesel engine) and the panel is>all clean and nice, my Cessna panel is quite a bit>older....anyway....I think the flying characteristics in FSX>are close enough to the real world flying that I really can't>tell all that much difference. Although, to be honest,>X-Plane feels more like flying then FSX, probably has to do>more with frame rates then anything else though....;) The>part of FS flying that doesn't feel quite right to me is power>on stalls and forward slips. Something just doesn't look/feel>right. Could be the lack of feeling. But, I would say that>the FSX Cessna 172 flight dynamics are 98% accurate...if you>are a fly by the numbers kind of pilot.>>My opinions only.>And I'm still on the opposite side of the fence, regarding X-Plane. As far as I'm concerned, the "feel" of flight within FSX is MUCH better that what I get out of X-Plane! Last evening I did a cross country in X-Plane using version 8 with global scenery for southern Utah and northern Arizona. I enjoy the X-Plane topography, but never get comfortable with the X-Plane cockpit. Hard to describe, but I think it's still like manipulating a puppet with strings. I still don't like the sense of (or lack of) mass, dampening, or inertia. Since the topic here, is RealAir; I'm a devoted fan of the RealAir SF260. I just don't think it gets any better for single engine flight dynamics...........anywhere!edit: And yes, for normal everyday flights from point A to B, the stock FSX 172 does just fine..... IMOL.Adamson

[bob.bernstein 0]

Dick, I've done 99% of my 100 hrs in real pic flying in a 172...although 20 years ago. Still, I've been flying sims ever since and of course, constantly comparing the 172s to my experience. I think the fsx default is as close to a feeling that reminds me of the old days as the realair one for fs2004. That, of course, was much better than the default of fs2004...but I think the current default is amazingly good.Its about all I fly, except jaunts now and then in the default ultralight.Low and Slow...Bob