Seriously, the Cheyenne is a great product. Perfect VC, complex and not cartooney looking like the Duke. Besides, I hate the Duke in real life. :( If I wanted a plane to cruise at FL250+, I'd put TURBINE engines on it. Someone stated the Cheyenne is a "dated" product--it was rebuilt for FSX for crying out loud! Just how dated is it? Anyway, the Cheyenne, HANDS DOWN.

I have the Duke and the Cheyenne. I am somewhat partial to the Duke...the detailing is excellent from the interior/exterior, to the instrumentation and flight dynamics. I feel it is better than the Cheyenne in that respect. But another fun aircraft I have been enjoying is the Epic from Lionheart creations. I originally bought it for my old system which could only run FS9. But now that I am running FSX as well, I installed the FSX version (both FS9/FSX versions are part of the package) and I have to say I love it. It perfectly fits the niche between commercial jets and some of the faster bizjets, and a piston twin like the Duke. The other day I flew a flight in realtime from Santa Ana to Napa, at flight level 220, at 340 KTAS. It was one of the most amazing flights, in part because I was running Tileproxy. I really had the sense that I had flown somewhere.Regards,John

I will repeat that in hundreds of hours in the Cheyenne, navigating from flight plans generated from Simroutes and imported into the Trimble GPS, I have never had a CTD that I had any reason to think was due to the aircraft, either in FS9 or FSX.Other people's usage and experience may differ.

Seriously, the Cheyenne is a great product. Perfect VC, complex and not cartooney looking like the Duke.

Odd that we spent two years building something that avoids at all costs anything remotely looking like a cartoon. I take it you have seen the screenshots.RY

Unfortunate choice of words, but don't get sensitive! The Cheyenne is getting an unwarranted hammering too!I have seen the screenshots & they look great, although I haven't got the Duke yet. I do have your Spitfire and if the Duke is as good as that, then you have a very fine product there.

Been flying the Cheyenne since I got back to simming and it has given me everything I hoped for. An amazing plane to be sure but that Duke does look very very nice too so I'm considering adding it to my personal hangar. I fly exclusively in DX10 preview mode as that pays off very well on my box (FSX looks alot better AND outperforms the DX9 mode). How does the Duke fare in the DX10 mode? Does it support VC shadows for instance (the Cheyenne doesn't).Cheers/Jonas

No shadows in the Duke although it's DX10 compatible.

Been flying the Cheyenne since I got back to simming and it has given me everything I hoped for. An amazing plane to be sure but that Duke does look very very nice too so I'm considering adding it to my personal hangar. I fly exclusively in DX10 preview mode as that pays off very well on my box (FSX looks alot better AND outperforms the DX9 mode). How does the Duke fare in the DX10 mode? Does it support VC shadows for instance (the Cheyenne doesn't).Cheers/Jonas

Not to hijack the thread...I noticed some folks saying DX10 looks a lot better than DX9 in FSX and I can't see why. I have flown with DX10 on and off just testing different things, and outside of cockpit shadows and some performance, DX10 does not seem to offer anything over DX9. One thing I did notice about DX10 is it doesn't seem to allow very high levels of FSAA. Going from DX9 to DX10 makes edges look jaggy, and objects seem to take on a "shimmer" from this. I am used to playing at 8x FSAA and DX10 can't seem to be able to do that.....or maybe it does and it just looks like garbage to me. lolWhat looks so much better on DX10 than DX9? I have tested it on a few different computers and DX10 just doesn't cut it, imo. Outside of cockpit shadows, what are you seeing that I am not ?Thanks!

No shadows in the Duke although it's DX10 compatible.

I can think of a thousand things that the average addon needs before self shadowing cockpits. The phrase "DX10 compatible" is a non sequitur, since DX10 is itself not compatible with FSX in its current state and is an experimental, unproven, flakey, flawed and unfinished stab at a technology which should never have been unleashed in such a state. It creates more problems than it solves. Sometimes a well made piece of software designed to operate well within proven technology is arguably a better option, and that's why the Duke is as it is.Rob Young

The Cheyenne is the best add-on aircraft ever released for FS in my opinion. You can almost smell it when you're in the VC!It just reeks quality.The Duke is a beauty but it's a little too shiny and 'new' for what is in fact a very old aircraft. It's lovely to fly and SP1 has made it even better, integrating the RXPs, but I'm afraid it's not quite in that premiership league with the Cheyenne.D.

The Duke is a beauty but it's a little too shiny and 'new' for what is in fact a very old aircraft. It's lovely to fly and SP1 has made it even better, integrating the RXPs, but I'm afraid it's not quite in that premiership league with the Cheyenne.

Last weekend, I took some pictures of a Duke that looked shiny and new. They were selling some time shares in it. Personally, I prefer the look of shiny and new. I had my fill of worn and faded airplanes during my student pilot days. From then on, I tended to rent something new and not dilapidated. Old planes don't have to look worn. Many have updated interiors as well as nice new paint jobs. I don't have the Cheyenne, but as a pilot I know that RealAir's flight dynamics are top notch. They are the best in the flight sim industry and have been for many years! Is the Cheyenne in that league...... flight wise?L.Adamson

Last weekend, I took some pictures of a Duke that looked shiny and new. They were selling some time shares in it. Personally, I prefer the look of shiny and new. I had my fill of worn and faded airplanes during my student pilot days. From then on, I tended to rent something new and not dilapidated. Old planes don't have to look worn. Many have updated interiors as well as nice new paint jobs. I don't have the Cheyenne, but as a pilot I know that RealAir's flight dynamics are top notch. They are the best in the flight sim industry and have been for many years! Is the Cheyenne in that league...... flight wise?L.Adamson

Yes by all means it is... As a matter of fact the developer supplies the performance charts with the model. These are original Piper performance charts. The model duplicates the charts to the "T".Again, I have both models for FSX. They are both 10 outa 10's, but I prefer to fly the Cheyenne because it is a Turbine and I am not satisfied with the performance of the Duke from a flying perspective. Plus the fact it is a 6 seater vs a 8 seater. If the Cheyenne included a failure generator with the possibility of hot starts, then the Cheyenne would blow the Duke outa the water from an addon perspective. I have all of the RealAir addons for FSX except the Marcheti and I think they do a top notch job making FSX addons, but the stall buffet algorithm they have is way too digital. When you stall or spin thier aircraft, the buffet seems to either be on or off with no smooth transition between. It seems that when you get the buffet you are switching to another flight model simulation without a transition and makes it feel unrealistic.Again.... RealAir is in a class by themselves acompanied by developers such as Digital Aviation, PMDG, Leaonardo and DodoSim. It just boils down to, "What do you wanna fly today?"JB

Last weekend, I took some pictures of a Duke that looked shiny and new. They were selling some time shares in it. Personally, I prefer the look of shiny and new. I had my fill of worn and faded airplanes during my student pilot days. From then on, I tended to rent something new and not dilapidated. Old planes don't have to look worn. Many have updated interiors as well as nice new paint jobs. I don't have the Cheyenne, but as a pilot I know that RealAir's flight dynamics are top notch. They are the best in the flight sim industry and have been for many years! Is the Cheyenne in that league...... flight wise?L.Adamson

I don't have the Cheyenne but I have had a Bonanza and a Baron-and the Duke has gotten it closer in Fs than anything..That is my criteria-and yes my cockpit is a little more worn than the Duke-I wish it wasn't.

I don't have the Cheyenne but I have had a Bonanza and a Baron-and the Duke has gotten it closer in Fs than anything..That is my criteria-and yes my cockpit is a little more worn than the Duke-I wish it wasn't.

Well that says it all... Your a loyal Beech Owner... nothing wrong with that. I owned a 1978 Cherokee 140 cruiser from 96 to 2005, Tail # N3451Q... I like Pipers. But, if at the time I bought the Cruiser, I could afford a V tail Bonanza, I would now be a Beech Fan... ;)JB

Well that says it all... Your a loyal Beech Owner... nothing wrong with that. I owned a 1978 Cherokee 140 cruiser from 96 to 2005, Tail # N3451Q... I like Pipers. But, if at the time I bought the Cruiser, I could afford a V tail Bonanza, I would now be a Beech Fan... ;)JB

I have some time in Archers and a lot of right seat safety time in Arrows-Pipers are great too. Stunning that they are owned by China now..

I have some time in Archers and a lot of right seat safety time in Arrows-Pipers are great too. Stunning that they are owned by China now..

I had no idea that Piper is now a Chinese owned company... That Sucks, especially considering they were one of the Great American Plane Manufacturers. Ohh well... S**T happens.Because of FSX, I am now current again and looking at purchasing something I can have fun with, instaed of something used just to build time and get a break on tickets... So I was looking at a really nice 82 S2B out at Paso Robles, but later decided to wait to find a good Extra300 with low engine time... So still on the hunt...JB