Sign in to follow this  
Guest ucanfly

FSD Commander 115 TC or Piper Seneca V ??

Recommended Posts

Hi Guys,I was thinking about getting one of the FSD International birds. I was looking at the Commander 115 TC and the Piper Seneca V? What are you thoughts on these two planes? Likes, dislikes? Thanks for your help.Ron

Share this post


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

While I don't have FSD's Piper Seneca V, I do have their Commander 115 TC and have enjoyed it since the day I bought it. The FSDS model was nice in FS2000, but with the recently released gMax upgrade for FS2002, the Commander has been bumped up to a whole new level.Things I like about the Commander:-Exterior Model-Virtual cockpit-Flight Dynamics (though, I've never flown the real thing)-Loadout ProgramThings I don't like about the Commander:Nothing really.Overall, the Commander is a great package, and is one of my favorite GA aircraft. The Loadout program that comes with it is absolutely one of the coolest things I've seen for an aircraft in FS2k2. Hopefully somebody else will come along and comment on the Seneca, but I hope this gives you can idea of what the Commander is like. :-)Ryan-Flightpro08 :-cool VATSIM Pilot/ControllerZLA ARTCC Senior Controller (C-3)ASRC (Advanced Simulated Radar Client) Beta Testerhttp://vatsim.pilotmedia.fi/statusindicato...tor=OD1&a=a.jpg-----------------------------My "Home Made" System Specs:Intel Pentium 4 2.2GHz ProcessorTurbo Gamer ATX Mid-Tower with 420W Power SupplyEPoX 4G4A Motherboard with Intel 845G ChipsetVisiontek XTASY GeForce4 128MB Ti4600 (Det 42.86 Drivers)512MB PC2100 DDR RAM40GB Matrox 7200RPM Hard DriveWindows XP Home Edition SP1*No CPU or GPU Overclocking*3dMark2001SE Score: 11298-----------------------------Click Here to Download my American Eagle POSKY CRJ-200!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Seneca V is a great platform for learning instrument flight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't have the Commander, but I do have the Seneca V.Well its alright, but I have to admit to being a bit underwhelmed over fairly small things (BTW if anybody has figured workarounds for these please let me know):* Flying using the VC is very disappointing. There's just too much real estate being used, and when you reduce the view, the guages aren't that readible. You have to look down on it, so you can't concentrate on the outside. If you are going for a VFR jaunt - it's not much fun.* On the other hand the 2D panel is excellent, with a very good zoom facility on the main guages. So if you are more IFR (which I am with the Seneca) then the VC isn't too much of a problem.* I've never been in a real Seneca before, so was surprised that the left and right views in 2D are mostly engine cowling. If that's what is like in real life - then so be it, but again, not much use for sight seeing, and pretty awful when you are in the pattern.* Unexciting engine noises.* The landing roll is a bit odd. Again, I don't know what it's like for real, but I would have thought it would have made more sense to have to hold the nose up to slow down. With this model, you physically have to force the nose down!?! It just stays up otherwise :)* Fairly unexciting external textures.This all sounds very negative. Don't get me wrong, in the air, it flies very nice. Documentation supplied is excellent. For the price, I would say it was worth it, but I am sure there are better twins out there...Hope this helpsRichard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also only own the Commander and love the plane. The new VC in GMAX mode is truly outstanding - they really got it right this time with an outstanding pilot's perspective. The 2d panel is excellent with large, very smooth gauges for IFR work. I like the model (I don't fly in real life so can't tell you how "real as it gets" it is) - it is steady, trims out well, and flys to the numbers in the POH and is a breeze to land. You can't go wrong with this plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>* The landing roll is a bit odd. Again, I don't know what>it's like for real, but I would have thought it would have>made more sense to have to hold the nose up to slow down. >With this model, you physically have to force the nose down!?!> It just stays up otherwise :)I've flown a Seneca, but no landing. However, I've flown quite a few hours in a Piper Seminol. As to the Seneca model, I had no problem with the nose on landing. Wasn't sure of the actual numbers, so I did a final approach bleeding the speed off to 90 kias. Over the fence at 80 and flare around 75. I held the nose up for landing on the mains, and then it dropped by itself rather quickly, with backpressure still on the yoke. Just no flying speed left. Makes me wonder if your approach speeds are to high, and your forcing the Seneca to land. Steve Small seems to get these flight dynamic effects to work quite well.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FSD Commander 115 TC is right on numbers wise and the panels are much better in either VC or 2D than the Seneca. If you have the choice get the Commander, it won't dissapoint.[h5]Best Wishes,Randy J. SmithSan Jose Ca[/h5][h3]" A little learning is a dangerous thing"[/h3] [h5]AMD XP 2200 |MUNCHKIN 512 DDR RAM |ECS[/b ][i] K7S5A MB[/i] |GF3 64 MEG @ 215/545|WIN XP PRO |MITSUBISHI DIAMOND PLUS 91 19"[/h5]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edited for spelling:These are two VERY seperate planes. As for which one to get, that depends entirely on your wants and desires in an airplane. If you like and want to spend a lot of time in a twin, the Seneca is for you. If like me, you prefer the single engine, mostly because that is what I fly in real life, then of course the Commander, You won't go wrong with either of these planes, and I own them both. I own evrything FSD puts out, and not to leave anyone out I own everything DreamFleet puts out, because of the people involved with both of these companies, and their company policies.If you get the Seneca I suggest being prepared to do most of your work in the 2D cockpit. In my opinion the Virtual Cockpit, (which I love and use in most of my flights, that is another reason I prefer single engine in the simulator), Is too small in the twin engine planes. There is just too much panel to be shown in the confines of a small, (19 inch), monitor. This is not a criticism of FSD as this is a problem I find in everyones twin engine planes wheather prop or jet, and no matter who has developed the plane.If you prefer single engine planes, then you will probably spend most of your time in the Virtual Cockpit, as the immersion factor seems to me to be higher. If you happen to have the E-Dimensional stero glasses, the GMAX Commander in virtual cockpit is unbelievable. It is almost like being in the real cockpit. I have never been actually in the cockpit of a Commander, however I have peeked inside a real one many times while fueling them at Wiley Post airport here in Bethany Oklahoma, I used to be a lineman here a few years ago, and fueled a lot of planes at the Commander hanger.To reiterate the one you get will depend on what kind of flying you like.I suggest getting both of them actually, if it is at all possible, I would bet you will wind up using both. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have both and I have to say that Commander is a sweet plane. It looks great, flies nice , has a very good virtual cockpit , has engine damage modeling that I'm still figuring out, and is suitable for VFR or IFR trips. The only thing I have trouble with (and it may be just my sound card) is that I almost cannot hear the engine (inside or out) it is so quiet.The Seneca would not be first choice for a view of the surrounding terrain, because it has an extremely obstructed view to the sides(probably like the real thing), and it does seem that the front panel in VC mode is angled too much toward your feet making you look downward to see the panel if you still want to see what's ahead outside. That being said, the Seneca flies extremely smoothly and convincingly, IMO has great (and loud) sound files, you can see the strobes from VC view, and makes for a very nice IFR platform in 2D or VC mode (with the right zoom and seating position).I have them both and am happy that I bought them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither one really grabbed me. The Seneca flies well but the VC perspective is off, as some have pointed out. Also, the non-functional radar panel--well, just grates on my nerves. And let's be honest: The Seneca is downright homely. Nothing like a lovely Baron, say!The Commander didn't do it for me either. For starters, frame rates were poor on my system. I won't sacrifice the eye candy for any plane, period. Also, I found the VC perspective disconcerting. It's as if your nose is glued to the panel. You can only zoom back so far. Finally, the engine damage modelling is not explained in the documentation and seems fairly bizarre. The engine seized on my first flight although I was not exceeding any limitations, as far as I know.It's time we start demanding more from payware VC's. Clear guages isn't enough. A good VC has to provide a realistic perspective and a decent field of vision, both inside and outside the cockpit, without zooming out to the point where the ground appears artificially distant. The SF.260 VC is an example of what we should expect from all payware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The discussion about the "right" amount of zoom in any virtual cockpit has been going on for quite some time, and there are different opinions, of course. I always was on the "1x should fit all" side. But the Commander has changed my view (no pun intended ;)).I fly the Commander at 67% zoom, which brings all the important instruments into view. A lot of real world pilots have said that this amount of zoom is closest to the view you have in a real cockpit. I can't confirm it, because I have never been in any GA cockpit. Anyway, now I fly nearly all of my planes at 67% zoom, and think it's perfect. It does not distort the outside view, but gives you an idea of peripheral vision, something very important in real world landings.I also fly the SF.260 a lot, and it's the only plane where I use 100% zoom, simply because I'm so used to it. Until the Commander I thought the SF.260 had the best virtual cockpit, but now this has changed for me as well ... Commander is No.1!Regarding the engine damage modelling, an update is to be released for this (that's not an empty promise, I know they are working on it), so everybody can choose how picky the engine should be.Just my 2c (EUR),VOlker :]P.S.: I love the Commander and think about getting the Seneca V as well, so I would be happy to read more comments about that plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading yesterday's postings, I went for the "discount" update of my FS2002 FSD Commander. Regarding the VC, it seems I agree with some & disagree with others. I find that I really DO like it. The gauges actually are clear and it's even frame-rate friendly. I'll add it to my list of fun aircraft to fly in VC mode. I do use "active camera" to pull my eye point back for some added peripheral vision which increases the sense of flight in situations such as approaching for landing.http://forums.avsim.com/user_files/6973.jpgL.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just checked the sim for zoom factor, and it isn't showing an indication. I use "active camera" and a mouse with a wheel in the middle which allows changing eye-points quikly at will. It also has the benefit of not moving the eye-point past the seat backs. But it does re-scale the outside scenery along with the cockpit. L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your cockpit sure looks better than it did for me. Not sure why I didn't warm to this one. Maybe worth another look.In real flying you get used to the look of things from pattern altitude. 1x seems about right. It's hard to adjust to a zoom perspective and have houses and things appear too small. Has anyone actually anayzed the aspect or footprint of ground objects at different zoom rates to see which are most accurate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found I got used to and then preferred a wider zoom than 1.0 after a while. It depends on aircraft with commander am comfortable with .55X to 1X. Usually reserve 1X for when on final or when trying to spot traffic. I agree Active camera pro is a must.

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