FSD Cessna 421

[Guest]

Let me say from the outset that in general I am a fan of FSD's products.Their Super Cub and Rockwell Commander are both in my FS2K2 inventory and I think they are superb.However, I think the Cheyenne and Cessna 421 are seriously flawed despite the accolades from various quarters.Visually both aircraft are quite stunning and the flight dynamics are impeccable.However, the panels and the sounds, which to me are the essence of any flight sim aircraft,leave much to be desired.The Cheyenne's panel is so dark that I have trouble reading some of the instruments, the ASI in particular.When I raised this issue with FSD I was told that I must be visually impaired, even though I've never had such a problem with almost any other panel.Their response prompted me to vow not to purchase anymore of their products.Of course I relented when the much acclaimed C421 appeared on the scene recently.But sad to say similar problems manifested themselves.The instruments, which one reviewer described as razor sharp, are in some cases hard to read, especially the very blurry ASI.The virtual cockpit is even worse.Unless you are flying with the sun immediately behind you the instrument panel is a black mass with almost nothing decipherable.Switching on the panel lights makes no difference at all.Then there are the throttles which in the 2D cockpit seem to suffer from a medical condition known as St Vitus Dance.They are constantly moving up and down.It's also impossible to make the throttles move smoothly when adjusting the throttle setting ... they move in a staccatto fashion.One of the biggest disappointments is the sound file.The interior and exterior sound bears little resemblance to the C421s that I have flown in on many occasions.Quite frankly I don't think the C421 is worth $22-95.There are now many freeware products available which are the equal of or better than FSD's latest offerings.No doubt these comments will get up the nose of the many diehard FSD supporters but I, for one, feel shortchanged by the C421 and the Cheyenne.

[LAdamson 240]

The Cessna 421 is from Flight 1, and the flight dynamics are from Steve Small. Now----- since you are apparently not aware........... there is an option to switch the 421's virtual instruments to 1024,1024 resolution which makes them real sharp if your CPU can handle it. The virtual cockpit is also lit with a changeable color dome light as is the Dreamfleet Archer II. This makes it very easy to see in any situation.As to throttles in either aircraft, they've stayed rock solid in position on my setup. Looks my opinion of these two products is much different than yours. I've been flight simming since the beginning as well as a licensed pilot. My preference is usually the VC cockpits & I make it a point to use them to there full advantage such as seat movement, eyepoints, & lighting. Without doubt, the 421 and Dreamfleet ArcherII are the best VC panels I've run into. The FSD Cheyenne & freeware Falcon 50 rate the best on my list for night flight with their backlit gauges.L.AdamsonAthlon 1900XPGeforce3Ti500512 DDRram22" Viewsonic monitor, 1600*1200*32 resolution

[Guest]

>Quite frankly I don't think the C421 is worth $22-95. >There are now many freeware products available which are the >equal of or better than FSD's latest offerings. That's interesting, I purchased the Flight1 Golden Eagle 421C right after it was released and it quickly made it to the top of my GA favorite aircraft, #1 on panel features and complexity, visual model and flight dynamics.I am exited that you've found other GA aircraft that are equal or better that the 421C Golden Eagle. It's always nice when somebody discovers a hidden treassure in the vast AVSIM and Flightsim download libraries.Would you now share with us the names of those aircraft you've found that are equal or better than the Flight1 421C and where can we download them from?Thank you so much for sharing your findings, I thought the 421C Golden Eagle was going to be hard to beat and I am glad to hear you've found other aircraft that raised the bar even more.Kerke

[Guest UweR]

Although this looks like a "no gain for anyone" discussion, I thought I

[Guest]

The problem with the throttles is undoubtable a bad or "dirty" potentiometer in your throttle hardware, not the add-on airplane. You could try to jiggle it a little bit to see if that smooths out the problem. You could also try taking your throttle/joystick apart and using a can of air duster on the pots, although I wouldn't recommend that if you are nervous about taking your equipment apart.

[Guest UweR]

Nope, it

[Guest SoarPics]

Hi Aviator,I, too, have purchased all the aforementioned aircraft. I've been quite happy with all of them, with the exception of the VC's. It is simply my opinion that virtual cockpits are an emerging development within MSFS, and I believe there is work left till I'm happy with them. This certainly is not the fault of developers, freeware or commercial.I agree with Jason's recommedation concerning the moving/twitching throttles. I had the exact same problem with my Saitek X36 (including the pitch trim). Now that I've changed to the Thrustmaster Cougar HOTAS my throttle, prop, mixture, and pitch trim are rock solid.Regards,

[Dark Moment 0]

JasonInteresting. I'm going to start a new thread on sticky throttles, etc. My CH stuff seems to be going a bit weird of late.Mark "Dark Moment" Beaumonthttp://www.swiremariners.com/cxkaitak.htmlhttp://www.swiremariners.com/cxkaitakv3.jpg

[Guest]

Personally, I think the Flight1 421 is very nice. While, it isnt the best aircraft, I wasn't dissapointed in anything but the GPS. The visual model is great, the panel is functional, and, while it takes some getting used to, performs its duties with exceptional ease. The air file is just amazing, but I have come to expect nothing less from Steve Small. I have no idea what a real C421 sounds like, but either way the sounds included are fine with me, and I have no gripes.My biggest problem with the plane would be with the GPS. While it is nice, it seems as though its basically a nicer looking MS GPS. It's feature list is a little longer, but doesn't compare to that of Reality XP's avionics, for example.Just my take on the 421.Scott

[LAdamson 240]

>The ASI of the 421C is indeed a bit blurry in the regular >panel view (fair enough to say on my 17 inch monitor),>Just ran both of these planes panels again on my 22" monitor. 2D as well as 3D. In both cases, the airspeed indicator is easy to read & does not require any special magnifying glasses! What it amounts to is a fairly large panel loaded with instruments, & to get the effect, the gauge sizes have to be without doubt smaller than the Piper Cub or even the FSD Commander 115.IMO ---- If one wants to express disappointment in a product due to machine limitations then fine. But with all of these advanced products requiring more CPU power to show what their capable of, then the reviewer needs to be more careful in how they write views of the product. It's like reviewing FS2002 with a PII500 & not expecting any negative feedback!! I totally disagree with the "authors" points & have said so!! If it's because I increased my CPU from the previous PIII600 to the Athlon 1900XP then so be it! Nearly every claim in the original post will be bogus for quite a few users who's machines can handle these advanced simulated aircraft!L.AdamsonP.S.----- I get such good VC visuals on both the C-421 & Dreamfleet Archer that it blows me away! The FSD Cheyenne VC is really stunning at night, but doesn't look as good as a daytime panel-- IMO.

[michal 44]

>When I raised this issue with FSD I was told that I must be >visually impaired, Well at least you got accused of visual impairment, I was accused of mental impairment/disorder (or something close..). Typical FSD stuff. If they were true experts in their field, with technical knowledge & ability beyond reproach then maybe one would swallow the pride and take this abuse. At least you were learning from the masters. But they are not, one day they tell you have no idea what you are talking about, then tell you next day they are limited by the FS platform. And neither 'story' was true (in my case). If at least they were capable of some basic honesty and said "sorry, but because of xyz.. we elected not to do it". Michael J.

[KevinAu 441]

The only thing about the 421 that disappointed and boggled me was that they seem to have left out a working flight director. There is a rendition of the crossbars on the ADI, but it seems to be nothing more than just a rendition. There is no reference to the FD in the manual and I for the life of me cannot find a switch for it anywhere. Has anybody else found it? I'm beginning to suspect the FD is merely painted onto the ADI. They went all the way with everything else, the flight dynamics are great, the model is great, the sounds are great, but it really boggles me why they decided to completely leave out a basic, major part of the aircraft's flight instrumentation like this. At least they should've paint a little "inop" sticker on the panel somewhere.

[michal 44]

>Would you now share with us the names of those aircraft >you've found that are equal or better than the Flight1 421C >and where can we download them from? >Kerke,There are not many feeware panels that raise to that level but one which is no-brainer is Bill Grabowski's ERJ-145. Though it is a small jet therefore would not compare directly with 421C or Cheyenne but as far as quality of work is concerned - I am afraid it is either equal to or beats the above products. Granted virtual cockpit is not there but the panel at least works and all main instruments perform as you would expect. There are no "DUD" gauges like the FD on the Cheyenne.Michael J.

[michal 44]

>they decided to completely leave out a basic, major part of >the aircraft's flight instrumentation like this. Kevin,We are on the same page. I can't comprehend this one either. I was even thinking that perhaps they took some existing old 421C as their reference model that was not equipped with FD though it is hard to imagine an aircraft within this price range wouldn't have one. On the other hand something tells me that few developers have skills (or patience) in implementing FDs correctly - therefore they either give you a bogus instrument hoping you won't notice or they just leave it out.Michael J.

[Guest]

Scott:I can appreciate your "take" on the 421, but when you offer up "it isn't the best aircraft", I would ask you to tell me where I can find a General Aviation, GMAX FS2002 plane that's better?IMO, the "seasoned" Flight Simulation users would agree with Andrew Herd's statement:"I think it is the best GMax plane I have seen, beating even Captain Simulations' MiG-21."You claim your biggest problem is with the GPS, and it's "basically a nicer looking MS GPS." If so, please show me where one can find the Direct To function that allows us to merely type in the identifiers, hit the enter button, and view the final course.Also I can't seem to find, in the MS GPS, the Menu Configuration which allows us to alter the settings for the GPS and display interface, an option that enhances frame rates, or the Sky Watch TCAS.With the Flight1 Cessna 421C, we have an unmatched Model featuring 32 bit enhanced textures, full 2D and Virtual Panel, a "drop down" landing panel, custom never before seen FS Gauges, full Virtual Cabin, Custom true-to-real Sounds, second to none Flight Dynamics, an extensive Operations Manual, Config-O-Matic custom loading, and last but not least the custom Text-O-Matic add-on builder.....all for the price of ~$23.00!Yet, you compare this complete FS package's enhanced GPS to the Reality XP Avionics that's $34.95 just for the avionics that comes from a company that only provides avionics for MSFS!Sorry, your "take" on the Flight1 421 misses the purpose of this outstanding package entirely.Regards,Ben BeverlyLead 421C Beta Test PilotBen's Hangar