What? the thousands of freeware and payware a/c provided by 3rd party developers not good enough for you? 

Quote:


What he said!

The reason I'd like to see some new default aircraft is to have templates from which to make new 3rd party aircraft...

a "standard" four prop airliner.

a "standard" four turboprop airliner.

a "standard" VTOL (Harrier)  which would imply implementation of real STOVL capability ...

a Ryan Fireball - to provide for mixed engine types... (piston prop and jet)

also, an increase in max number of SEPARATE engines allowable...  Wouldn't you REALLY like to be in control of "six turning and four burning"???

Quote:


A Connie would do nicely...

Quote:


Viscount please, or if it has to be American, then an Electra...

Quote:


Anything VTOL. How about a Balzac or whatever the VTOL Mirage was called. If it has to be a Harrier, make it a Gr.3 (a proper Harrier), or the P.1127

Quote:


Or a B-36, then we could have the mixed powerplant capabitlity and 10 engines!

Quote:


Ah, I was writing this post as I read it - I see you'd already come up with that one!

How about a big flying boat then. Saro Princess?

Something small and nippy would be nice (Cassutt or similar), and how about a single engined military turboprop? I could think of a good one!

The big advantage of having a good, varied, selection of Default aircraft included is the ability for them to appear in their correct form during on line Multiplayer flights....

This doesn't occur with 3rd party aircraft unfortunately, unless all other players have the same aircraft installed beforehand...... ...!

Cheers all...!

Paul... 8)...!

The screenshots show: Cessna, Bell, Goose, Beaver, Maule, a Schleicher glider, and Boeing 747.  IM sure that there are a lot more

M$ can put whatever plane they want. They know that those defaults will just sit in our hard drives doing nothing while we conquer the FS world with addons.

helos with true flight dynamics not based off the bell 206.

Catalina;
C-130;
Mig-21;
F-4E;
An-24;
Real 737....not that joke ;
A a320;
a P-51;
a BF-109;
a Spit.

Ahh, didn't notice the beaver in those screenshots

Quote:


If all the aircraft look as nice as that Beaver, then I have high hopes. Compared to previous offerings from Microsoft, it looks very nice compared to some of the better payware types available now.

I haven't seen anything to excite me yet. As Felix points out, if M$ gives the developers the flight models to work with they can do the rest.

I think many of us need to recognize that Microsoft Flight Simulator is different from Combat Flight Simulator, and therefore the idea of having a B-36 or a F-4 as defaults in FSX is highly unlikely, addons of those would be great, but I think Microsoft wants to make money on both FSX and CFS and will therefore keep the military aircraft relatively separate from the civil aircraft.

Quote:


The only reason I would LIKE a B-36 as a default aircraft in the sim is because it would mean that:

a. The number of different engines allowable has been changed (max now is 4)

b. Mixed engine types are allowed (piston/jet;  jet/rocket, turboprop/piston (admittedly very few were built, and mostly as test beds...)

Quote:


Exactly the reason I suggested it too (before I realised Felix already had. I can't see why they can't just (within reason) all unlimited number and powerplants. Rockets too (thinking of the possibilities of X-1, Me163, Saro Sr.53 and other X generation aircraft - I was going to say Miles M.52, but that of course was a jet! )

Quote:


Agreed, but as I've mentioned before in the dim and distant past of SimV, with Microsoft's Seattle connections I would have doubted it, but you never know...

Quote:


Mmm, but could MS match MAAM's B-25 and RAS's Spit... As for the X-1, good call...

Quote:


Nope!

[quote author=Esselbach link=board=FSX;num=1136478328;start=30#30 date=01/09/06 at 15:49:06]Why ask for every aircraft you want to fly be included in FSX when 3rd party developers develop far better aircraft packages than the default ones?
quote]


Just because we can....

I think then, that it's justifiable for Microsoft to offer the Morane "N" or Etrich "Taube", with fully flexing wing warping!...

I want it! I want it! I want it! I want it! I want it!
and NOW!

I was thinking 'Grumman Widgeon' but I see that they went Goose....

Oh, and the J-3 is a great plane to fly, I love practicing practical STOL. How short can you land your Cub?

Despite the obvious MS "phobia" against European aircrafts, with the inevitable exception of the FS2000 Concorde, I would expect another inevitable exception: The Airbus A380.

I was actually refering to airliners. I fly almost only airliners and I tend to omit the rest aircrafts.

Quote:


A lovely old plane...8)...!

...except that I just can't get used to those old radios, after the luxury of tuning a modern Bendix-King radio stack, (Cessna 172/182, etc)... ...!

....(actually, I've cheated, and fitted a Bendix-King radio stack in my default DC-3. Now I don't get lost anymore!)... ... ...!

LOL...!

Paul... 8)...!

Quote:


That’s not cheating, it's modernising, updating, improvising, overcoming and adapting, up to the minute, conquering, upgrading and not being an old fart and struggling.

Matt

Quote:

Everyone would have to do the tweak but it only needs doing once. A simple edit of that CFG file is a lot less bother than downloading & installing the other players' aircraft yourself. Surely it's worth a try. If it doesn't work or gives problems you can easily change it back.

I'm at the disadvantage of having no knowledge of Multiplayer so depend on reliable feedback. I've seen a lot of these things mentioned over the years but people never seem to try my suggestions or if they do they never give me any feedback.

PS. Quote:

I think that would depend on the 3rd party aircraft. I know you like the older versions of some of these aircraft that weren't designed specifically for FS9. Aircraft created for FS9 according to the FS2004 SDK should work fine.

Well for me it has to be a Spit naturally, but I'd also like to see the Tiger Moth, Piper Cub, Stearman and DC-3.
Frankly anything with Cameron Diaz in her birthday suit painted on the nose will be good for me

Quote:


The world is full of naughty people, Doug......!

Never mind, the kettle is on for a nice cup of tea, and a slice of Wensleydale on a cream cracker....
...and if I can contact someone on Multiplayer we will try out your FS9.cfg modification, and see if it works...
...then report back, forthwith... 8)...!
...trust me... ...!
LOL... ...!

Paul... 8)...!

...can't figure? configure!
LOL...!

Quote:


172RG...???...?
182RG... ...!

Paul with retractable gear... 8)...!

The Cessna 182RG is a very attractive, fast, (tho' expensive), tourer... ...!
...just remember to drop the wheels before landing...LOL... ...!

Quote:


Tee-Hee... ...!

The Cessna 182RG is an excellent step up from the 152/172 trainers to more complex aircraft requiring extra training: Constant speed or variable pitch propellor, and retractable gear.
We had it in FS 2002, and I missed it in FS 2004... ...!
(There are some excellent 3rd. party 182RG's out there, but we really do need a default version included in FSX)... ...!

Paul The Cessna Man... 8)...!

Quote:


Hi Doug...!

Now there's a thought...
I wonder if the complete FS 2002 '182RG Folder was dropped into FS 2004, would it act as an AI aircraft in the sim, in the same way that the default FS 2004 '182S does...?
...or is there more to it than that...?

Worth a try......!

Paul... 8)...!

I think the default aircraft as well as being "flyable" are also programmed to be used as AI aircraft...?
Which is why Bill would prefer us to use his default aircraft...at all times... ... ...!
LOL...!

Well, I'm not in a position to get payware, and its rare that a really good freeware package comes along (iFly 747 for example). There for sometimes I enjoy flying MS default planes, as I know they will work and look good.

So I'd like to see -
                             C-130
                             F-18
                             A340
                             VC-10 (military and civil)
                             B707
                             B747 (cargo versions as well)
                             Spitfire

Which ever aircraft are choosen, Please Oh Please use real airline call signs and liveries.

Point Taken. Silly, Silly Me

Quote:


You couldn't have put in any better words. The default aircrafts only serve one purpose. To be spare parts that third party developers don't produce. Notice how most addons use default aircraft panel and sounds files. Some even use default aircraft cfg and airfiles.

The only default plane I liked in FS9 is the Learjet.

...how about some heavies that are complete, without all the extra textures? Mebbe a 737, 747, DC-9, a good Beechjet or similar? The twin props are fun to fly, but are too slow. God, who sits at their computer for several hours flying from New York to fly-over country?
PS Many, many thanks to the add-on designers for their contributions...

Quote:


Well, I've sat at the controls of my Howard 500 in excess of 5 hours nonstop before, on 1X speed

I obviously have too much spare time

Quote:


I've done several 10+ hour flights, all real time, at the computer

So far, my longest flight has been 15.7 hours, all real time, at the computer. I flew from Seattle to Midway Island.  Over 15 hours of flying over the ocean. That was a LONG flight.

That's why you land very, very carefully

Man, I'd like to see an exceptionally thorough model of the C-141A or B, a Beech 18, and an F-111A in 474th Fighter Wing markings. Oh well, maybe someone will do good third party models...

Amen to the 7E7. I'm supprised that payware designers haven't attacked that one yet.

Cheers
Cameron

I would like to see the 182RG come back. Also, some 50s, 60s, and 70s air liners would be great. 707 maybe? Definately a A320 - too many Boeings! De Havilland Comet would be nice to. The Century of Flight wasn't really a Century of flight. There was a big gap around 1950 - 1970. I would also like to see the Concorde return. DHC-2 would be nice too.

Quote:


Is that really a factor?  ???

FS Insider always features Boeing news, so they must work well together. As for the 787, I think that it would be the new addition to Boeing aircraft in FSX, maybe the 747-8 as well!    

Quote:


as far as im aware they donty fly the 1903 wright flyer anymore either and its still included in fs

A Piper Warrior would be nice for the people who don't like Cessnas but I think that might be asking for too much.

Quote:



does that mean 2002 a/c also? y'think, or just the latter models for FS9?
you know what would be nuts, and save space ont he DVD, is have no default aircraft . not a bad idea, except for the people who aren't really into the flight sim community, which is rare considering most people crack after the first 2-5 weeks of fly the same a/c over and over.

Ramos

Quite, as I said, there should be at least one of each type for default, any more specific medels required can be downloaded at a future date.

Quote:

Eh? Vickers Vimy, Wright Flyer, Curtis Jenny, etc, etc.

Alright, split hairs if you want.  The point is that it's pretty irelavent as to whether a simulated AC does fly in real life. MSFS is to help us replicate things that we can't genuinely do in real life anyway. Lets be honest, if I was lucky enough to live in an area where I was able to jump in my own Cessna and do some leasure flying just for the hell of it, I wouldn't be typing this now!

So, flying a Cessna 172 or a Concorde. Both are impossible for me in real life and that's what MSFS is for!

Maybe it will include planes that never flew in the first place then? Like the attempts at powered flight before the Wrights? That would be a surprising change from the normal, and rather unexpected as well.

well an aircraft is a start

Quote:


Why bother, just get the real air spitfire

more than having more aircraft...I would love to see a detail model complete with virtual cabin and more detail virtual cockpit (so we rely no more on panel)

Quote:


Bad idea.

Why?

Simple.

FS is sometimes used by student pilots who are trying to understand how to use the instruments on the panel. For example, I would like to see how the VOR gauge works so that I can navigate when flying in real life.

Besides, even with the active gauges in the highly-detailed DVC, it will be hard on the eyes to even read the gauges. Think of the resolution of one's monitor and imagine how pixelated the gauge would be if read from a distance in FS. Even zooming in can be a waste of time since pilots have to quickly look at the guages and make critical adjustments.

I don't think anyone relies on the panel. If you prefer to use the panel, you have the option to, if you prefer the VC (like me), then use the VC.

I really don't see the logic in "do away with..." and "get rid of..." posts. Why remove something from the sim if it's doing no harm by being there? The sim is catered to fit everyones needs, not a model built around you. Which is why I think the default aircraft should be a little more varied, to appeal to everyone, maybe bring a warbird or two back.

I'm no pilot nor do I claim to be. I don't know what actually goes where on every flight station. But I thought after 911 M$ pulled there flightsims from the shelf to 1.Remove the towers so idiots can't recreate the tragedy in thier own homes for kicks. And 2 to relocate not all but some of the gauges in their flight stations so that in the event terrorists try to use FS as a training aide they wouldn't be able to duplicate their foolish attempt in a real AC (as a real AC they would be correct). Now I don't know if it still rings true today, but I thought M$ still did small relocations of said guages. I'm probly rambling off topic here.

I would like to see M$ go in a whole new direction with their choice of AC. Though there are a few new ones fourthcomming in this edition, they're bringing back alot of the same ole same ole.............now with textured rivits IMHO a facelift of this magnatude should be a complete package. To me it looks as though M$ piggy backed off the Falcon 4.0 boys and not so muched changed the sim but beefed up the graphics capabilities and threw in some highway traffic and some animals. Kind of like FS9 with a few payware addons. It doen't matter what AC to me just as long as all of them are different from FS9. Worse case, i'll do like I have with FS9. Buy the sim and sit back and wait for the freeware to fly My 2 cents........

Quote:


Well with today's addon developers who would always provide the most accurate aircraft and scenery for FS, it would be pointless for M$ to relocate monuments and rearrange the gauges as most of us here almost always fly addon jetliners and fighter planes with accurate panels based on photos while flying over addon sceneries that are as accurate as Ozzy's marksmanship with his spit.

Like I said before:

Addon developers have more resources than M$, America, China, and the EU combined. Oh yes, and Al-qida too.

i think some fighter jets would be good. maybe theyll give use 15 discs this time isntead of 4 and have all the planes in the world!!!

Re: Svenpurple7
What? the thousands of freeware and payware a/c provided by 3rd party developers not good enough for you? 


No they are not. A huge majority of them dont work. Maybe the download section needs to be divided into crap that will waste your time, and stuff that actually works.