There is a distinction to be made here between actual new aircraft types and an old aircraft with a more modern glass cockpit. A lot of the so called new aircraft you can buy today are old airframe designs with the steam gauges replaced with glass. Lots in the Cessna and Piper ranges like that.
Great detail. Either just an avionics upgrade or a whole new modern aircraft, both are welcomed by the community. Avionics upgrade is a great example to “up-cycle”.
I don’t really understand your point what the age of the aircraft has to do with rules and regulations in aviation.
There’s no connection in between. That’s what I’m trying to highlight. What we mean by realisim is to follow the real rules. Nothing more than that. The argument of “having old aircraft is more realistic, because that’s what you see in real life” is what I was debating.
Modeling the avionics is perhaps a factor – it’s a lot of work to create a full software stack imitating a real-life software/hardware stack from scratch!
With some of the higher-end Garmins updated so lovingly by WT in the core sim maybe we’ll see more G1000-based GA planes soon (as we now have two very nice small jets with G3000/G5000 systems upgraded to the latest goodies)… I wish they’d put some more work into the G3X though, which seems very popular in the modern LSA/ultralight space but seems to be a little flaky still in the sim.
I also see the Dynon systems in some of the real-world light planes coming out, and there’s nothing in the core sim for that so that’d have to be done from scratch by anyone modeling say a Vashon Ranger.
The only attempt I’ve really seen at custom avionics in a light plane so far is the one in the Subsonex JSX-2, and it has an escape switch to change it to a G3X if you need extra navigation ability. 
Let’s be clear here. The aircraft to which I was referring are not upgrades they are new models of the same airframe. So factory glass, rather than retrofit.
Another very good point - retrofitting a glass cockpit to an existing aircraft is so costly that a brand new aircraft with a glass cockpit already installed is better value for most operators, and pretty much all private owners.
Personal Comments and Observations
Considering the thousands of people hours (you can ask Matt) Working Title took to rewrite each FMS they have, and with MS paying the bill - that’s probably one of the biggest obstacles to any third party developer in terms of adding any new major FMS platform.
This is a big part of it. Case in point: the RV-10 from SimWorks. It has a full glass cockpit with G3X, fully digital standby gauge, and choice of GNS 430 or GTN 650. But because the stock G3X is so incomplete compared to the G1000NXi or the G3000, and it didn’t interface with the new flight planner in the GNS 430 or GTN 650, I chose not to buy it on release. And I’m in the target market for it. I like experimental GA, and I like modern glass cockpits. But if they don’t have good functionality, I’ll take a well-modeled steam gauge system with a drop-in GTN 750 over a poorly-implemented glass cockpit.
Now that PMS50 introduced a package that allows their GTN650’s flight planner to interface with the G3X, I happily bought the RV-10 and have been enjoying it. It’s an illustration of the difficulty in developing planes like this, though. The amount of work required to make a fully-featured G3X would be staggering. I’m grateful to Microsoft for hiring Working Title and making a variety of default glass avionics that are available for any plane developers to use.
Indeed we all are, and an increasing number of us are wondering why more developers aren’t taking advantage of it - hence this thread, for example.
I guess that this argument is not based on reality because …
Cirrus Aircraft sells more piston singles than any other aircraft manufacturer. The U.S. manufacturer has delivered a total of 132 aircraft in its SR20, SR22 and SR22T model series.
In the golden era of general aviation, Piper Arrow and Seneca, Beechcraft Bonanza and Baron were indispensable from any apron. While all of these aircraft are still available today, demand has literally reached zero: Neither Textron Aviation nor Piper sold a single one of these aircraft in 2022.
(source: Aerokurier)
Old aircraft are like old cars. You hang on to them because you have some memories, but they are just a discontinued model.
Aviation Authorities around the world are promoting “glass” cockpits because they are safer, even for VFR flights. Take a look out the window here, compared to what’s visible on the screens:
Lots of good points here. Licensing and the ease of porting modules from FSX, P3D and XP probably account for the existence of the “classics” in the sim. There are quite a variety of light-sport aircraft on the market now. I will be taking another look at my collection of light-sport and ultra-light modules. I tend to favor modules with higher cruise speeds, but I could be missing out on the finer points.
Thanks for this discussion.
What would be a Good GA aircraft in your view? can you pinpoint a 10 must have or something like that? just trying to follow feedback, etc. for future products.
Sorry forgot to tag the original OP
Best,
Raul
Hey Raul. He’s looking for modern stuff like the Mooney Ultra Acclaim, for example. There’s not a lot of available Modern GA in the sim with FSReborn levels of realism.
Just fly with a bit older stuff,personally I love older stuff,GPS in a C172 makes me bored
No doubt the SR22 is an extremely popular model - especially in the US. It’s a good package overall although I loathe the strange sidestick configuration.
Since it’s so popular, Asobo probably included one with the game. That in itself is already a detractor for many serious developers to focus on it for a payware addon. Because - especially with MSFS - developers don’t make the brunt of their money with the serious simmer, but with the guys who buy a plane because it’s fast, pretty or famous; or simpy because they have a personal connection to it. Doesn’t mean they know what to do with it. For those there’s no reason of making a high fidelity SR22 because you can get a reasonably well-made one more easily with the Premium Edition.
That said: so far I haven’t come across a real one in Germany yet. And while its very fast, safe and sensible it’s also very expensive. As I said before: in many places the classic 4- and 6-seater GAs are being substituted for ULs due to financial reasons. For the occasional flyer who wants his own plane, the costs of having and maintaining a C172 compared to an UL are simply unreasonable. And the UL most likely will even have better performance …
Well it’s no wonder that Piper didn’t sell an Arrow in 2022, since it was taken out of production in 2019 
The Golden Age of Aviation has been over since the early 90s… Seneca, Bonanza and Baron are quite luxurious and expensive. Not your every-day GA aircraft. They are very expensive to buy new (seven figures) and to own. And the time is gone where the V-tail Bonanza became the doctor killer. Barely any doctor would be able to afford a new Bonanza today. In the 1960s it was a toy for the upper middle class. Today it’s a millionaire’s toy.
Twins have been on the decline for decades as well. The safety factor of a twin is no longer much of an issue for most people, and keeping two engines maintained is a real strain for the wallet.
And to be honest: if I actually had the money, why would I buy a comparatively slow Bonanza, when I could get a 300+ kts TBM or M500 with a turbine for only a little more.
But this is all talk about NEW planes. And NEW planes are definitely not the mainstay of the GA fleets of this world.
Also cars are NOTHING like planes. First of all: small GA aircraft are mostly recreational these days in many countries. You don’t own a PA28 to fly distances out of necessity. Flying commercial or taking the train is easier, cheaper and more comfortable. And business charters aren’t done with PA28s or C182s either.
The US might be different there of course, because the distances are so large and the operating costs used to be much lower than in Europe, but from what I gathered from friends who used to fly in the US, that is no longer the case.
In any case cars and planes have significantly different service lives. A car can be considered old when it hits ten years and practically prehistoric when it’s older than 25 years. And unless it’s something special a 25-year-old car is close to worthless on the market. So keeping a car above that age is mostly either sentimental or out of necessity (lacking the funds to buy something newer).
A 10-year-old plane isn’t old by any definition. Even 20 years is nothing special.
An aircraft always is more like some form of investment. Depreciation compared to cars is very very low while the maintance costs are very very high. Nevertheless you will always have something that has, and often even keeps, a certain value.
In fact for a well-maintained 50-year-old C172 you will have to pay more money today than it cost when it was new …
So you mainly pay for the privilege of owning and using one. For most - with a common GA aircraft - this however is too much money, so they rent their planes, and rentals normally don’t get upgraded with fancy electronics of course.
So since we’re back to money, we’re also back to ULs. In Europe ULs make up the vast majority of newly sold light aircraft. The UL is the new GA. (I know - doesn’t really make sense, but you get what I mean I hope)
When it comes to planes with 4+ seats, there aren’t many manufacturers left who even offer classic GA aircraft anymore. Cessna, Beechcraft, Diamond, Mooney, Piper, Cirrus, Robin … a few small ones maybe, but none come to mind.
The point of this thread is that OP is looking for modern stuff with realistic flight models and systems depth, and there isn’t a lot of that out there right now. There’s a whole lot of 3rd party aircraft that represent older models (A2A Comanche, Blackbird 310, FSW 414, JF Pipers, GF Wilga, Blackbird PC6 Porter, Black Square anything, etc). All of those products are great, but OP is correct in that there is a gap in the sim market for modern airframes with modern avionics and a realistic flight model and a lot of systems depth. There are some in the pipeline like upcoming FSReborn Piper M500, and SWS PC12 & TBM models with the PC12 potentially releasing within a month. Can you think of any modern two-engine GA with a modern airframe & modern avionics done to this level of fidelity in the sim? What about a smaller single-engine GA cruiser (Arrow or Comanche sized)?
I assume when OP says “modern GA models”, he’s talking about new airframes, and not airframes that have been on the market with little change for decades that are just getting modern avionics. He’s looking for airframes that have been recently introduced. I think he has a valid point here, but the title should probably read “Not Enough Good Modern GA Aircraft”.
Any from this list which haven’t already been released for MSFS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_production_certified_light_aircraft
Back to the topic of modern avionics vs. steam gauges. In real life, i guess everyone would love a glass cockpit and buy only those.
However, this is a flight sim and therfore - at least I - want the challenge of steam gauges, especially in IFR. It gives me so much more the feeling of success compared to following the magenta line on a tv screen (why looking out of the window?).
Therfore I think money is MSFS is parked in two places: special but simple planes for the casual or gamer style player (jet fighter, concorde, an-225, etc.) or old school and study level planes for the ones that want a challenge.
P.S. beside modern avionics, where are modern engines like the upcoming Electric Aircraft - Diamond Aircraft Industries
A flight simulator should not only reproduce the present and past but also give a demo of the future.
In my case you’d guess wrong 
The large Garmins G1000 and G3000 are great of course, but I haven’t come across one of those IRL. Too expensive.
And I find many of the other glass cockpit systems not very easy to read and interpret at a glance compared to analog gauges.
Analog gauges are comparatively large and you can interpret them without actually actively registering the numbers the hands point at. Like with a watchface that has no numbers you can read most instruments just with the position of the hands. If the hand of the speed indicator points to white arc you already know the most important thing. If the hand of the variometer doesn’t point to the left in straight flight you have to re-trim, the altimeter basically works like a standard clock with 10 instead of 12 hours. … etc.
Some of the glass cockpits are very cluttered and actually give me too much information on far too little available space making everything very small and look very similar. The Dynon in one of the ULs at my airport is a prime example. I wish there were more options to chose how the information is displayed. Having flight instruments, radio, transponder, navigation as well as warnings and engine instruments on one tiny 7" or 10" screen is simply too much for me.
What I really like with analog instruments is that I know a specific spot to look at and see exactly the one information I need without double-checking whether I have picked the correct few pixels I actually wanted.
However I also don’t think that using small GPS units (like the Aera) or tablets for navigation is the ideal solution
I’m currently flying a 50+ year-old C172M with an Aera as well as a retrofitted G5 instead of the old artificial horizon and gyrocompass. From an instrument point of view that works very well. Speed, artificial horizon and compass I check on the G5. Climb/decent rate I still check mostly with the old steam gauge. For Altitude I actually use both. Especially in the pattern I normally stick to the analog altimeter. I also use the old speed indictator because of the white arc, but otherwise it’s useless because it’s in mph and the G5 and new checklist are in kts.
From a navigation point of view … well … the Area works well enough for following a course. Since the plane has no AP, no real need for something fancy. For the rest I have SkyDeamon.
Well but that is not my question… lol… that is a desired list of GA airplanes… it doesn;t mean the ones in the sim are bad… the OP seems to imply the GA’s being developed are not good enough…
Surely just because there a wish list, it doesn;t mean what has been developed is bad? I am missing something?
R.
