Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Well, It finally happened.

Recommended Posts

Hi all,I finally did it. After simming for the last 4-5 years, I finally broke down and bought my first payware aircraft. (FSD Seneca)I just wanted to thank everyone who replied to me with advise in my previous post a few days ago. When I bought this aircraft I expected a frame rate decrease in the worst way, but when I got it up and running I didn't see more than a 2-3 fps hit over the default aircraft on my system. The only real difference that I noticed was that when changing views in the cockpit, the textures take about a second and a half or so to load, where as the default aircraft it's pretty much instant on my system.My only question now is this. To anyone who knows this aircraft really well. Is the performance of this aircraft as good as FSD makes it out to be? I ask this, because when I load it with two people and about 40 lbs of baggage. I can sustain a climb of approx. 1500 ft/min and 120 kts with only 32 inches of manifold pressure. Now I know that this is a turbocharged airplane and it's going to be fast, but is it supposed to be this fast?At the time of my first posting, I was pretty sure that I wanted the Seneca over the Flight 1 Cessna 421. Now that I've got the Seneca, and I've seen just how good it is. I can't wait to get my hands on the 421. I might even look in to the Dreamfleet stable for the Cessna 177 Cardinal. I've heard a lot of good reviews about that aircraft as well.Thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

If your looking for one of the correct numbers aircraft, then have a look at another FSD aircraft, the Commander 115c. It nails them very well. The Cardinal is a great GA aircraft, you won't be dissapointed.[h5]Best Wishes,Randy J. SmithSan Jose Ca[/h5][h3]" A little learning is a dangerous thing"[/h3]AMD [pink]XP[/pink] 2200 |MUNCHKIN 512 DDR RAM |ECS[/b ][i] K7S5A MB[/i] |GF3 64 MEG |WIN XP PRO |MITSUBISHI DIAMOND PLUS 91 19"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, thanks for the info.By the way, nice system specs. I have a very similar system to yours.AMD Athlon XP2200, 512 SDRam, ECS K7S5A MB, GF4 MX 440 64 Meg, Win XP Home, and a Sony Trinitron 19" Monitor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget the RealAir Simulations SIAI Marchetti SF .260. One of the best ever!!Some many great airplanes, and so little time to fly. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard a lot of great stuff about that aircraft as well.I'm going to take it one step at a time right now though. I'm kinda partial to the GA twins mostly, but I also like good high performance singles. I'm going to be shopping a bit more now that I know a bit more what to expect from a payware designer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also highly recommend the Archer or Cardinal, both excellent planes by the best IMOHO design houses out there. FDE's are spot on too.---Banners? We don't need no stinkin' banners!---Visualize PAI sig banner here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gary,I have a suggestion which might remedy the screen display lag.I don't have access to FS right now, so I'm going from memory.Look in the drop down menu that has the World Scenery. In there you will find scenery listings with a check box for those that are active. Their numeric ranking can be changed by selecting one then moving it up or down in the list. Look for one that identifies the window views and move it to or near position 1. That may help the screens load faster.Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the tip, but it's not the terrain textures that take a bit to load, it's the aircraft textures. I'm not really complaining about how long it takes for the textures to display. It's only about a second or so, where as for the default aircraft it's almost instantaneous.The only thing that I was curious about was if the power curve of this aircraft is accurate or not, but I've been learning the proper procedures outlined in the POH that comes with the aircraft. I've also done some research on the real Seneca V and I've found that the flight model is fairly accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this