Default FXS aircrafts

[Tomaz]

Maybe is a silly question but I'd really want to know... are the default FSX aircrafts any good? I'm interested in flight dynamics... is there a big difference between default in payware aircraft (apart from much much much more options in payware.. buttons, systems...)?

[flaminghotsauce]

I"m no expert, and I've never purchased a payware aircraft. But I have flown the cessna 172 in real life, and got my PPL with Instrument in it. The default may not be spot on perfect on the flight dynamics, but what the heck do we want for $40? I say it's plenty close enough to use for training, refresh, and currency issues if one wants to.

My personal use was to use FS2002 then later FS9 for practicing upcoming flights. Same frequencies, same headings, same landmarks etc. The flight environment is way close enough to make the actual flight very easy and relaxed. The 172 is plenty good enough.

I have not flown any other aircraft in real life so I cannot verify the flight dynamics other than reading numbers off spec sheets and testing to see if the aircraft measures up.  

[Tomaz]

Thanks for your answer.

The reason for asking is that in FS9 the default aircrafts were pretty bad in comparison to payware.. for example.. I had PMDG 737, one of the best aircrafts I ever bought... you can't even compare this one and the default 737 and I'm not talking about textures and functionality. The sole feel of the aircraft, flight dynamics etc.. completey different, much much better.

[Brett_Henderson]

Don't confuse,

[Tomaz]

That's the thing.. the default aircrafts are (even with realistic settings to max, I don't fly with any other setting) too easy to fly. In my experiences payware is miles better.. specially PMDG, Captain Sim... As I said before, I had PMDG 737-600/700 and Captain Sim 757... those felt "real", on the other side the default 737 felt like a toy. So, I was wondering if default FSX aircrafts are any better than FS9 ones?

[EJW]

I've been gliding many times before and possibly four times in a DG808. I think the default model is nearly spot on.

[Staiduk]

Not really - I'm not familiar with the 808 specifically, but with a variety of similar 18m craft. The default 808 is extremely stable and easy to fly compared with the real thing. (Flying a glass-ship without a LOT of experience in lower-performing sailplanes gives new meaning to the term 'PIO'. ) There's a DG808 addon out there somewhere (can't recall where) that does give a real close approximation of the craft though, if you want a good comparison.

For me, while the default aircraft may not be the most accurate, I will say they're a darned sight better than the FS9 defaults. The Maule is particularly nice, IMO.

(And being default, they're lots of fun to tweak until they ARE accurate! )

[flaminghotsauce]

Another thought too: How many people here have actually flown a 737 in real life? How do we know what feels more realistic?

[Tomaz]

I don't really know if it's in a fact more realistic but we all know that default FS9 aircrafts were like flying a toy (and no, I never flew a toy either, but it felt that way) or in other words.. much much much easier to fly.. and I think that easier (aircraft more stable, responsive, ..) is not more realistic... or is it?

[ShaneG_old]

I don't really know if it's in a fact more realistic but we all know that default FS9 aircrafts were like flying a toy (and no, I never flew a toy either, but it felt that way) or in other words.. much much much easier to fly.. and I think that easier (aircraft more stable, responsive, ..) is not more realistic... or is it?

There is NOTHING in FS, that I cannot load up, take off, and land in.

I have just as easy a time with the default 737 from FS9 & FSX as I do the ones from PMDG.

Realistic flight simming is about more than the way the plane flies.

Brett will tell you this too.

Another thing... jets like the 737 have to provide easy, almost effortless, and stable flights for thousands of hours each year.
Maybe they are supposed to be easy to fly.


Now, having said all that... Yes, the FSX planes are better.

[Brett_Henderson]

When I build a model.. after spending upwards of a YEAR making and texturing it.. the LAST thing I want are sloppy, unrealistic flight-dynamics

[Staiduk]

Rats - where's that clapping emoticon when you need it? Great post, Brett!

I think that when people say an aircraft is easy to operate; they tend to leave the caveats unspoken - the Decathlon, for example, is very easy to fly - for someone with a pilot's license, a couple hundred hours, and a tailwheel endorsement. Take a sim-pilot and stick him in a real one though; and what you've got is tin foil. More than that - take an experienced pilot; perhaps a very experienced pilot without a tailwheel endorsement, put him in a Deke and you'd have a similar mess. Real aircraft need to be learned to be flown; and the primary teacher is experience.
Also - keep in mind a lot of the ease of flying comes from the immediacy - the fact that you're currently actually sitting in the bloody thing and can feel every twitch and hear every little creak. The feel of an aircraft is incredibly important - regardless of the size of the ship. I'm a far sloppier pilot in MFS than I was in real life.
I mention the Decathalon because far and away the best light aircraft modeled for MFS in Long Island Classics' Super-D - utterly lovely but IMO WAY too easy to fly. While I've never flown the Deke itself, I've plenty of hours (about 200) in its twin brother, the Citabria, dragging gliders and can tell plenty of horror stories about what happened when this young C-172 pilot went for his tailwheel endorsement. (roll...judder...bounce...bounce...BOUNCE...drag...twitch...learning to taxi a taildragger on a grass strip is an exercise in frustration. Takes a bit before it's easy, but unlike a tricycle-geared aircraft, you NEVER take it for granted.)

So yeah; a real aircraft is easy to fly, if you actually know how to fly it.  8-)

FWIW, if you want an aircraft that REALLY imitates its real-life counterpart, go get Dodosim's 206 Jetranger. A white-knuckle, sweaty palms learning curve on THAT bird, let me tell ya!

Cheers!

[DenisH]

Bret:  Hi. I have a warrior in Flight Club payware that's extremely difficult to fly -- or more accurately, to land. I just can't bring the plane down as easily as in other aircraft I have. It seems to want to stay in the air.

[SilverbugXO]

Ok, the problem is views. A lot of people think the Cessna or something is so easy to fly, but do the whole thing in virtual cockpit mode.

Yeah, it's tough. Especially landing & taxiing.

In fact, I got the Spirit of St. Louis, it is SO hard to take off. You don't even have a foreward window.

So, as I see it, they are alamost too realistic.