Why do people use that adjective, 'cartoony', its vacuous, well other thanconnoting something cheesy and cheap i suppose. I haven't bought this yetbut from the cockpit pictures I've looked at I see nothing that reminds meof a cartoon :( I also would rather have a cockpit show a bit of age, but I must say thecurrent trend to have them looking positively filthy isn't to my tasteeither, I think I prefer this.Al, how does the thing fly compared to the default?

It flies more convincingly than the default FS DC-3, but to be fair I actually think the default FSX DC-3 is one of the better aircraft FSX comes with. However, unlike the default DC-3, this JF one has to be flown properly or you'll get into trouble, for example, you can hammer around the sky in the default DC-3 with the gear and flaps all the way down and it will stay airborne, whereas if you try that in this DC-3, you'll be too draggy and end up plowing it in, so landings are more realistic than they are with the default DC-3, although not any harder than they should be. Like the real DC-3, at slow speeds the ailerons are not hugely effective on the JF one, so that too is a convincing element.If comparing it to the MAAM DC-3 patched up for FSX or even in FS9, then it has a few concessions to realism, for example, the Sperry Gyropilot in the Just Flight version banks the aeroplane by operating the ailerons rather than acting like the real Sperry Gyropilot, where only the rudder was used to correct minor heading changes once the aircraft was manually flown onto more or less the right heading. I can live with that, since it's really just an extra feature and you can still use the autopilot in the 'proper' way if you like.The engines are not as critical in operation as the MAAM DC-3 or the UIVER DC-2 for that matter (which as you may know, is easy to overheat and set on fire), so there is less need to watch the cylinder head temperatures and faff about with the cowling flaps to avoid overheating stuff in the JF version, but it's by no means just a totally simple affair, so you do still have to operate things more or less properly. The various Wright and P&W powered versions you get in the JF package do exhibit differences in how they behave to the extent that when acquiring another DC-3 for use with my freight company in Air Hauler, I went for the P&W powered version so that I'd have a variant with cowling flaps for some added flexibility in operation.If you want ultimate realism, I still think the MAAM one edges it on engine modeling, but not by much, and of course on the other side of the coin the JF one has a much nicer VC and is FSX native, so I'm just glad I have both, as it would be hard to decide which one to choose if I could only have one. If you are a fan of things such as the A2A B17G and the Aerosoft Catalina, you might still prefer the MAAM one over the JF because of the more realistic engine management aspect, but as far as flying them goes, the JF one is nonetheless pretty convincing, and it has to be said that the VC is a real strong point.As you probably know, MAAM are working on a new FSX version of their DC-3, but from what I can gather, it's gonna be quite a wait before it shows up. When it does, it will probably shove the Just Flight one firmly into second place, but at the moment, the JF one is a pretty strong contender and is likely to remain so for a while given the apparent long wait we have in store for the genuine FSX MAAM DC-3. So that being the case, personally I recommend the JF one (but don't deny yourself the patched up MAAM one, it might not be native FSX, but it's still worth having).If you like the DC-3, I'd say get them both (which is what I've done) and have the best of both worlds.Al

Hello AlThanks for your thoughts on the JF DC-3I've purchased it and found the sound a bit disappointing.Whats your opinion on the sound engineering?Bert

If need be, would the MAAM DC-3 sounds work with this Just Flight FSX model?

Thanks for the heads up again, for me the VC does not that good, looks a bit basic texturing wise. I'm going to give this one a miss, model does not look to bad. Nose on the model FOR ME looks a bit off.

I think the sounds on the JF one are nice enough, but personally, I'm considering swapping them for something which sounds a bit more like a real one, because they don't really get the prop blade whine very well, which is quite distinctive on the DC-3, especially on take off where it can approach making that supersonic buzz-saw sound (the one you always get in movies when a WW2 plane goes into a dive). Currently I'm trying to decide which of these to go for out of these two:http://secure.simmarket.com/turbine-sound-studios-dc3-soundpack.phtmlhttp://www.fspilotshop.com/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=314&products_id=2599The TSS ones sound better to me based on the preview videos, but they are not FSX, so they won't be sound cone enabled. The sonic ones will presumably be FSX enabled, but I'm not hugely impressed with the sound of them on the video. Mmmm. tricky decision.Al

I dont like JF planes because to me they look too 'cartoonish', but I do want to thank the OP for posting this, as it reminded me to reinstall my MAMM DC3 :(

Thanks, but waiting for the next one. Engine, gear and flap damage and worn or "lived-in" VC are most important imo.

I called it Cartoony, because the textures in the VC (which I spend all my time in) are sub-par. full stopThe texture on the bar just below the windscreen is stretched a lot, the seats are too clean, the lighting is just wrong, the textures used in the cockpit have next to no detail just colour, it all just looks fake to the eye, even the default FSX DC3 has a better cockpit in terms of wear and tearI'm also finding files from MS Combatflightsim3 in this product, and even a file from 'Sonic Solutions 75th anniversary DC3 soundpack' but I guess that's because this isnt really a native FSX Dc3 is it?And there is a bit of a mess happening in the folder structure also, empty folders with default FSX DC3 files inside

I called it Cartoony, because the textures in the VC (which I spend all my time in) are sub-par. full stopThe texture on the bar just below the windscreen is stretched a lot, the seats are too clean, the lighting is just wrong, the textures used in the cockpit have next to no detail just colour, it all just looks fake to the eye, even the default FSX DC3 has a better cockpit in terms of wear and tearI'm also finding files from MS Combatflightsim3 in this product, and even a file from 'Sonic Solutions 75th anniversary DC3 soundpack' but I guess that's because this isnt really a native FSX Dc3 is it?And there is a bit of a mess happening in the folder structure also, empty folders with default FSX DC3 files inside

OK I finally have to post. The last time I jumped on the Rah-Rah bandwagon it cost me 20 quid for the worst flying aircraft in my stable, (it's now been deleted) - and having worked for a few years on both versions of the Dak - in the UK and overseas - I ain't buying this one, and it's for the same reasons Meaty has complained of.I want a vc to look like a real aircraft's vc - not the result of someone's creativity and "artistic interpretation" of what they 'think' a cockpit looks like. How is it that Carenado, RealAir, A2A, SibWings, MAAM-Sim, Rick Piper, DreamFlight, Captain Sim, Eaglesoft, The OzX team, Nemeth Designs, Dodo, and a few others - can all put out the right "look" on dozens of aircraft - that are not "Cartoonish" (sic), that don't have strange lighting effects (greenish 'hidden lighting' in the flap bays, the wheel bays, in the rudder-pedal areas, that have rivets, locknuts, lockwire, paint, scratches, wear marks, skin wrinkles. How is it that I can pay $20 bucks at A2A for a "Factory" F4U Corsair - that looks and performs like the real thing? How is it that a small two-man company like SibWings, can produce such major aircraft as the Cessna Bird-dog? Look at Carenado's gorgeous Seneca cockpit?? I gotta agree with you Meaty. I absolutely hate the cockpits that are "created" graphically. This is 2010, we're in Windows 7 and running FSX SP2 - not fs9, and this is a lazy, cheap production that is just a few stages above freeware.

There are however a lot of things to likeFor instance the propellers are very nice I like the swivelling motion, I like the cargo door operation on the Buffalo model, the sounds on the outside are very nice but inside not so good, the aircraft lights are nice, the switches and gauges in the cockpit I like, the moddeling of all the components I like, its just the shading and weathering that seems to be missing

Yes, I suppose it must have some good points, Meaty... and it is, after all only twenty quid...but I think that good things are seldom cheap, and cheap things are seldom good.

Well, nobody is forcing anyone to buy this aeroplane, I simply stuck the thread up to point out that it was available and have subsequently answered a few questions. But I will at least point out that what one person considers 'the right look' for a cockpit in FS, is more of a personal preference than a fact. To explain...The lighting FS is capable of emulating is not on par with more modern graphics engines, but even if that were not so, the problem with photorealistic textures is that they are a snapshot of the surface of an object from a specific angle, and that includes the lighting and reflections on that surface when the picture was taken, so as you move your viewpoint around, the reflections on the photorealistic texture will be incorrect for anything other than the position the camera was in when the texture was originally photographed.Take the scratched throttle quadrant in the CS 727 for example, theoretically, as you move your head to the left, the light coming in from the starboard cockpit windows should be making those exposed bare bits of metal reflect it whilst the painted bits stay fairly matt in appearance, but there is no way that can be realistic done with a flat snapshot texture, and one certainly won't have shadows moving around as they would in reality. This is exactly the same problem one sees in photorealistic terrain, which looks great from 20,000 feet, but when you get low down and at the wrong slant angle, it doesn't work well at all, with building shadows on the photograph falling the wrong way etc etc. With photorealistic cockpit textures, it is easy to be in the 'wrong position' for the reflections and shadows depicted on such textures when a simple tilt of your head with Track-IR will change the angles considerably.In contrast, whilst it is certainly true that purely graphical representations do not have the surface detail of a photograph, that is a double-edged sword in that what they lack in photorealism, they will somewhat make up for in changing their appearance based purely on the light source within the confines of what the FSX graphics engine's lighting can actually do based on the light conditions and viewpoint. Since we will want to move out heads around in a VC, this is of course of benefit, as objects that should be in shadow will actually be in shadow when represented purely graphically as opposed to having shadows painted on them, so in this sense, one is kind of arguing against ones own point when favouring photorealism textures as more realistic, as they will not do that at all. This difference is easily demonstrable in one of the advances of FSX over FS9, with the advent of aircraft which can self shadow on the exteriors, roll an FS9 aircraft inverted and the painted on shadows under the tailplane that are still present will make it apparent what I'm getting at here with static textures in a VC.Perhaps more to the point however, is that since we are not really sat in a real cockpit when looking at a computer screen, we need all the help we can get to find and 'reach' controls with the mouse, because we have no parallax to help us when looking at a two dimensional representation with no true depth, so actually having clearly visible controls of the kind that a graphic representation portrays is probably going to be helpful in comparison to static shadows on a texture, which will effectively be sending our eyes the wrong distance information for anything other than the viewpoint one was at when holding the camera which took the original texture pictures.There will of course be those who still prefer photorealistic textures in cockpits and that's up to them, but when I say that a graphic representation of such controls reminds me of being in a cockpit of the real thing, what I am referring to is the fact that their easier visibility compensates for the limitations of a two dimensional image and makes it seem more like the controls are actually there, in spite of them not being covered in scratches. So from a purely practical standpoint as opposed to an aesthetic look, I think it is often more beneficial. Of course the other advantage of not texture mapping every single surface, is that the thing loads a bit quicker and improves frame rates, which with FSX is certainly no bad thing.As I say, I'm not suggesting everyone races out to buy this DC-3, it was merely a heads up that it was on sale, and this post is simply to point out that what one person sees as the right or better way of doing things - and that includes my own opinion - is exactly that, just an opinion.Al

I think the sounds on the JF one are nice enough, but personally, I'm considering swapping them for something which sounds a bit more like a real one, because they don't really get the prop blade whine very well, which is quite distinctive on the DC-3, especially on take off where it can approach making that supersonic buzz-saw sound (the one you always get in movies when a WW2 plane goes into a dive). Currently I'm trying to decide which of these to go for out of these two:http://secure.simmarket.com/turbine-sound-studios-dc3-soundpack.phtmlhttp://www.fspilotshop.com/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=314&products_id=2599The TSS ones sound better to me based on the preview videos, but they are not FSX, so they won't be sound cone enabled. The sonic ones will presumably be FSX enabled, but I'm not hugely impressed with the sound of them on the video. Mmmm. tricky decision.Al

I've just installed the Sonic Solutions version and it's a big improvement over the JF sounds. Unfortunately I didn't remember the availablity of the TSS set, so can't compare, at least not yet. If you do wind up going for TSS, let us know what you think of them.I have to say that better sounds made a major difference in my ability to enjoy the JF package. The original didn't give me that "you are there" feeling but the Sonic Solutions set does. It's not an Accusim bird but at least it feels more like a real machine now.Does anyone know if there's a Wright Cyclone soundset available?

Does anyone know if there's a Wright Cyclone soundset available?

There is if you have the A2A B-17G, since you can take them from that :-)Al