Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

AWACS

Carenado's Seneca, how is it?

Recommended Posts

Hi all,Unfortunately, I'm a poor Aviation major right now in the middle of instrument training so I don't really want to spend $43.00 on the Real Air Duke which looks amazing by the way, so I was wondering if I could get your impressions on Carenado's Seneca? I've switched over to FSX now as I use it for instrument training, but since it is a "simulator" I want to simulate flying something that I haven't flown yet, (rather not spend my money on something I fly in real life like the 172 or the Warrior.Although I'm keenly eyeing the Seneca, if anyone wants to throw in their suggestions for a light twin that would be appreciated too, I just ask that we stick to FSX only aircraft and not FS9 ports. Framerates and price are important to me, my system is an E6600 2.4 (Duo) and an nVidia 8800GT, and I have 3 Gigs of RAM.Thanks!Jeff

Share this post


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

The Carenado Seneca is awesome. One of my favorite addons. Also check out the Eaglesoft Twin Comanche.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very easy on the FPS. Visibility is relatively poor, so not the best choice for VFR, unless you have Track IRNo 3d knobs so you can easily use RXP gauges like I do if you want your own panel mods.FDE, imho, is poor. The first release was really bad, then they issued subsequent patches, so what we ended up with is a more stable FDE, but not more true to flight. It flies very rigid, and takes a lot of yoke to roll, sorta feels like flying a 747.I'd say 6/10 stars.... based on owning it for 6+ monthsIn general Carenado does a beautiful job on the exterior model, and the VC's look good, but I've yet to own a CA model that flies properly.I'd highly suggest going with the RealAir Duke instead:http://realairsimulations.com/duke09_rxp.php?page=duke09_rxpIt will be worth your money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not as good as the PA34 but you have to consider the fact that the BE60 is much more complex than it as far as modeling goes.Check my specs in my sig:VC Duke fps = 20 rural areasVC PA34 = 30 " "Then again I have an older system and my AA and AF is set very high using nHancerp.s. What school are you attending? I went to UND and now work ATC.... I did the private pilot license there too but it's so dang expensive these days so I haven't logged hours in a few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
p.s. What school are you attending? I went to UND and now work ATC.... I did the private pilot license there too but it's so dang expensive these days so I haven't logged hours in a few years.
I'm at Baker College in Muskegon, MI. So far the best flight school I've seen. ATC was a smart choice, I was going to go that route as well right after I left the Air Force, but I ultimately decided that flying was what I really wanted to do.How do your system specs compare to mine so I can get an idea of how the Duke might perform on my computer?Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably pretty similar...that's an older Core 2 cpuFor instance.... when simming, in general, I tend to avoid class B airports....even with default planes. Flying the Duke into MSP, JFK, LAX is pretty much a no-no for me unless I'm on vatsim then I just put up with 12 fps. Whereas in the PA34 I *might* be able to get 18 fps on final....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Probably pretty similar...that's an older Core 2 cpuFor instance.... when simming, in general, I tend to avoid class B airports....even with default planes. Flying the Duke into MSP, JFK, LAX is pretty much a no-no for me unless I'm on vatsim then I just put up with 12 fps. Whereas in the PA34 I *might* be able to get 18 fps on final....
Hmm... Wish they used Flight 1, so I can get the refund if it is really bad on my system. Alright, thanks Ryan, sounds like maybe I should look around a little more, or just go with a high performance single. I get pretty good frames at Muskegon, but that is pretty rural, if I hop over to Grand Rapids (GRR) I definitely see a drop.Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff,If you purchase "The Duke" I seriously doubt you'll be looking for a refund,at least I've never heard of anyone who has.IMHO it's the best VC for a GA aircraft in FSX.You get what you pay for.***Also*** RealAir Simulations is working on a Royal Turbine version,that may interest you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeff,If you purchase "The Duke" I seriously doubt you'll be looking for a refund,at least I've never heard of anyone who has.IMHO it's the best VC for a GA aircraft in FSX.You get what you pay for.***Also*** RealAir Simulations is working on a Royal Turbine version,that may interest you.
Thanks. I understand, but I was talking more about potential performance issues, not a question of quality, I have no doubt the Real Air Duke is awesome, I just want to make sure it flys smoothly in the sim (Frames per second).Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm... Wish they used Flight 1, so I can get the refund if it is really bad on my system. Alright, thanks Ryan, sounds like maybe I should look around a little more, or just go with a high performance single. I get pretty good frames at Muskegon, but that is pretty rural, if I hop over to Grand Rapids (GRR) I definitely see a drop.Jeff
They do actually.... http://www.flight1.com/products.asp?search...ch=Beech%20DukeI work/fly out of Duluth.... I have a friend working GRR tower as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm at Baker College in Muskegon, MI. So far the best flight school I've seen. ATC was a smart choice, I was going to go that route as well right after I left the Air Force, but I ultimately decided that flying was what I really wanted to do.How do your system specs compare to mine so I can get an idea of how the Duke might perform on my computer?Jeff
I go to Muskegon a couple times a year for a $200 hamburger in the terminal there-a very good place for eats.There are 3 light twins I think are must haves for fsx: Real Air Duke, Carenado Seneca, and the Just flight Duchess.I know some have complained about the fm of the Seneca but I actually find it to be fine.I have trouble deciding which of these 3 to spend the most of my time with as I try to find the closest to a Baron. The Duke is perfection, looks perfect, and has more complex systems, and flown in the lower levels has a fairly comparable performance. The Seneca (retrofited with the realityxp 430) just feels and looks right..the typical "warn look" ...I can't put my hand on it but as a total package I just feel "real" in it. The Duchess likewise also retrofitted with a rxp 430-and both it and the Duke look amazing using 3d glasses.I spend 99% of my time with one of these three. I don't know what twin they use at your school (I seem to recall seeing a Seneca there)-but I don't think you can go wrong with any of the three.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I go to Muskegon a couple times a year for a $200 hamburger in the terminal there-a very good place for eats.There are 3 light twins I think are must haves for fsx: Real Air Duke, Carenado Seneca, and the Just flight Duchess.I know some have complained about the fm of the Seneca but I actually find it to be fine.I have trouble deciding which of these 3 to spend the most of my time with as I try to find the closest to a Baron. The Duke is perfection, looks perfect, and has more complex systems, and flown in the lower levels has a fairly comparable performance. The Seneca (retrofited with the realityxp 430) just feels and looks right..the typical "warn look" ...I can't put my hand on it but as a total package I just feel "real" in it. The Duchess likewise also retrofitted with a rxp 430-and both it and the Duke look amazing using 3d glasses.I spend 99% of my time with one of these three. I don't know what twin they use at your school (I seem to recall seeing a Seneca there)-but I don't think you can go wrong with any of the three.
I wasn't aware that I could get a great burger next door, I'll have to check that out on Monday, and we do indeed use a Seneca for our ME training, which was another reason I was eyeing the Seneca so closely. Thanks Geof.Thanks again all for replies, looks like it will be a coin toss between the Duke and Seneca, I'll have to look at the Duchess too real quick.And Ryan, tell your buddy over at GRR next time he sees a Baker Warrior over there flying a perfect approach and making a perfect landing, it was probably me.JeffEdit* Geof, let me know next time you'll be at Muskegon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just about every payware, light GA model out there... have filtered through ank kept a good number of freeware light GA.. and have even built a few myself (C177RG, C310, Beech P35).. I'll vote for the Carenado Seneca...It's (IMO) the best combination of visual quality, realistic representation of the real-world airplane, and realistic, visual "feel" from the VC. It's not a runaway winner, as they are all very good (specifically the Duke), but if I HAD to choose just one.. it would be the Seneca... because most of my simming is based on my real flying... and I just don't see myself firing up a Duke, for relatively short, low-altitude touring... plus I cut my multi-engine teeth in a Seneca.. :( As far as the flight-dynamics go.. I've yet to find even a payware model that I didn't have to re-do. Even Carenado themselves have "patched" the Seneca's flight-dynamics. There are some built-in problems for light twins in MSFS. Probaly because they all use some variant of the Baron's Air-file.. I really don't know, but the default Baron is a mess in that regard. Another problem for MSFS aircraft, is the relationship for mixture control in turbo-charged engines. Put simply; you have to lean with altitude as though it were NOT turbo-charged, even as it holds relatively high MP. Since I rarely fly above 10,000msl.. I took the liberty of making my Seneca II, a Seneca I. Mainly that means swapping the Continental TSIO-360, for the Lycoming IO-360, and then modifying the MP-gauge, and Tach. They're both 360cubic-inch, aprox 200hp.. Main difference is that the Continental is a 6cylinder turbo-charged engine.. The Lycoming is a 4cylinder, normally-aspirated engine. The two Lycomings are enough to limp me over the Rockies,if need be... but most of my simming is done where I fly for real.. and Appalachian mountains are not a problem. I've regularly taken a real Warrior up over them :( In addition to the engine swap.. I just started from scratch for the aircraft.cfg, as though it were one of my models. I have a different CoG.. differently located weight stations; different MOIs.. and a modifed AIR file (gear-drag, CHT gauging (so that cowl-flap use is more realistic))..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OH... and for a good meal AT an airport.. hop over to Jackson, MI (JXN).. A very nice restaurant right on the ramp. And then if you're energetic, hop down to Urbana, Oh (I74)... another restaurant where you can literally walk out of the cockpit, and into the dining room.. PLUS they have a B-17 restoration going on there... and they're very friendly about letting fly-up pilots into the hangar for photos and such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have just about every payware, light GA model out there... have filtered through ank kept a good number of freeware light GA.. and have even built a few myself (C177RG, C310, Beech P35).. I'll vote for the Carenado Seneca...It's (IMO) the best combination of visual quality, realistic representation of the real-world airplane, and realistic, visual "feel" from the VC. It's not a runaway winner, as they are all very good (specifically the Duke), but if I HAD to choose just one.. it would be the Seneca... because most of my simming is based on my real flying... and I just don't see myself firing up a Duke, for relatively short, low-altitude touring... plus I cut my multi-engine teeth in a Seneca.. :( As far as the flight-dynamics go.. I've yet to find even a payware model that I didn't have to re-do. Even Carenado themselves have "patched" the Seneca's flight-dynamics. There are some built-in problems for light twins in MSFS. Probaly because they all use some variant of the Baron's Air-file.. I really don't know, but the default Baron is a mess in that regard. Another problem for MSFS aircraft, is the relationship for mixture control in turbo-charged engines. Put simply; you have to lean with altitude as though it were NOT turbo-charged, even as it holds relatively high MP. Since I rarely fly above 10,000msl.. I took the liberty of making my Seneca II, a Seneca I. Mainly that means swapping the Continental TSIO-360, for the Lycoming IO-360, and then modifying the MP-gauge, and Tach. They're both 360cubic-inch, aprox 200hp.. Main difference is that the Continental is a 6cylinder turbo-charged engine.. The Lycoming is a 4cylinder, normally-aspirated engine. The two Lycomings are enough to limp me over the Rockies,if need be... but most of my simming is done where I fly for real.. and Appalachian mountains are not a problem. I've regularly taken a real Warrior up over them :( In addition to the engine swap.. I just started from scratch for the aircraft.cfg, as though it were one of my models. I have a different CoG.. differently located weight stations; different MOIs.. and a modifed AIR file (gear-drag, CHT gauging (so that cowl-flap use is more realistic))..
Hi Brett, Thanks for the detailed response, I think I want the Seneca due to it being the ME trainer my school uses. Also, I think it's cool that you have a working knowledge of the .air and .cfg files, if you have time maybe you could share a few points on that as I want the control surfaces to act and respond as realistically as possible. p.s. Have you done any work with the default Baron's .air and .cfg files at all? I'd be interested in using your mods to fly the Baron for a bit.Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OH... and for a good meal AT an airport.. hop over to Jackson, MI (JXN).. A very nice restaurant right on the ramp. And then if you're energetic, hop down to Urbana, Oh (I74)... another restaurant where you can literally walk out of the cockpit, and into the dining room.. PLUS they have a B-17 restoration going on there... and they're very friendly about letting fly-up pilots into the hangar for photos and such.
I probably go to jxn twice a month-they improved it quite a bit a few years ago. Muskegon is a cut above dining wise, but doesn't have the nice view. I agree totally about Brett's view of the Seneca-there just is an intangible reality feeling all round that it captures extremely well. Jeff-I'll let you know next time I go to Mkg-good luck on your training!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jeff.. Yeah.. I've tweaked the Default Baron.. but I've gotten so spoiled by payware models.. I don't ever fly it. I didn't even transfer my tweaked Baron after reinstalling FSX on a new computer... but I've got it saved somewhere.As for sharing Seneca tweaks.. let me know when you get it installed them PM me..

I probably go to jxn twice a month-they improved it quite a bit a few years ago. Muskegon is a cut above dining wise, but doesn't have the nice view. I agree totally about Brett's view of the Seneca-there just is an intangible reality feeling all round that it captures extremely well. Jeff-I'll let you know next time I go to Mkg-good luck on your training!
I only eat burgers and fries..lol.. but others have told me that the "dining" at JXN is not 5-star.. I enjoy the view.. ANOTHER great fly-in meal can be had over at Coshocton, OH (I40). On good weather (summer/spring/fall) weekends, they have an open-air bar-b-q.. it's a lot of fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just flew down to Urbana 2 weeks ago out of Bowling Green with a friend that owns a Cherokee to have brunch. I wish we would have been aware of the B-17 restoration taking place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love the Seneca if it would fly properly. I don't know what else I can do control wise - I use a FFB2 joystick with CH throttle. Mine handles like a blimp...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just flew down to Urbana 2 weeks ago out of Bowling Green with a friend that owns a Cherokee to have brunch. I wish we would have been aware of the B-17 restoration taking place.
Check it out...http://www.b17project.com/Next time you're there.. it's the last hangar on your left, as you walk/taxi away from the cafe..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites