aviator1213

I have been using FTX SoCal and like the airports. But still prefer photoscenery vs. autogen as I like flying by pilotage (landmarks are not very complete in FTX SoCal). I was surprised how well it works. I get FTX SoCal airports, and when I fly I see photoscenery. However, some lights are missing, specifically antenna towers and airports' rotating beacons (interestingly, I can see REIL lights from many miles away - way too bright). In FSX, with MSE 4x SoCal and UTX USA v.2, I can see all the antenna towers and rotating beacons. Is this because FTX SoCal's tower locations are different from UTX USA's? Or P3D v2.5 deals with autogen differently? In terms of order, MSE is at the top, followed by FTX SoCal in P3D. MSE is also at the top in FSX, followed by UTX stuff.

If a POH (pilot's operating handbook) will do, they are very available online...for example: http://www.michiganflyers.org/aircraft/documents/77s-info.pdf The newest C172SP POH have all the performance data you can imagine and more. C172L's POH, on the other hand, is much shorter. If the newer one is too confusing, look at the older C172 POH. Make sure it has at least the same HP though.

I just took off from an airport and flew a 180 immediately back to the airport. Hardly a long time....

No, it doesn't. I flipped all the lights, avionics power, and carburetor heat. None has any effect on the amp meter except for the alternator switch. There is too much change with the flipping of alternator switch, I think. Interestingly, I got smoke in the cockpit maybe for mistreating the engine. The smoke remains even when I use an outside view.

No, it doesn't. I flipped all the lights, avionics power, and carburetor heat. None has any effect on the amp meter except for the alternator switch.

I just bought Carenado C172N...just wanting to know if I'm missing something; want to give X-Plane and Carenado a fair chance. My initial impression is, unfortunately, the Carenado C172N is not in the same league as A2A's C172SP. I am talking not just about details of the plane and how functional everything is inside the cockpit, but also their flight characteristics. A2A is so much more realistic. Hopefully X-Plane will get an awesome C172 in the near future....

Stall warning starts just above 40 knots (indicated airspeed) in a landing configuration (30 degrees of flaps). Typically around 45 knots, depending on how the stall horn was installed. In one of the C172s I fly it starts at 50 knots. We use airspeed because pitch cannot measure the critical angle of attack. The critical angle of attack is 14 degrees. That means 14 degrees from the direction of airflow, which is NOT the same as 14 degrees from horizon. Note also the wings are designed to stall at different times; tip of the wing stalls later because when base of the wing is at 14 degrees angle of attack, the tip is still at around 11 degrees.

A2A's tendency to float is about the same as experienced in a real-life C172. I was one of those who complained A2A floated too much initially myself, but having gone back and forth with real and A2A C172s, I am quite sure they float about the same. Some of the posts aren't clear which plane they are talking about (real life or A2A or X-Plane default or others). But it seems like some people are saying A2A require too much rudder, and some are saying the opposite. I will just share my own experience. The real life C172 I flew yesterday, for example, requires right rudder sometimes even in cruise (it has 180 HP, but another one with the same engine doesn't require as much rudder). The other 2 C172 (160HP & 180HP) I fly regularly don't. A2A, compared to them, is just another airplane somewhere in between. I have noticed though, that taxi in real life during windy days, would require more rudders and yoke than A2A. I am not sure that's something simmers necessarily want, as they probably find the task mundane. I prefer everything true to life since I am using A2A for training. Haven't tried the standard rate turn with A2A, though. I just did my first basic instrument flight training yesterday.

For my flying lessons I use a few different C172s. They each have their own tendencies. One of them require much more right rudder than others. Not sure whether FSX has a documented bug for the inclinometer, but I'd have just thought it is the tendency of the plane they tried to model. I've had the problem you described in left turn, but it's not a simulator problem. In a normal turn, once you established the bank, you are supposed to return aileron to neutral. The plane will keep turning. the exception is when the plane tries to return itself back to level, or when you perform a very steep turn, when the plane has a tendency to bank even steeper. I didn't know about Elite; seems interesting.

I look at it as a comparison between the best options on each platform. I would pay for a plane like A2A's C172 if available on X Plane.....

Regarding No. 1, are you saying A2A/FSX doesn't model left turn correctly, not asymmetrical enough? My experience has been the opposite...I think A2A/FSX makes it too pronounced. I have to use right aileron with left rudder or use just a little left rudder, since there is often too much left turning tendencies, especially in slow flight or a left climbing turn. Not sure I understand the second point....

For whatever it's worth...I am a student pilot close to my checkride. I had been using A2A's excellent C172SP on FSX with Saitek's Cessna Pro Flight (yoke, throttle quadrant, trim wheel, rudders -- all are very important! The Cessna rudder pedals in particular are amazing, helping me learn to slip, taxi, brake - can't imagine landing without rudder pedals). A few days ago, I purchased X-Plane 10 after intermittently using the demo version, because I was curious to know if I am missing something - maybe the demo doesn't represent the software well. People seem to be happy with X-Plane. I tried both the default X-Plane C172 and Fletcher's Wide Screen Panel Project C172. Fletcher's seems well done, but not having 3-D cockpit makes the view very limiting. It flies okay but I haven't had much time in it, as It doesn't work well with Saitek's throttle quadrant, a known issue; and I can't really see much outside the plane. No good for a VFR pilot. X-Plane's default C172 flies like a toy. In contrast, A2A's C172 flies like the real thing. The dimensions feels right, left turning tendencies feel right, the inclinometer looks right. I can also see out and the sight picture looks right. Slow flight, stalls, everything behaves and feels right. It even performs like the real thing during landings. I've used it to train and it has helped tremendously. I haven't even mentioned that the spark plugs foul like the real thing, and you can pre-flight the aircraft! I wish the pitch of the engine sound corresponds even more closely to the real thing. There may be some things A2A can still improve, but it's incredible how closely A2A's C172 flies like the real C172. I haven't tried Carenado's C172. That may be next if I continue using X-Plane, since I wanted to get a C172 with a carburetor for practice. I understand Carenado's is also not quite in the same league as A2A, unfortunately.

I found a couple airport sceneries I want in FTX' freeware section (https://www.fullterrain.com/freeware), but I don't have FTX products. Would they work with default FSX scenery? What about with MegaSceneryEarth's Ultra-Res products (I have Ultra-Res Los Angeles+San Diego).... Thank you!

Just reporting back, I nearly forgot about this problem...FSX has been ROCK SOLID with Windows 8.1 since placing UiAutomationcore.dll (version 6.0.5840.16386, 155kb) in the FSX program files folder (where FSX.EXE is)! I also haven't encountered SimConnect Error of late, but that's probably because I haven't restarted a saved flight over and over recently. Moving on to cross country :-)

This solution does seem to work....I added this uiautomationcore.dll (version 6.0.5840.16386, 155kb) to FSX's main directory. It was not there before. I am at least getting to the SimConnect Error like I used to :-) I practice crosswind landings repeatedly so I expect this error. Thank you! I had FSX on Windows 7 before also...it did crash sometimes, but not so often. It was also fine until just 2-3 days ago on Windows 8. I think some actions (perhaps more frequent use of right-clicks?) aggravates the crashes. Whatever the reason is, I am just happy there is a solution.