http://aerosoft-shop.com/product_info.php?products_id=52any lucky owners yet? opinions? what do they mean by "easy to fly"?:)

I bought it and took it for a quick flight this afternoon. So far, my impressions are very favorable. The flight model seems to be very good. It's easy to trim it up for level flight, and it looks like a real beaver when you land it. By that, I mean it seems to just hang in the air and then settles gently down on the water.The visual model (models actually, there's lots of them) are outstanding. This thing really looks like a beaver. Likewise, the panel is everything you could want. And the sounds are awesome! One of my pet peeves in FS is the way floats taxi in the water. The beaver taxis as well as any float I've tried. In other words, not very well. It still takes way to much thrust to get moving.All up, I'm very pleased with it and I plan to do a lot of bush flying in the next while.

I'm glad you like it, Ken. The Beaver is one of my favourite craft, for sure. I will be looking hard for reviews of this one, though. Call me a little sceptical if you like, but I am always slightly amazed when payware producers turn out something that is already available at a very high standard in FS as freeware. Why on earth don't they pick something really different, rather than something we've already all got? The freeware Beavers are excellent. Is it the VC that justifies such a high price, or what? I note that - rather like PMDG - Aerosoft haven't bothered to create many of their own gauges, they just use default.Just interested, that's all. It's got a big sticker price. Maybe I'm just one who doesn't see the point of having 21 different liveries of the same 'plane: to me, it's all about air dynamics and good panels. From what I see of it, this panel is definitely not up to freeware standard for this particular aircraft.Do correct me if you will! Mark "Dark Moment" Beaumonthttp://www.swiremariners.com/newlogo.jpg

I'm glad you asked about that Mark, I need to follow up my previous post. I am quite disappointed with the VC textures in this aircraft. They aren't at the same standard as the 2D aircraft, and they don't compare well with other payware aircraft in the same price range. I needed to say that because I don't want anyone to buy the plane on my recommendation without knowing exactly what they are getting.However, the 2D classic panel is something else, really outstanding, as is the visual model. The air file is also outstanding. Aerosoft has said they are committed to continuing developement of the Beaver. Hopefully they will put a high priority on improving the VC textures.

I too was looking at this plane. I put up the coin not long ago for the Aerosoft BAe 146 and really like it but it is lacking a VC and I'm wondering why they would leave it out? It made a great aircraft medium because of the lack of it.Any chance we could get a scrennie of the Beaver VC?See you in the fence...CYYZ

Like most of the other people that have posted on Aerosoft's forum(http://forum.aerosoft-shop.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=1), I like the external model and textures, sounds, 2D panel and flight model. But the VC is a big disappointment for me. Seems Aerosoft are not too proud of it as well, because there is not a single VC pic on their product page (http://aerosoft-shop.com/product_info.php?products_id=52), nor in the downloadable PDF manual.I do have to say that the folks in the Aerosoft forum (especially Mathijs Kok, of course) are very friendly, have acknowledged the complaints and seem willing to work on improvements.EDIT: IMAGES REMOVED BECAUSE THEY VIOLATE OUR SIZE RESTRICTIONS. Please abide by our policies when posting images. No larger than 800 pixels wide.Both screenshots were taken at a resolution of 1024x768 and not resized. JPG quality is set to high and I cannot see any difference between the JPGs and the original image in FS9.Notice the DC3 radio panel, something else that I did not expect from a payware product.Just my 2c (EUR),VOlker :]

They use many of the default instruments, too, Volker!Thanks for posting those.Mark "Dark Moment" Beaumonthttp://www.swiremariners.com/newlogo.jpg

Yes, the VC is horrible for a payware craft which is where I like to fly from startup to shutdown. The sound is good but not accurate at throttle settings. At half throttle it still sounds like it's at idle but yet I am maintaining or gaining airspeed. The models are decent and there are a lot of different repaints as well as good 2D panels. The copilot sounds mildly retarded or inebriated. If it was $15 US it would have been good but overall for $21.32 which I paid is a little high.Carmine http://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/Images/wave.gif

I see that Tom edited out the inline pics because they are larger than 800x600. Sorry for posting the larger pictures, but decreasing the pics made them look better than they did in the sim. The pics can still be seen when you click on the attachment links.VOlker :]

I was quite surprised by the poor quality VC of this aircraft (I haven't bought it, only seen screenshots). I bought the Katana from Aerosoft and it has one of the best VC's of any FS aircraft so I was expecting this to be at least as good or even better.The poor VC quality in addition to the somewhat intrusive copy protection is enough for me to stay away from this addon. If they improve the VC enough with a patch, I might reconsider.

>I was quite surprised by the poor quality VC of this aircraft>(I haven't bought it, only seen screenshots). I bought the>Katana from Aerosoft and it has one of the best VC's of any FS>aircraft so I was expecting this to be at least as good or>even better.>>The poor VC quality in addition to the somewhat intrusive copy>protection is enough for me to stay away from this addon. If>they improve the VC enough with a patch, I might reconsider.The VC is what's holding me back. Where did you see the screenshots of the VC ?, I did not see them at their site.Anthony

They are obviously not very proud of the VC. I did see two screenshots of the VC somewhere. Either it was in the AVSim screenshots forum, the Flightsim forum or the Aerosoft forums but I don't remember. Maybe someone who owns this aircraft can post some screenshots of the VC here?It seems this aircraft simply isn't aimed at those who fly from the VC. In fact, it seems to be aimed more at the "casual" flightsimmer so I wonder how much work actually went into the flight model.From Aerosoft:"But the Katana was directly aimed at a 'frequent flyer' audiance that need depth and detail. For the Beaver we went for a customer that likes it simpler and 'wider'. More versions, more liveries. Also a bit more dramatic, with more effect. The Beaver is to have fun in, go anywhere, anytime. In our research these people do not use VC much. They have problems handling where they go and where the look at the same time. Heck, I know I got problems there. "

Well, I wouldn't say that I have "problems looking and handling" at the same time! However, I have no complaints about the flight model.

I agree, the flight model is quite enjoyable! I'm not a real pilot, and I have never seen a Beaver in real life, but it feels like I expected it to feel. Heavier than a Cub, lighter than a DC-3 ;)Just my 2c (EUR),VOlker :]

With some Aden scenery it is now possible to recreate this guys adventures! With the exception of Fate is the Hunter, this is the best flying book I have read:http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1...6362230-0097440