FSD Cessna 421

[Guest]

As the originator of this thread I must first of all apologise for confusing FSD with Flight One.That said I stand by my comments about the Cessna 421 (and indeed the Cheyenne)despite some of the responses to what I had to say.1. Yes, I have tried changing the resolution to 1024 but to no appreciable effect.2. Yes, I have adjusted the gamma levels but once again to no appeciable effect.3. Yes, I have dusted my CH Flightstick Pro but the throttles still jiggle around.4. And yes, I have cleaned my glasses but it hasn't made the slightest bit of difference.In fact one of the posts by Steve Small unintentionally supported my basic contention that the instruments on the 2D panel are not "razor sharp", especially the all important ASI.His "unretouched zoomed in image" of the ASI proved my point that this instrument is difficult to read in the lower speed ranges (although not nearly so bad as the Cheyenne's ASI). The fact of the matter is that while my operating system is in need of an upgrade (Athlon 700, GE Force 2, 128 RAM)it performs perfectly well for every other panel that I've installed, and there have been plenty of those in recent times, both payware and freeware.I can say without a word of a lie that the only two panels where key instruments such as the ASI are fuzzy and almost indecipherable are the ones for the C421 and the Cheyenne.In terms of clarity they are just not in the same league as Dreamfleet's Archer, B737; Bill Grabowski's ERJ; the NATS RD4; Milan Lisner's wonderful Zlin Z142C or some of the Russian offerings like the Tu134, etc etc.As for my contention that there are plenty of freeware aircraft/panel packages as good or better than the C421 and the Cheyenne I would respectfully suggest this is indisputable.Let's name just a few of the authors .... Grabowski, Golding, Lavigne, Golding, Blaisdell, Ahlberg, Banting, Lisner; Lieberecht, Chaffin and Ernst (in an earlier life), ... the list goes on of people who have matched or exceeded Flight One and FSD's efforts at no cost to the rest of us.These people are in many cases the unsung heroes of this hobby and people for whom I have enormous respect.Payware people like Flight One and FSD need to get back to basics and make sure that flightsimmers don't need a magnifying glass to read primary flight instruments.If the amateurs can get it right why can't the so-called professionals who are now starting to charge more and more for their products?

[alastairmonk 0]

Direct quote from the manual:"The Golden Eagle 421 panel was designed to provide a total feeling of being in the left seat of the cockpit.As a result, many of the gauges are a bit smaller in size and may be hard to read or adjust at times.Several features have been implemented to assist in legibility and adjustment of the instrumentation.By left mouse clicking the HSI, all six main instruments will enlarge over the main panel and allow you to adjust or validate current settings or current gauge states. To return, simply left mouse click the HSI again. The engine instruments can be enlarged as well as switched to view the additional instruments that would usually be located in the co-pilot view. To switch the engine instruments, left mouse click on the arrow icon located at the lower left corner of the engine instruments. To return, click again."This 421 was designed to be a replica of a real plane. Similarly the panel was designed to be more representative of the real thing than is customary, so as a result the gauges are smaller than we are used to. Hence the "magnifying" option. Its unorthodox, but it does work.These details were readily publicised in the freely available manual before the 421 was released. The producers admit that this isn't your average sim plane and that it needs an above-average PC to do it justice. If your system can't handle it, that's a great shame, but the fault lies with your system, not the plane.I agree that there are some truly wonderful freeware planes out there, and I, personally, have most of the ones you list. And I don't recall seeing anywhere the production team stating that their plane was the best one out there. One of the best, maybe. Its not actually a competition ! If you can't get on with this package, fine, return it and get your money back. You are free to criticise what you see as its shortcomings, but there's really no need for the vitriolic attack in your last post.Alastair

[michal 44]

>admit that this isn't your average sim plane and that it >needs an above-average PC to do it justice. If your system >can't handle it, that's a great shame, but the fault lies >with your system, not the plane. If we are talking about VC then I agree that above-average PC is needed. But apart from this if you are in 2D panel and only need fluid sharp instruments then as some other products proved you don't need the the top horsepower to achieve respectable results. On my below-average P3 500 I get excellent fluidity and clarity with this highly above-average (top ?) package called 767PIC. So I really must wonder where the fault lies.>really no need for the vitriolic attack in your last postVitriloic attack ? The way I read it he sounded like less than 100% satisfied customer so where this attack may I ask ? Did I miss something ? Michael J.

[alastairmonk 0]

From reading the dedicated Forum, others have experienced problems as well, however as far as I can tell, Aviator was the first to express dis-satisfaction with the gauges. Others have had problems with their frame-rates (and it was this aspect that I addressed with my comments about high-end machines) or the missing ADF, and both matters have now been addressed, either with the alternative set of textures or the forthcoming patch.I don't have PIC so can't compare it myself. If you are happier with that team's panel, then fair enough. Certainly Eric's 757/767 panel for FS98 was magnificent.As for the "vitriolic attack" I was referring to the last paragraphs:Payware people like Flight One and FSD need to get back to basics and make sure that flightsimmers don't need a magnifying glass to read primary flight instruments.If the amateurs can get it right why can't the so-called professionals who are now starting to charge more and more for their products?You may construe this as just being his opinion. I found it unduly severe, which is, I guess, my opinion. My interpretation is that he was saying "this is a severely flawed product" when perhaps he should have said "there are aspects to the product that I don't like". I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I really don't want to start some sort of flame war. Aviator clearly is dissatisfied with the product. I think it ranks with the best of the recent releases. Each simmer will have to decide for themselves.Best wishes (no, really)Alastair

[michal 44]

. Many developers rush to give you all the fluff these days but fail to provide basics - fluid clear gauges that work as in real aircraft (eg. Flight Director, etc, etc). I guess Elite is such a "basic" yet very expensive package. One look at their instrument panels and you know why they sell it even though it comes with no scenery, fancy aircraft exterior model or leather seats.If you ever saw the FSD's Commander instrument panel before they chose to implement the VC - it was out-of-this-world, the best 2D panel I have seen for any FS add-on, ever. It is all now but a distant memory.Cheers, it is pleasure to debate this stuff with you.Michael J.

[Guest]

Aviator, Wouldn't it be easier to use the config manager to adjust the lighting in the VC and panel in the 421 rather than adjusting your gamma sliders? All of the gauges can be enlarged with a mouse click as is stated in the manual.Michal, You stated "If we are talking about VC then I agree that above-average PC is needed." Framerates in the 421 are nearly identical to the default Baron's virtual cockpit view. I would strongly disagree that an above average PC is needed for the 421's virtual cockpit. Spot plane view is the only area of appreciable framerate drop in the 421 compared to the MS default planes. The use of DXT textures would negate this gap even further. A DXT option in Text O Matic will be made available in the service pack.