April 22, 201313 yr I have them both, and both are done to excellent standards and neither will disappoint you. My vote goes for the Q400 however. Partly because I really like the Dash 8's, but also because I think it is just a little bit better then the J41. +1
April 22, 201313 yr The q400 is much easier on frames on my system. Also the q400 is much more popular and in use world wide if that matters to u. Matt Wilson
April 22, 201313 yr The Q400 was designed for real world pilot training, so the FDE should be pretty close to real which is why so many systems operate outside FSX it is the only way you can overcome FSX shortcomings, it is also why it has good fps it really isnt adding any overheads to the FSX engine.
April 22, 201313 yr I'd vote hands down for the Q400. The PMDG JS41 is well done, but it never ended up being my cup of tea (whatever that means). The Q400 when all is said and done (i.e. Pro and/or Training versions released) promises to be a more indepth simulation. You won't go wrong with either. While the JS41 is quickly being replaced by the Q400, I used it extensively when I wanted short trip regional flights. Just like the way the Q400 works more now that it is availalbe. Eric Szczesniak
April 23, 201313 yr If you like turboprops, you need to get them both. They are completely different in that the J41 has direct drive props, which make it a lot easier to burn up its engines. They are both very good simulations, but the Q400 is a marvel. I absolutely love it more than any other aircraft sim that I have flown. The Q400 is actually very easy to fly. I think the J41 is really a little harder to fly. Of course, with any aircraft that don't have an autothrottle, you have to watch you speed like a hawk. Stall or overspeed will sneak up on you very quietly. If you have to just buy one, I would get the Q400, but you really need them both. Did PMDG ever fix the bug in the icing effects? I didnt notice the bug, what is it? ZORAN
April 23, 201313 yr I love flying the J41. I do plan on getting the Q400 but I'm monitoring the issues and waiting for SP1 to see what's fixed. I didnt notice the bug, what is it? External icing effects cause flickering. Supposedly doesn't effect internal icing effects but I have them both turned off. Gregg Seipp "A good landing is when you can walk away from the airplane. A great landing is when you can reuse it." i9 64GB RAM, GTX-5090
April 23, 201313 yr I'm amazed PMDG has never fixed the icing bug. I also have to keep my icing turned off. People talk about CS not finishing things, but this is a glaring bug in the simulation that should have been fixed years ago. Robert Yunque
April 23, 201313 yr J41....q400 it feels way too automated, still a great plane tho. I'm confused at how you could come to this conclusion? The Q400 is not any more automated than the J41. No VNAV except on descent, no speed hold, far more realistic system modeling, better fde, I think the answer is obvious.
April 23, 201313 yr I'm amazed PMDG has never fixed the icing bug. I also have to keep my icing turned off. People talk about CS not finishing things, but this is a glaring bug in the simulation that should have been fixed years ago. It is NOT a bug, it is an issue with exceeding FSX limitations. It might be able to be made to cause no issues, but at the cost of giving up some other animation. Same deal with the NGX, no opening cockpit windows or moving pilot seats in favor of other animations, again due to the FSX animation limit. Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk HD Shane Gavin
April 23, 201313 yr It is NOT a bug, it is an issue with exceeding FSX limitations. It might be able to be made to cause no issues, but at the cost of giving up some other animation. Same deal with the NGX, no opening cockpit windows or moving pilot seats in favor of other animations, again due to the FSX animation limit. Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk HD Oh poppycock! If you have exceeded FSX limitations, then you have, what is called a bug. They even admitted it was a bug that had to be addressed, but they didn't have time to do it because they were developing the NGX. Now it's the T7, so it still won't get done. Robert Yunque
April 23, 201313 yr It is NOT a bug, it is an issue with exceeding FSX limitations. It might be able to be made to cause no issues, but at the cost of giving up some other animation. Same deal with the NGX, no opening cockpit windows or moving pilot seats in favor of other animations, again due to the FSX animation limit. Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk HD Oh poppycock! If you have exceeded FSX limitations, then you have, what is called a bug. They even admitted it was a bug that had to be addressed, but they didn't have time to do it because they were developing the NGX. Now it's the T7, so it still won't get done. Yeah, I am going to disagree. For it to be a bug on PMDG's behalf, it would mean it was an actual error in their coding, and would be reproducible on a consistent basis. But it is not a consistent issue, and does work without issue in some cases, and is not produced by a syntax error or logical flaw in their coding. Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk HD Shane Gavin
April 23, 201313 yr Sadly, Realism of addons these days are judged by young teens(without knowing technical aspects) sitting on there computer ,that kind of ruins the well simulated airplanes .
April 23, 201313 yr Sadly, Realism of addons these days are judged by young teens(without knowing technical aspects) sitting on there computer ,that kind of ruins the well simulated airplanes . What a ridiculous statement! Rich David Andrew - desert based - a330/350 rated.
Create an account or sign in to comment