I was surprised at all the hostility surrounding the release of the Australian Simulations Piper Warrior ll/lll. Let me begin by saying the Dreamfleet Archer is the default plane in my FS9 and of all the payware planes I own, it's the one I've flown more than any other. Also, I am not a R/L pilot so all my observations are based on sim flying.I purchased the Aussie Sim Warrior last night thinking I could never have enough GA planes. :)Purchase and installation were a breeze, although the download was a little slow.I hopped into the Warrior ll and took off from my home airport, NY0 (Fulton County, NY) and as I usually do, hung a left to fly over the Sacandaga Reservoir and landed at KGFL (Glens Falls, NY). First impressions were that the elevator was a little touchy as compared to the Archer and it seemed harder to trim the Warrior. I landed at KGFL with a slight bounce but no other problems. Since then I've spent a little more time flying both the Warrior ll and lll and here are my thoughts, strictly my unprofessional opinion.Exterior Model: Pretty much a toss-up, but I'll give the edge to the Warrior, although I prefer the glass in the Archer. I fail to see any problem with the wheel size as some have mentioned. 2-D Panel: Again, pretty much a toss-up, there are some suble differences but they're basicly identical. For no particluar reason, I find myself preferring the panel in the Warrior. The Warrior lll has a totally different panel which has been described by some as "ugly". But it's been shown in prior discussions, and links to airliners.net, that the panel is indeed accurate for a modern Piper aircraft. The post lighting is different, and at this point I still prefer backlighted instruments.2-D views: The Archer wins this hands down. Dreamfleet's practice of photographing real-world aircraft and using those pictures really makes you feel like you're in a real plane.Virtual Cockpit: Both are very well done. I find the Warrior to be a little "crisper" at least on my setup. (19" monitor at 1024 X 768 X 32 with an nvidia FX5600 Ultra)Sounds: I have to give the advantage to the Archer. The Warrior sounds are not bad at all, but particularly the in-flight sound could be improved. The Warrior does feature nice "rolling down the runway" sounds.Flight Dynamics: One of the reason I've enjoyed flying the Archer is that it's easy to trim and once you've got it trimmed, it just motors along. Like I said earlier, I found the elevator to be more touchy on the Warrior and found my first climb out to be a little jerky. I don't know which is more accurate. I also found it a little harder to get the Warrior trimmed up. But the Warrior immediately reminded me of the Realair 172. It gave me a much greater feeling of actually moving through a fluid environment and "feeling" movement on all axes. <-is that a word? The Warrior seemed to roll slightly faster than the Archer. I did manage to do a roll in both planes. The Warrior's engine died right down as soon as it was inverted, like the Carenado Mentor does.As for the big question about flap extension, I found that both planes, when trimmed for level flight, would pitch up at the first extension of flaps and would both drop the nose again when the flaps were retracted.So there you have. I don't think's there's a clear winner here, both are well done and any sim flyer would be served well by either one. As to the price of the Warrior, it has been pointed out that you are actually receiving 2 planes, the Warrior ll and lll, both with completely different panels and v/c's. Does anyone need both planes? Probably not. If you have the Archer you may be hard-pressed to find a need for the Warrior. If you don't have the Archer, or you just can never have enough GA singles, then you won't be disappointed with the Warrior.Jim

Forgot to mention the one "bug" that I saw with the Warrior II. You can turn the yoke on or off, just as you can in the Archer. However, when it's on, if you change to another 2-D view, the yoke stays. So you may be looking out the left window but you have the yoke hanging there in front of you. I'm sure this is an easy fix for Aussie Sim.Jim

Congratulations Jim, Finally a balanced, detailed & respectfully put series of impressions outlining perceived strengths and weaknesses (and a bug).The furor surrounding this release is quite baffling, but reading the posts in the upper half of that other thread it really did invite an unfortunate series of exchanges - which helps no one.

I must agree that I was taken aback by the controversy myself. I have the Dreamfleet and Carenado Archers and the Carenado Dakota on top of which I went and bought the Aussie Warrior ( I suspect this is due to the constant stream of Pipers flying over my house....I WANT ONE!!!). I've always prefered the Carenado Archer to the Dreamfleet one, which I suspect is not the norm. I've flown that one miles more and therefore do not consider myself qualified to compare the DF to the 'Aussie'.I'm also not a real world pilot (R/C only....I have a rule about not being in anything I am responsible for landing; (know your limitations!!!)) I do have to say that I love the Aussie Warrior. It was different to fly at first because, at least for me, you HAVE to use the rudder when turning...keep the ball centered and all is sweet. Good I think??? The Carenado you can, if you're feeling lazy, just use ailerons and get away(?) with it. Can't comment on flaps pitch; no knowledge. Panels....well again I'm going to be a bit pervy and say I really like the modern panel. Big clear gauges, very functional ,if you like. Oh and the RXP GPS fits in a treat. Yes the gauge lighting is strange, but if that's what it's got in real life....perhaps a slight blending at the edges of the lighting 'cone' wouldn't go amiss. So in my humble opinion? They are all fine add-ons with different strengths. If you're looking for a Cherokee of some description all are a good bet, but one should suit your requirements best. Nice to have that kind of choice for a change.

I can't help you out on the sim flying, but I've flown both in Real Life. The only difference in the 2 planes that I flew are the extra 20 hp in the Archer as well as it has rudder trim that the Warrior didn't have. If both the simulated planes were to be equally well done they should fly the same in regards to handling and stability.In pitch attitude the Piper airframes are stable. The elevators have more authority than a Cessna due to the full surface being used and not just the last 1/3rd of the horizontal stabilizer. They should compare differently than the Cessnas this way. They also are less directionally stable than the Cessnas. They both tend to yaw in even the slightest turbulence compared to the Cessnas.So if you go back and compare what you feel is a good Cessna model in climb stability in regards to your movement of the yoke. The Pipers should require a little more gentle use of the elevator than the Cessnas. But both Warrior and Archer should fly the same.I hope this helps you in finding that perfect virtual aircraft. :)

I agree with you that (in my opinion) the Carenado Archer (i.e. the "patched for 2004 version -- NOT the original) is superior to the DF Archer. I just posted some comments about the new AussieSim Warrior on the previous thread...perhaps I should have posted here.Cheers,Chris

>I'm also not a real world pilot (R/C only....I>have a rule about not being in anything I am responsible for>landing; (know your limitations!!!)) I do have to say that I>love the Aussie Warrior. It was different to fly at first>because, at least for me, you HAVE to use the rudder when>turning...keep the ball centered and all is sweet. Good I>think??? The Carenado you can, if you're feeling lazy, just>use ailerons and get away(?) with it. A big problem with simulated aircraft, is the assumptions of how the real airplane should fly. In my own experience, I found the Warrior/Archers to require less rudder than the Cessna's. And this is possibly why, which is from an internet web site: "Any deflection of the ailerons requires the use of rudder for coordination. In the PA28 series you cannot use ailerons normally without automatic rudder being applied. There is a linkage between the ailerons and the rudder that tends to keep the ball centered and a semblance of coordination. I feel this is the reason that Piper pilots tend to be rudder lazy when compared with pilots flying other aircraft.I personally havn't been aware of aileron/rudder coupling in the PA28 series, and would like to see a control schematic.I have also built a Van's RV6A that has rather short wings & frize ailerons. These ailerons almost wipe out adverse yaw in turns & the plane requires little or no rudder to maintain a coordinated turn. So it can't just be assumed that a certain amount of rudder is required.L.Adamson

Hi Larry,Great to chat with you on the phone yesterday! :-)I only have about 1500+ hours in these types of Pipers, so I don't know that much. But, I do know that the statement you quoted: "Any deflection of the ailerons requires the use of rudder for coordination. In the PA28 series you cannot use ailerons normally without automatic rudder being applied. There is a linkage between the ailerons and the rudder that tends to keep the ball centered and a semblance of coordination. I feel this is the reason that Piper pilots tend to be rudder lazy when compared with pilots flying other aircraft."[/color=blue]Is completely and totally false. There is no such thing as rudder being automatically applied in these aircraft. No linkage at all.Where do folks get this stuff from, and then have the audacity to post it on the internet? We often have enough mis-information in FS as it is. I hope the person who said this is not a real pilot or flight instructor!Not blaming you, Larry, you just posted the quote.The Piper Cherokee is is not an Ercoupe.BTW, the Warrior, Archer, Dakota, all come from the PA-28 'Cherokee' family of aircraft. These particular models feature the semi-tapered wing, as opposed to the "Hershey bar" wing found on the -140, -180, and -235, which were these planes predecessors.In shallow (low bank angle turns) I don't bother with the rudder, for all other turns I do. In anything but steep turns (for me, that 30

> We often have enough mis-information in FS as it is.I like to think of is as "FS-pseudo-realism", a false sense of realism colored by FS and non-exposure to any real-life flying. Things that ARE real are thought of as being "strange" or "not seeming right" even though those saying that have no real reference point to judge that by. Eg: Some complain they do not get razor-sharp textures well into the distance. How on earth can one see things razor-sharp if we are looking at them on an shallow angle miles away? Need I go on? Conversely things that are ARE NOT are seen as "realistic" or "excellent work", such as the roaring sound of a jet engine in the cockpit (since when have the pilots been sitting on the nacelles?). There ends up being so much blurring that some would not recognize the real thing even if it hit them over the head with a piece of 4x2.

Yeah and we must not forget those RL pilots who because they have flown GAs etc they somehow have complete knowledge on all other aircraft and their flight dynamics! Of course this is not directed at Lou but many "pros" out there...Best Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4][h3]P M D G's 747-400[/h3][h4]coming to a runway near you[/h4][/font color]Caution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)AMD 64 3200+ | ASUS KV8 DELUXE | GFORCE 5700 ULTRA @535/1000 | Maxtor 6Y080M0 SATA 80 GIG | 512 DDR 400 | Windows Xp Pro | Windows Xp Pro 64 |

OK Gents,I guess what we all, in the fury of exchanging comments, forget about is the factor of sim flight controls.There are prople using joysticks, yokes or even keyboards out there with various sensitivity settings and callibration settings so the picture is not equal for all of us.It is not comparing apples to apples if you will.For some the model is extra touchy on elevator, yet for others it's behaving like a 747. I don't believe that we can judge the true realism of any flight model bearing in mind the limitations mentioned above.Mind you, even 2 single airplanes IRL of the same make and model behave differently in the air, meaning there are no 2 Archers/Cherokees or whatever model flying the same way.Just my 2 cents worth....Dom

I think the point about pseudo-realism is a good one. How on earth anyone can get too fussed up about 'realism' in a computer game is beyond me. But occasionally it seems there is real tension in the FS world between RL pilots and those who have no real flying experience. Does this happen with other computer games I wonder - do real life racing drivers seek to sarcastically correct the wannabes on the their forums, for example? When I got the Dreamfleet Archer I thought it was great. Then I started flying a real one and thought - it's rubbish. It's nowhere near as exciting, it doesn't take my breath away when I look around at the world below and it doesn't make me feel sick either! But of course the two aren't really comparable. The Dreamfleet aeroplane is a brilliant recreation of the Archer. You can practice flicking switches and things in it just like the real one. Technically it'll climb and cruise 'by the numbers'. But like any other FS aircraft it doesn't really capture the experience of flying - and nor can we expect it to. It's on a computer, not parked at an airfield.So I think that if RL pilots want to analyse simulated flying charactersitics, and pass on their knowledge then that's fine. But do it without showing off. Personally I like LAdamson's regular comments on these subjects. He seems to be able to impart knowledge about real flying without sounding like a pompous know-it-all.Ian

>I agree with you that (in my opinion) the Carenado Archer (i.e. the "patched for 2004 version -- NOT the original) is superior to the DF ArcherI agree with this as well. The VC and cabin is much better as well.

Couldn't have said it better myself.You nailed it Ian.Dom

>Does this happen with other>computer games I wonder - do real life racing drivers seek to>sarcastically correct the wannabes on the their forums, for>example? Actually, It's often the case that real world race drivers are the worst judges of computer racing sims. I think a big part of the problem is that they have a hard time judging the sims in the absence of all the realworld stimuli (which the sims of course lack) that they are used to getting from the experience. How could anyone whose actually driven a high performance car at speed and at a competitive level be impressed by the "lifeless" portrayal we get on a PC? That's not meant to be a criticism of the sims (several of which I am a huge fan of), its just to point out that sometimes a person who has tons of real world experience might not necessarily be the best judge of "realism" in a PC simulation. I think it's important that when we are discussing realism in FS9 (and in all simulations on the PC actually) we always have to keep in mind the qualifier "for a mass-market piece of entertainment software." In other words, when a review on Avsim or some other site comments that a given plane's FD are incredibly realistic, I always assume they mean "incredibly realistic for a mass-market piece of entertainment software." There's just no getting around the fact that, as cool and detailed as many of the planes have gotten over the years, theres still much that simply can't be crammed into a desktop PC simulation.