VOJu24

Awesome, also love that a lot of VFR features have been added, which is great =) Also, the improvements in phraseology are highly appreciated. Some people always think they need to complain, but this is an awesome program. By no means perfect but it does many things right, that other tools don't.

Haha, I just wrote the first sentence because I felt self-conscious about adding to the noise I hadn't even thought about what was written right before.

Don't think anyone needs my opinion after 8 pages of opinions. Anyways I think you need to see it in a bigger context: MFS is a platform, it should stand as the building block for the next 10 years. Planes will be fixed, better planes will be offered for purchase. ATC addons will come out. IFR addons will come out. Hopefully all in the market place so you'll never have to search together the addon updates again and making reinstall easier! I think MFS is a huge step forward both graphically and as a platform. Yes many things are the same or even buggier but it's finally a step forward from FSX that we haven't seen. Asobo and MS said in their QA that they prioritize platform things, because they know that there will be better planes and all. So for me it's just what was needed, and while I will fly airliners on the old sims for a while, because there are many issues. for anything VFR it's just so much better than anything I've seen!

One thing I have done to move my FS Global Ultimate Mash is creating a directory junction. So first move all the files to the new location then just create a directory junction which is like a link to the new location. That way I didn't need to reinstall the whole global ultimate. Look here for creating a directory junction: https://winaero.com/blog/symbolic-link-in-windows-10/ Also, if I recall correctly for me using a symbolic link did not work although it's recommended, so maybe try first with symbolic link and if that does not work with a junction.

Well I never even made the move to P3D but definitely get the feeling, I haven't played FSX properly in like 10 months, I did some tweaking here and there but it's just even preparing a flight properly seems like so much effort. I do miss it though and if not tonight I want to play some time soon again. But part of the problem is also that I have too many addons, I don't even know what I want to fly and where and with what purpose. So I need to decide GA or more jet aircraft and then I still need to come up with a flight plane that satisfies my desire for having something realistic, ideally with an idea of the story behind the flight. And once I'm done with that one evening is gone and the other evening I feel like doing something else. The other problem is the upkeep, even though I have lots of custom scripts to make it easier, it seems every time I think of doing it I spend first an hour looking for what I haven't updated. So yes I totally get your feeling, but I'm trying to fight it now, cause it's been too long and I mean all the money I've invested I should enjoy, because I love airplanes and understanding them better! (And I love airports ...)

I hope the missions SDK will get more love from devs. I feel like beyond the awesome ones in FSX there were very few additional products. In any case I do hope for some more mission. I did enjoy the ones where you are a commercial pilot in a small aircraft delivering stuff and all kinds of things happening throughout it. I think the high audio quality of the original fsx missions made them a lot more immersive than other missions I've played.

Thank you very much for this great post. This made my work commute one exciting read 🙂

I think you are talking about free route airspace (FRA) where you just have entry and exit points pretty much https://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/free-route-airspace

I absolutely agree, the frame rate is a whole different aspect of performance, but here I'm less concerned. Thank you so much for your help. So I guess after spending the last 4 hours scouring around, despite mixed reviews I think I'll still go for the C177 and then probably also the DR 400 (maybe not right now but eventually) since it looks like it's an amazing plane even if the looks aren't quite up to the standards anymore. I considered many other planes, for example Ant's Eaglet, which definitely would have been an affordable alternative, and Alabeo's DA40 who has pretty good reviews but in the end, sometimes the looks just catches you and for my VFR encounters I can definitely live without an autopilot and the view from the C177 cockpit is just great (doesn't mean I won't ever use spot view 😉 ) So thanks again Bill, and I'm convinced your list will help many more simmers! Best, David

Hi Bill, Thank you so much, what an amazing list! This will go right into my bookmarks, it's pretty much exactly what I need to make a good purchase decision! Thank you for taking the time to compile this. I had started to compile my own but yours covers almost all the aircraft I have, and I know it's a lot of work to compile such a list in a consistent way. I will definitely look at the Vertigo Stearman, Lionheart Quest Kodiak and the Aerosoft Robin as well as some others from your list. The problem is that performance as in fluidity or frame rate does often not correspond with VAS, the C400 has low framerates but takes less VAS then the more fluid A2A products. That's why I think Bill's list is so amazing, it doesn't talk about performance it really focuses on VAS, which is usually not obvious to the sim pilot!

Thank you, Yeah it's a good idea! I have been tempted to buy once of them many times. I think the warrior or the archer would both be great. In this context maybe the c152 makes more sense. I'm just a bit concerned with all their amazing features that they would be more in the A2a region. I guess the socata tb10 and tb20 could be more friendlyto the VAS. There really just the layout/looks of these cockpit put me off a bit. But definitely something I might get at some point. Best, David Ps. P3DV4 is currently not an option for me.

Hi everyone, Recently, I've reviewed the VAS usage of my planes, since I've had some OOMs or close calls. To my 'dismay' I discovered that the A2A planes actually take much more VAS than even the Alabeo C400 which has the G1000 (that supposedly needs a lot of VAS). (Obviously that's for good reason and I enjoy flying them, but sometimes I want to fly more to enjoy the scenery.) Since my very well-used A2A planes aren't quite as VAS-friendly, I'm looking for a lighter simulation. I'm looking for a nice-looking VFR aircraft to enjoy VAS-hungry (ORBX and other) scenery. Important is that the visibility from the cockpit is good for enjoying the scenery. Actually, the default Maule is already pretty good, but it looks too dated inside (and the "reflections" on the window are driving me crazy). Of course I don't mind if the systems are a bit more extensive than in the Maule, but priority is VAS-friendliness over extensive systems. So far I've seen the Alabeo C177 as an option. It probably needs less VAS than the C400, I'm just not sure how much I enjoy the "Alabeo"-isms. So, I would love to learn about some other planes that you think could be a great fit for exploring scenery at high settings. I tend to favor single engines over twins (because I somehow believe the smaller the plane the less VAS it uses), but that is not set into stone. Overall the question is just, what aircraft would you use that looks and flies nice, with basic systems, when you want to crank up the scenery settings? Thank you for your suggestions! David

I also vote for the TFDI 717, which should be out of beta very soon, hopefully. Definitely a beautiful and nifty aircraft

Hi Ray, Thank you for testing! Too bad it didn't work. It's probably that they changed the function which I used to delete the planes. So the first time it might not have had anything to delete, until you put down the refresh time. Sorry that it didn't work. Best, David

No Worries. Hope it will see plenty of use :) Best, David