PilotEdge Forums

That is one of the cleanest, most crisp, VC's I have seen. I might buy this, although I'm still setting up and getting used to X-plane.

Frame rate much better with v1.2 released a few days ago. Flies like a dream. So much like the real thing. A few bugs, but so A2A like. Could even stop me from booting into Windows and using FSX- in which, for some reason, I never feel as comfortable in PE as I am in XP (which I run in OS X).

Anthony: I asked the developer (in their forum on the .org site) whether they would do a PA28. The link you gave is for the Carenado one - not the same developer. That's an X-Plane oldie, but it also performs fairly realistically, I find.

For a study-level sim, its callsign isn't very scholarly is it?

Yah, we've had lots of people get informed on how that callsign isn't a legal one.

I wish developers would use legal callsigns for their aircraft (this isn't the first time we've had this happen).

OK, I must be slow today, but what supposed callsign is not legal? Are folks calling up as "Dreamfoil" rather than "Cessna?"

Oscar at the end.

Ah, I didn't know you can't use Oscar at then end. Out of curiosity, why is that?

twharrell wrote:Ah, I didn't know you can't use Oscar at then end. Out of curiosity, why is that?

Can't use Oscar or India at all. Could be confused as a zero and an one.

Also can't have a zero after November( Peter will have to explain that, I forgot what he told me in stream about that).

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14
PART 47—AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION
§47.15 Registration number.

(b) A U.S. registration number may not exceed five symbols in addition to the prefix letter “N”. These symbols may be all numbers (N10000), one to four numbers and one suffix letter (N 1000A), or one to three numbers and two suffix letters (N 100AB). The letters “I” and “O” may not be used. The first zero in a number must always be preceded by at least one of the numbers 1 through 9.

Kind of interesting evolution of the N-number system in the USA: http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificate ... r_history/
(Although the CFR mentioned on the webpage have been changed/renumbered to the above)

Don

Guys I think this plane shows exactly what frustrates me so much about Xplane.

People are naturally drawing comparisons between this and A2A products for FSX/P3D. Having watched Froogles review of it I am certainly not jumping for joy and running to the .org store to buy it. Compared to an A2A aircraft it feels like a beta release. The yawing characteristics of the prop are way over exaggerated, it doesn't stall correctly, the brakes are vicious etc etc.... Now for the Xplane community to come out and claim this is an excellent plane that rivals A2A just shows how much the Xplane community is trying to coerce the FSX/P3D people to Xplane. I think I will be sticking with A2A for the time being though, and wait to see if this 172 comes up to the same standards as A2A in future patches.