Interesting thread. I own the Cheyenne for FSX, didn't even know about the Duke til now,went and looked at the screen shots, wow, whoever called this 'cartoony' was just yankingsomeone's chain, it all looks great from what I can see.The Cheyenne is a gas to fly, I think takeoffs in it are more of a rush than most jets, it hasgiven me zero problems, the Trimble is a kind of crude interface, but it has worked fine asfar as I've pushed it so far. I just bought the Carenado Seneca this weekend, and its a touchy flier, now I wish I hadseen this a few days earlier, oh well, there's always next weekend :)BTW, just LOVE that black livery!

There is going to be a patch for the seneca coming out tomorrow or the day after just so you know.So I am in a dilemma here. I have exactly enough money for only one plane. I have a descent system running REX and have 30FPS most of the time through the FPS limiter tool. Those of you who own the Cheyenne, do you agree with the poster who said the gauge refresh rate is even lower than the default MSFS aircraft? And for those who have the Duke, how much of a framerate loss do you notice from say like the G1000 Baron to the Duke?Also I forgot to add that I had purchased the Cheyenne for FS2004 a long time ago through Aerosoft, is there a free downloadable upgrade to the FSX version or do you have to pay?

Version 4.0 of the Cheyenne for both FS9 and FSX is coming out now (30 June 2009) on Aerosoft & Simmmarket.This is a free upgrade but takes the form of a complete new installation: the old aircraft has to be un-installed first.http://www.digital-aviation.de/site/This is intended to fix residual problems with the Trimble plus a handful of other minor issues.It also allows users to replace the Trimble with an alternate GPS although understandably this is not supported by DA.

There is going to be a patch for the seneca coming out tomorrow or the day after just so you know.So I am in a dilemma here. I have exactly enough money for only one plane. I have a descent system running REX and have 30FPS most of the time through the FPS limiter tool. Those of you who own the Cheyenne, do you agree with the poster who said the gauge refresh rate is even lower than the default MSFS aircraft? And for those who have the Duke, how much of a framerate loss do you notice from say like the G1000 Baron to the Duke?Also I forgot to add that I had purchased the Cheyenne for FS2004 a long time ago through Aerosoft, is there a free downloadable upgrade to the FSX version or do you have to pay?

No, the Cheyenne Gauges are smooth to me. It didn't make any sense what that poster said. JB

There is going to be a patch for the seneca coming out tomorrow or the day after just so you know.So I am in a dilemma here. I have exactly enough money for only one plane. I have a descent system running REX and have 30FPS most of the time through the FPS limiter tool. Those of you who own the Cheyenne, do you agree with the poster who said the gauge refresh rate is even lower than the default MSFS aircraft? And for those who have the Duke, how much of a framerate loss do you notice from say like the G1000 Baron to the Duke?

If had I had to choose between the Cheyenne, Duke, and Seneca - id get the Duke, its a little more pricey than the Seneca but if you are a VC flyer it is one of the best. Compared to the default baron G1000 vc its about the same on my system.

No, the Cheyenne Gauges are smooth to me. It didn't make any sense what that poster said. JB

Well...that poster (me) just said what he sees. I've flown the Cheyenne a lot and the artificial horizon moves like it restricted to 5 degree steps or so (exaggerating to make it clear). Hard to explain (especially to a non native speaker), but for sure less fluid than e.g. the default Baron.Maybe some people just don't notice this, but I do.On the other hand the Cheyenne is not as taxing on fps as the Duke.Alex

Well...that poster (me) just said what he sees. I've flown the Cheyenne a lot and the artificial horizon moves like it restricted to 5 degree steps or so (exaggerating to make it clear). Hard to explain (especially to a non native speaker), but for sure less fluid than e.g. the default Baron.Maybe some people just don't notice this, but I do.On the other hand the Cheyenne is not as taxing on fps as the Duke.Alex

Heres a quick video I through together to show the Cheyennes Gauge update rate in the VC.View in HD.

JB

I'm deciding to go with the Cheyenne because it's only $28 as an upgrade from FS2004. Thanks for everyone's thoughts and help.

Good choice, i would not compare the Carenado Seneca to the Cheyenne because althoughits beautiful both inside and out, and the sound is great, its not even in the same class asfar as avionics or operation is concerned.The first clue to me in this regard is that the Cheyenne is one of the only GA planes thatactually has its own update on Navigraph!!I'm glad to hear there's a patch for the Seneca, I'll be on the lookout for it.Cheers,

Interesting thread. I own the Cheyenne for FSX, didn't even know about the Duke til now,went and looked at the screen shots, wow, whoever called this 'cartoony' was just yankingsomeone's chain, it all looks great from what I can see.

I've held back from commenting on the "cartoony" post in detail, just in case I am imagining things when looking at our own panels. But I feel confident replying about this now. What some people do not realise is that when they make off-the-cuff comments, often based on an inbuilt prejudice or some other agenda which cannot be explained, is that such comments get Google-chached and remain on the internet for a long time. This makes it quite a serious issue when someone who has had a bad day and is slack with their thought processes makes casual comments which are simply untrue.Normally I don't mind because other users on the same thread chime in to either confirm or deny such comments, but in the case of this "cartoon" assertion, I have to say this is the most unjust and inaccurate comment ever made about any of our aircraft. The Duke panel might be many things, but one thing it is not is "cartoonish". In fact the reason why the Duke is a bit more demanding on graphics is indeed because it is NOT, in any shape or form, cartoonish in appearance. But of course it is for others to confirm this. I could name a hundred other panels which could be compared, but I am not going to do that. I think what might be happening here is that the convention of some "stuck on" gauges of some addons gives the impression that that's how real panels look, and that when something turns up that is subtle, tasteful, understated, and reasonably close to how it looks in real aircraft, the conclusion drawn is that somehow that equals a "cartoon". I cannot emphasise enough how we actually went to huge lengths to AVOID any connection with cartoons! But because one person asserts the opposite, and another casually "agrees", it is now established amongst some minds, possibly, that the Duke panel looks like a cartoon. Whereas the truth is (in my opinion, and that of the vast majority of customers) that the Duke is indeed almost entirely UN cartoonish and less so than any other aircraft in FSX of its type. Sorry to repeat, and please criticise the Duke in any way you wish BUT.........oh I give up... I cannot tell you how frustrating this is to deal with!I have no idea about the thought processes of those two posters who assert the "cartoon" look, but as a discerning customer myself of other addons I think I am reasonably possessed of a visual judgement sufficient to make an objective observation.Please by all means criticise the Duke, and other aircraft addons, in any way you wish, if you have really thought through your assesssment. But please take care to think for a moment before posting, because what might appear to be a casual swipe to you makes others arrive at a prejudiced view which is entirely unjustified as a result of your impulsive comments.Thank you.Rob Young - RealAir Simultions

Here, here.I have noticed an initial wave and then a sharp downward spiral of Dukes on Gamespy. There are a lot less in multi nowadays. Mipmapping the external textures as per Mike GreenBlatt of www.fs-gs.com has greatly improved the Duke's performance, even in free flight. Online the improvement is especally clear when several are in the same session.Yes, the state of FSX user's computers varies. But on a properly set up computer that actually has business running FSX, mip mapped exterior textures look and perform better.Robert Alley

I've held back from commenting on the "cartoony" post in detail, just in case I am imagining things when looking at our own panels. But I feel confident replying about this now. What some people do not realise is that when they make off-the-cuff comments, often based on an inbuilt prejudice or some other agenda which cannot be explained, is that such comments get Google-chached and remain on the internet for a long time. This makes it quite a serious issue when someone who has had a bad day and is slack with their thought processes makes casual comments which are simply untrue.Normally I don't mind because other users on the same thread chime in to either confirm or deny such comments, but in the case of this "cartoon" assertion, I have to say this is the most unjust and inaccurate comment ever made about any of our aircraft. The Duke panel might be many things, but one thing it is not is "cartoonish". In fact the reason why the Duke is a bit more demanding on graphics is indeed because it is NOT, in any shape or form, cartoonish in appearance. But of course it is for others to confirm this. I could name a hundred other panels which could be compared, but I am not going to do that. I think what might be happening here is that the convention of some "stuck on" gauges of some addons gives the impression that that's how real panels look, and that when something turns up that is subtle, tasteful, understated, and reasonably close to how it looks in real aircraft, the conclusion drawn is that somehow that equals a "cartoon". I cannot emphasise enough how we actually went to huge lengths to AVOID any connection with cartoons! But because one person asserts the opposite, and another casually "agrees", it is now established amongst some minds, possibly, that the Duke panel looks like a cartoon. Whereas the truth is (in my opinion, and that of the vast majority of customers) that the Duke is indeed almost entirely UN cartoonish and less so than any other aircraft in FSX of its type. Sorry to repeat, and please criticise the Duke in any way you wish BUT.........oh I give up... I cannot tell you how frustrating this is to deal with!I have no idea about the thought processes of those two posters who assert the "cartoon" look, but as a discerning customer myself of other addons I think I am reasonably possessed of a visual judgement sufficient to make an objective observation.Please by all means criticise the Duke, and other aircraft addons, in any way you wish, if you have really thought through your assesssment. But please take care to think for a moment before posting, because what might appear to be a casual swipe to you makes others arrive at a prejudiced view which is entirely unjustified as a result of your impulsive comments.Thank you.Rob Young - RealAir Simultions

I've held back from commenting on the "cartoony" post in detail, just in case I am imagining things when looking at our own panels. But I feel confident replying about this now. What some people do not realise is that when they make off-the-cuff comments, often based on an inbuilt prejudice or some other agenda which cannot be explained, is that such comments get Google-chached and remain on the internet for a long time. This makes it quite a serious issue when someone who has had a bad day and is slack with their thought processes makes casual comments which are simply untrue.Normally I don't mind because other users on the same thread chime in to either confirm or deny such comments, but in the case of this "cartoon" assertion, I have to say this is the most unjust and inaccurate comment ever made about any of our aircraft. The Duke panel might be many things, but one thing it is not is "cartoonish". In fact the reason why the Duke is a bit more demanding on graphics is indeed because it is NOT, in any shape or form, cartoonish in appearance. But of course it is for others to confirm this. I could name a hundred other panels which could be compared, but I am not going to do that. I think what might be happening here is that the convention of some "stuck on" gauges of some addons gives the impression that that's how real panels look, and that when something turns up that is subtle, tasteful, understated, and reasonably close to how it looks in real aircraft, the conclusion drawn is that somehow that equals a "cartoon". I cannot emphasise enough how we actually went to huge lengths to AVOID any connection with cartoons! But because one person asserts the opposite, and another casually "agrees", it is now established amongst some minds, possibly, that the Duke panel looks like a cartoon. Whereas the truth is (in my opinion, and that of the vast majority of customers) that the Duke is indeed almost entirely UN cartoonish and less so than any other aircraft in FSX of its type. Sorry to repeat, and please criticise the Duke in any way you wish BUT.........oh I give up... I cannot tell you how frustrating this is to deal with!I have no idea about the thought processes of those two posters who assert the "cartoon" look, but as a discerning customer myself of other addons I think I am reasonably possessed of a visual judgement sufficient to make an objective observation.Please by all means criticise the Duke, and other aircraft addons, in any way you wish, if you have really thought through your assesssment. But please take care to think for a moment before posting, because what might appear to be a casual swipe to you makes others arrive at a prejudiced view which is entirely unjustified as a result of your impulsive comments.Thank you.Rob Young - RealAir Simultions

Very well said. I am glad you didn't keep this thought to yourself because you as a developer need to protect your work and when people threaten to give your product a bad name with non-supportive evidence it just ruins what you have worked so hard on. I really wish I could contribute to your work but right now the price is a little out of more range, which is too bad. Anyway, I support you and RealAir because I know you guys are hard working and have your minds in the right place. As said before, you are in a category of your own.

I've held back from commenting on the "cartoony" post in detail, just in case I am imagining things when looking at our own panels. But I feel confident replying about this now. What some people do not realise is that when they make off-the-cuff comments, often based on an inbuilt prejudice or some other agenda which cannot be explained, is that such comments get Google-chached and remain on the internet for a long time. This makes it quite a serious issue when someone who has had a bad day and is slack with their thought processes makes casual comments which are simply untrue.Normally I don't mind because other users on the same thread chime in to either confirm or deny such comments, but in the case of this "cartoon" assertion, I have to say this is the most unjust and inaccurate comment ever made about any of our aircraft. The Duke panel might be many things, but one thing it is not is "cartoonish". In fact the reason why the Duke is a bit more demanding on graphics is indeed because it is NOT, in any shape or form, cartoonish in appearance. But of course it is for others to confirm this. I could name a hundred other panels which could be compared, but I am not going to do that. I think what might be happening here is that the convention of some "stuck on" gauges of some addons gives the impression that that's how real panels look, and that when something turns up that is subtle, tasteful, understated, and reasonably close to how it looks in real aircraft, the conclusion drawn is that somehow that equals a "cartoon". I cannot emphasise enough how we actually went to huge lengths to AVOID any connection with cartoons! But because one person asserts the opposite, and another casually "agrees", it is now established amongst some minds, possibly, that the Duke panel looks like a cartoon. Whereas the truth is (in my opinion, and that of the vast majority of customers) that the Duke is indeed almost entirely UN cartoonish and less so than any other aircraft in FSX of its type. Sorry to repeat, and please criticise the Duke in any way you wish BUT.........oh I give up... I cannot tell you how frustrating this is to deal with!I have no idea about the thought processes of those two posters who assert the "cartoon" look, but as a discerning customer myself of other addons I think I am reasonably possessed of a visual judgement sufficient to make an objective observation.Please by all means criticise the Duke, and other aircraft addons, in any way you wish, if you have really thought through your assesssment. But please take care to think for a moment before posting, because what might appear to be a casual swipe to you makes others arrive at a prejudiced view which is entirely unjustified as a result of your impulsive comments.Thank you.Rob Young - RealAir Simultions

Rob,Maybe the "Cartoonish" comment was really not too thought out. I personally don't think it looks cartoonish, but when comparing the VC of both aircraft, the Duke has a much cleaner look with higher rez on the textures with less weathering. The coloring of the Duke Textures in the VC has a bit more saturation, which may have spurred the comment since the OP didn't know why it looked different and just threw the word Cartoonish out there. Like I said prior, I have both addons and I give them both perfect scores. Unfortunately I don't think it is fair comparing the two since it's like comparing apples to oranges. One is a piston twin and designed to be a privately owned luxury aircraft and the other was designed to take the succesfull functionality of the pressurized Piper Navajo, and slap some turbines on it.If I was you, I wouldn't worry too much about the misused words describing your product on Google. You know as well as I do, that 90% of the potential real air customers will do thier homework before a purchase and that involves sifting through the crap on the web. Bottomline, your products speak for themselves and I would imagine most of your sales are due to word of mouth and not a post here or there.JB

If I was you, I wouldn't worry too much about the misused words describing your product on Google. You know as well as I do, that 90% of the potential real air customers will do thier homework before a purchase and that involves sifting through the crap on the web. Bottomline, your products speak for themselves and I would imagine most of your sales are due to word of mouth and not a post here or there.

Yep, the positive posts far outweigh the negative posts if you scour the net for FSX Duke etc

I have been flightsimming since the wire frame cessna was state of the art. The RA Duke and the F1 Mustang are my favorite planes. Why, because they seem the most realistic to me. In my opinion the Duke's VC cannot be beat. Granted I dont own all the planes abvailable on the market, but I do have alot of payware. There may be others that have the similar visual impact, but I haven't seen any that were better; again in my opinion. I would recommend the Duke to anyone interested in that type of plane. I also recommend the F1 Mustang. I would like to have the Cheyenne, but I have a limited FS budget and I went with the new models. I am sure it is is a great add-on. I almost bought it, but at the time went with the F1 Mustang.Man, I wish I had more money to spend.....

Man, I wish I had more money to spend.....

Don't we all! :(