some1

And if you want something that is not a Boeing, there's also SimCheck Airbus A-300 sold by Aerosoft.

I have a PFC Saab Yoke, the same model that was reviewed by Word Not Allowed on his blog some time ago. It's really a night&day difference compared to my previous Saitek yoke. Smooth, precise and has a great feel. The Saab model has plenty of buttons, although not in a HAT layout. I bought the cheaper version without hall sensors and don't regret it. After one year it still works like new, it has two big, industry grade potentiometers, not the tiny, cheapest pots installed by Saitek or Thrustmaster. Also, Xavi's support at Simtechdesign where I bought the yoke was exceptional. No idea about GoFlight, when I was buying my yoke there were no reviews of it.

Thanks for the heads up. Didn't know the developer was still active after all those years (I remember the addon from the FS9). Highly recommended.

Nope, both 400 and 430 have the same screen and dimensions in reality, it's just the tuning function that is missing in the 400: https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/digital/in-the-air/discontinued/gps-400/prod111.html https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/in-the-air/discontinued/gns-430w/prod301.html

C172 and Cherokke have completely different stacks, not a single gauge is identical. Some may be similar, because all in all, they are manufactured by the same company. C172R has the Silver Crown stack that was installed in the factory, the Cherokee has the old generation units with gas discharge displays, plus completely different autopilot and auxiliary avionics. http://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=107&t=35579 vs http://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=115&t=40159 Anything older than that, and we're talking about analog instruments, that would take a lot of space and make Cherokee a much worse IFR platform. Besides, that's the equipment that was installed in a real airplane which was the main source of interior reference. Actually, the autopilot has been completely rewritten so you could say it's a different unit now B) It now simulates all three servos (aileron, elevator, elevator trim), so you would be able to see how it really flies the plane, no cheating like the default FSX autopilot does. It also behaves like a real rate based autopilot, as opposed to the attitude based autopilots found in most other airplanes in FSX except Cherokee. A rate based autopilot uses the signal from the turn indicator and VSI, not from the attitude indicator, which makes it behave differently in some situations. During turns it maintains constant turn rate, not constant bank, and if you apply rudder when flying leveled, it will bank the aircraft to maintain zero turn rate, instead of turning the plane to maintain wings leveled. We've also added optional HSI with simulated both Slave and Free modes. Installing HSI also changes the way how the autopilot operates. There are more 3rd party GPS options available. Those GTN units from Flight1 work very nice and really transform it into glass cockpit. Oh, and the clock has a fully adjustable backlight now. There are many improvements like that, it's not a copy&paste from the C172, otherwise it would be ready half a year ago ^_^

Think I've got too much free time here.

There has been much debate on this subject when the Accusim C172 was released. Scott tested the real C172R Skyhawk extensively and concluded that the aircraft has sensitive controls and it takes off almost without input from the pilot. He even made a comparison video about it: Nevertheless, many people in flightsim world are used to less sensitive controls and our joysticks/yokes usually lack the force feedback and precision of the real controls. So we have added a slider on the Shift-3 panel with which you can adjust the elevator sensitivity of the C172 in FSX to your liking. You should try this out with the original air file.

Interesting, thanks for info. It's always nice to see new, exotic developments for Flight Simulator, especially such good quality.

I think the newest and most feature rich implementation of G1000 from Flight1 is in their King Air, not the Mustang, which is a bit older addon. So if you don't care about plane type, you should consider this one rather than C510. Can't compare it to the Mindstar G1000 though.

I just wish they did an update with new models (787, 748) and up to date liveries.

And which one can we expect first?

It has already been said in this topic, that Level-D does not simulate RR engines, it's just visual model difference. Power/fuel consumption is still GE specific. Not sure if winglets models have different FM.

That pretty much sums up what QW 146/RJ offers. There are two modes of operation, one with realistic FMC(s), autopilot (LNAV, VNAV), systems and normal procedures simulated. The other one seems to be more like default aircraft, but never tried it so can't comment on that. For those who are concerned about QualityWings quality, you can download the 300 pages manual for Avro RJ to check if it's hardore enough for you: http://qwsim.com/index.php/downloads?c=docs&m=757

Probably because people can tell a difference between -200 and -300 ^_^

Thanks, somehow missed that one. That's what I like, lots of configuration options. ^_^

Don't want to sound ungrateful, but can this feature be disabled in the cfg? I already have a dual throttle controller, I don't need any artificial help to make a tight turn.

Have you checked the option to generate mipmaps in VC? This greatly improves gauges clarity, much like supersampling in FSX. Technically, FXAA and MSAA are separate options. You can have one of them, or both. I think you can enable SGSS in P3D with inspector, you just have to create your own profile for the program, or add the executable to existing profile. You can't force supersampling in DX10 or DX11 at the driver level.

Track IR works out of the box. Make sure your TIR software and games list is up to date. It's the people with EZDOK that have problems, as EZDOK intercepts trackir and moves the sim camera by itself.

I think people will have to learn again that there is actually an active developer behind this sim. Unlike Microsoft.

Maybe some software that you have in your system interferes with the mouse cursor (maybe the one from mouse/keyboard manufacturer). Just a wild guess. FSX is no different here, if you want to have vsync in windowed mode, you must enable Aero on win7. For some reason, that is a must for all software.

Here's FSX for comparison. Mostly maxed settings, increased LOD via cfg, and some tweaks like bufferpools=0 (don't remember other). I've got roughly 40 fps at these settings in DX10, but that's without ground scenery shadows . With shadows from the scenery enabled, I'm in low twenties and the screen looks exactly the same, since the shadows are visible only on the ground texture. Even at the same location it's hard to compare things. The autogen distribution is different (thanks to FTX Global) and there's less autogen visible on this particular shot, so FSX has less things to draw. You can see that in P3D there's more autogen in the far distance.

No offence, but this comparison is utter pile of crap. Not to mention that P3D2 screenshot comes from the leaked early beta and the guy who made it probably found it cracked on some pirate site. So let me compare it with what I can see on the beta 4 (not a final product) on my PC. Keep in mind that I took these screenshots in slew mode from the stock FSX C172 2D cockpit view, so don't expect the same fps on the 747 cockpit at the busy approach to KJFK. Autogen and LOD at max, mesh at high, full shadows and water reflectivity: And that's the same situation and scenery settings, except shadows and water reflections are disabled for trees and buldings

If it does not install any other files than in Addon Scenery, then yes, you can simply point to sceneries that are installed outside P3D directory. You can do the same in FSX and point it to scneries outside FSX directory.

At least with this release, the goal of LM was to improve the core engine - something that only they can do, no one else except LM and MS has the source codes. And they did it while at the same time maintaining almost 100% compatibility with FSX, so your precious addons from FSX can still be used. Most of what you have mentioned in the original post are things that addon developers can do, and what they did with more or less success in FSX for all these years. Lockheed is not doing the same work as addon developers, it's doing the work that the addon developers can not do. Sure, it would be nice to get a better weather or ATC out of the box. So would be a PMDG quality 777 and A320 bundled with release for free. Regarding the 32 bit application, DX10 and up uses process memory differently, that's why OOM's are much less likely to occur in FSX in DX10 mode. P3D should benefit from it too, plus the guys at Lockheed did some memory leaks hunting. But we will know if that helped only after release, when people start throwing everything they got into the sim at the same time. If P3D 2.0 were 64 bit at the relase day, you would get a great simulator platform with virtually no content for it (except sceneries), as only basic addons without c++ modules would work.

Great , that would be the best option for me. Though I suppose that FTX Global will require separate installation anyway?