The Bonanza does have reflective textures and produces great frame rates on my P4 system. The VC and panels are very functional. They are perfectly legible, even zoomed out a long way. Of course they are not quite as pretty as the ones on the Archer II--but whose are? The Archer II has the best interior of any GA plane I have seen. On the other hand, the exterior appearance of the Bonanza is far superior to the Archer. The Bonanza also has the better flight model. It trims out better than the Archer and in my opinion gives smoother and more convincing rotations and flares--a particular weakness with the Archer's flight model. The Bonanza also flies a lot faster, so if you want to go places... By the way, I think Carenado's V35 Bonanza is a great improvement over their F33.I own both versions of the Bonanza as well as the Archer II. If I were to lose all my planes, I would definitely replace the Archer II and the V35, but probably pass on the F33.

> It trims out better than the Archer and in my >opinion gives smoother and more convincing rotations and >flares--a particular weakness with the Archer's flight >model. I think I'll have to "wonder" on the "flares". I personally think my ArcherII flares as close to the real item, as I've encountered in the sim world. I've flown a lot of real life Archers including finishing my PPL in one. I say MY Archer, because it's my controls and rudder pedals. As to the Bonanza being far superior in exterior graphics, then it must be sensational because the Archer is really quite good itself. Unless of course you're using a CPU/card/settings that are displaying smeared side textures---------which mine doesn't.But I must admit, had I bought a Bonanza, it would probably be based on it's exterior looks more than flight models. The exteriors are what drew me to their products to start with.L.AdamsonAthlon 1900XPGeforce3Ti500512DDRram1600*1200*32 resolution

>He does have problems in VC mode with FPS and he has the >same system as mine so I'm kind of weary of purchasing it :/ >The Archer VC mode has prooved to work extremely well on my system. It's usually my favorite mode. And my system is now a "notch" below top of the line. Unless something is drastically wrong, I wouldn't worry about purchase (ArcherII, as I believe that's what you're talking about...... if not, then never mind :)).L.AdamsonAthlon 1900XPGeforce3Ti500512DDRram

The Gent that made the freeware Debonair is at the moment making a V-Tail version...hopefully it will be out soon. Cant wait myself! I see tons of these everyday at work! (KLGB)

I have got to stick my nose in here and say that if someone is considering a choice between the Dreamfleet Archer II and ANY plane by Carenado, you do a search on the AVSim main page on "Carenado" and read the reports of their use of someone else's air file in one of their own commercial products, their denial of it, and then their admitting of the fact.Once you've read that, if you still want to even think about buying one of their products instead of one from a reputable and solid company like Dreamfleet ... I can't help you because I haven't tried (nor will I ever try) something from Carenado.So if it's really a choice between a Dreamfleet plane and a Carenado plane, please go with Dreamfleet.--TonyP.S. - Please note I've made no allegations that have not been admitted to by Carenado, so there should be no legal issue.

Larry,Wow! Your Archer is nice & sharp. Unfortunately, mine suffers from a tad bit of smearing as you described. I took some screen shots of my Archer at the best angle to avoid the buries, and you can see some comparisons shots of both it and the old F33A below.Once again, I think the Carenado visual is a tad bit more detailed ( at least on my pc), but as I stated far above: the overall Archer package wins hands down. IMHO I wish there was a way to improve my Archer's visuals, but I think it has to do more with having a PIII + Geforce2 setup, than any settings I am using (I tried changing aircraft texture size to massive, per Lou's recommendations).Note to Avsim moderators: Don't worry, I'm hosting these pics, so the bulk of bandwidth being eaten is mine :-) Each shot is apprx. 50K:http://www.rwlsportscards.com/images/F33-1.jpghttp://www.rwlsportscards.com/images/PA28-1.jpghttp://www.rwlsportscards.com/images/F33-3.jpghttp://www.rwlsportscards.com/images/PA28-2.jpgIf you guys find that these shots slow the thread down too much, let me know, and I'll yank them.Take care,Rogerhttp://rwlsportscards.com/images/sigs/avsig3.gif

OOPs! You are right, it does have a VC, I was confused with the other Carenado planes I purchased and that did not have a VC.:-doh Ethics issues aside and claims of who stole what from who, does anyone own both the Carenado and the Flight One Archer. I am interested in which is better as far as functionality and flight model?

Roger---- they do look good!As to visuals, check settings such as best graphics versus best performance. Originally my PIII600/Viper770 Ultra was displaying much better graphics than the Athlon 1900XP/Geforce3Ti500. Once getting the settings correct & then later using NVmax, it made all the difference. My test case was the default Baron. L.Adamson

>I think I'll have to "wonder" on the "flares". I personally think my >ArcherII flares as close to the real item, as I've encountered in >the sim world.It's not so much the flare as the touchdown and rotation. Maybe it's just me, but the Archer's nose gear seems to drop to the ground as soon as the mains have touched down, instead of settling more slowly and smoothly. Likewise the rotations seem less smooth. Prior to the update, the plane would not rotate at all. The current version is better, but it just doesn't have that slinky, sexy rotation of the Bonanza.It's a quibble, nothing more. I have logged thousands of sim-miles in the Archer II and love the plane. But the V-tail is my current infatuation.

I would agree with that. I does seem to be much smoother on the landings, even when coming in a little hot. It is a fun plane to fly.