Quality Payware C172 for X-Plane

[lwilliams]

I looked at Jason Chandler's aircraft (the Piper series) and can't find one critical element.

Are they 3D cockpits, or 2D only?

[Steven Winslow]

Both 2D and 3D.

[lwilliams]

Thanks Steve, I think I'll scoop up the Pipers.

I am addicted to 3D because of the head tracking I use.....feel useless on 2D planes now......hehe

[c.b.powell]

"Head tracking..." I know of this technology (TrackIR, etc.) but I've not had the opportunity to try it. In practice how well does it work/feel?

[lwilliams]

I love it.

In simplistic terms, I move my neck to see around the cockpit, rather than looking for the keys or joystick button to look around. A minor thing, but I like it. Also, taxiing is much easier when you can look around. The down side is that it's sometime difficult to tune or hit buttons using the mouse in combination with the TrackIR.

I don't think anyone had had success on the Mac yet, but some folks here can answer that I am sure.

btw....I got the Pipers package from Jason Chandler.....wow, should have done it MUCH sooner.

[Steven Winslow]

Lee, glad you like his Pipers! I have most of his planes and I am very happy with them. They may not have the photo textures like Carenado, but they fly well and are very functional. At least you can read all the labels and instruments easily!

[n122vu]

Apologies for the necropost here, but I'm in the same situation and would like to add insight to the discussion.

Frequent viewers of many of the Twitch streams I frequent (or my own) know of my slight disdain for the flight characteristics of the Carenado C172N in X-Plane. Unfortunately I haven't found anything else in the X-Plane world that comes much closer to the real thing, and am open to suggestions.

Backgorund - I'm a student pilot with, as of this post, 27.5 hours in a C172M, over half of which have been spent playing 'catch-up' in preparing to solo after numerous 1-2 month delays between lessons over the past 15 months. I honestly only have one major complaint about the Carenado C172 flight model, and that of other C172 addons for that matter: Glide performance. This is something I have direct and current real-world reference to since landings are something I'm currently focusing on, doing 10+ landings per week (when I get to fly).

In configuration for descent in the pattern, The Carenado's performance in X-Plane just doesn't fit with the real thing, mainly in that it doesn't glide as well as the real thing. The descent rate is much higher, and the ground speed feels way too fast as well. I did find that setting the flight model updates per frame to 10 did help some, but it's still off.

Over in the FSX/P3D* world (yes, I hear some of you groaning already), there is the option to swap out the .air file with the one created by RealAir for their now-freeware C172. This gives the Carenado C172 much closer performance to the real thing, but it still is not quite right. In contrast, the A2A C172R Trainer is spot-on in terms of flight characteristics across the board. Descent looks and feels exactly as it does in the real C172, even though the A2A plane is an R, and the plane I'm training in is an older M (which makes sense when talking about descent on base/final approach with the engine near idle - the airframe is essentially the same, with the major differences being the engine and systems).

* This is not meant to be a comparison between sims nor a hijacking of the discussion to promote one over the other. I'm merely citing all points of reference in terms of flight performance and the modeling of such by different addon developers in their respective platforms.


Currently, I use flight simulation mostly as a personal supplement to practice not only procedures, but actual flight between lessons. When flying for this purpose, I've historically chosen to primarily fly the A2A Cessna in FSX or P3D simply due to the accurate performance mentioned above. It has been a great asset during my training. In fact, it's been such a help between flights, that my CFI continually remarks that he can tell I've been spending time in the simulator, followed by, "whatever you're doing, keep doing it."

I am still seeking to obtain that same level of accuracy in a C172 flight model in X-Plane. I would love to hear suggestions and feedback from other pilots with real-world C172 time who own the Carenado for X-Plane, or can suggest a better option.

[Keith Smith]

I wouldn't sweat the specific performance figures. You can use the sim at home to practice a massive list of tasks, none of which require a flight model with identical performance to the real airplane. The real plane climbs faster or slower, glides better or worse, or cruises faster or slower than the simulated model, why does that matter?

I get the instinct, though. If there was a Lancair 360 for X-Plane, I'd probably buy it and I'd pick over the numbers with a fine tooth comb. I'd also probably be disappointed by the result. As it is, I fly Barons, Bonanzas, MU-2's, Learjets...it really doesn't matter. It's all about the thought process and about energy management in general. That's my opinion, at least.