As a real world pilot and ground instructor (someday flight instructor), Flight Unlimited III has my vote, hands down. I believe it provides the most immersive experience, and have heard others say the same.

Just my $0.02.

Do you think it matters that Flight3 lacks the Cessna-endorsed instrument panels and flight models like FS2000 and Fly? God knows the terrain is better in Flight3.

I've only spent an hour in a Cessna 152 so I'm not about to start claiming to know which flight model is more realistic. But I'm hoping to start lessons again soon and so far, the only flight sim the flight schol mentions by name is Microsoft Flight Sim.

What do you think?

Good flying.

I admit, I don't have Fly! or FS2K, and so I cannot make a comparison between either of those and FU3. But I do love FU3 and have not felt compelled to stray from it. Here are my thoughts on your questions:

I don't think having Cessna's (or anyone else's) blessing matters a bit. I fly a 172, and the only reason I can think of why the flight model is not endorsed by Cessna has more to do with the damage modeling. My CFI and I both agree there's nothing wrong with the flight model -- the Trainer in FU3 flies like a Cessna. I use FU3 to stay sharp when weather won't let me fly for real (too often). I find that it really does help.

I especially appreciate the damage modeling in FU3, and I use it to demonstrate certain concepts (like "maneuvering speed") to my ground students. I think it gets the message across pretty well to have the class gather around while I take the 172 in under a big monster of a thunderstorm at about 130kts. It's an immersive sim -- their eyes get big about the time the wings come off.

I can see no added benefit to having an "endorsed" panel. Different planes (even of the same make and model) may have different instrument layouts or even entirely different instruments. Whatever plane you fly most likely will look very different from the panel in any sim, endorsed or no. In IFR flight, you need to keep your scan on the entire panel no matter what order the instruments are in. FU3 has all the instruments you need (and they occasionally fail, too, which adds to the fun), and to me that's what really matters.

Anyway, yes, it's true, I'm a die-hard FU fan, and so of course I'm going to talk it up. I'd be interested to hear other views on the matter, however. It's always good to have more opinions.

I'll not wade into the "my flight model is better than your's" debate. I think all three are servicable.

FUIII...Great graphics and Air Traffic Control. The weather effects are outstanding and the constant turbulence that jostles the plane is very realistic. I think this one gives the best overall simulated sensation of flight. BUT, the great graphics are limited in area and the instrument panels are abbreviated.

Fly!...Good graphics and Air Traffic Control (but not as good as FUIII). Graphics in the hi-res areas are great outside the areas they are very generic. Visibility is limited to 20 miles max (which is realistic for many areas). Good weather effects but does not give the same sensation of flight. Outstanding instrument panels and actual scanned versions of real world navigation charts available as a pop-up. This one is the best overall instrument training sim.

FS2000...Good graphics. No Air Trafic Control without third party add-ons (unforgivable). Graphics are sufficient for VFR navigation with real world charts (too bad they didn't include any). Instrument panels are serviceable, much better that FUIII, but not nearly as good as Fly!. Weather effects are good, but still don't have FUIII's immersion.

Overall, I would say that FUIII is good for puttering around, FS2000 is for serious VFR work and Fly! takes the cake for IFR navigation.

Ragards

Murph,
If you just need something to practice procedures and "flying" around, regardless of the locations that the sim covers, then FUIII is fine. But if you want to use the sim to fly around your local area (and FU3 doesn't cover it), then it's not a good choice.

I use sims to "preview" cross-country trips that I will make. I live in Kansas and make flights to the surrounding states. Even if FU3 can model scenery in Western USA down to the fire hydrants on the streets, it's of not much use to me. I started out with FS98, but now I use FLY! more. The pop-up sectional charts in FLY! is just like how I navigate in real life. Plus, people are putting out shareware that one can use to generate scenery, based on data from the USGS. That will take care of the current generic scenery in FLY!. Also, I like the scrolling panel of FLY!. In real flying, you move your head up/down/sideway, but the panel view in FS98 is fixed.

Each of those civilian sims have its own weakness/strengh. None is perfect or really bad.

Hostile:
I agree, with regard to the handy ability to fly in one's own back yard with Fly (and FS). As I said, I have so far taken just one "real" flight over my home. Funny, the first flight I planned in Fly! was one from the airport where the flight school is located (ten minutes from home) to a small field in a town 300 miles away, where I used to live. I took off and quickly saw familiar rivers, bridges, etc. That's the one downer with Flight3.

Well, as is often the case after similar discussions on combat sims, I'm glad we don't have to pick just one!

FU3 is great and all, so is FS2k i own all three. But now that I can do in fly what I can't in the others, FLY is the ONLY one on my hard drive. FU3's flight area is way to small, and now with terrascene if you really wanna fly in seattle you can, with graphics that are extremely accurate.

Really, with all the community support, i gotta say FLY is the one you'll get the most for your money on and probably the most longevity out of as well. I doubt anyone would get tired of seeing accurate landscapes of whatever US area they chose.

youre going to be drawn to the dark side.

One you really get into civie sims, you
will be forever changed.

Think of it this way, at least its a place
to go where you dont worry about the Janes,
MPS, DiD, SSI and others dying out.

One word: licencing costs. Apparently, Cessna did not want their name on the 172, or it would have cost Looking Glass too much. As for De Havilland, they raised the price of licencing the name so Looking Glass just changed it.

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum