The B-55 is updated.  Not sure why the date is incorrect but I did send it to them months ago....

The Carenado B-58?    Beautiful model and textures inside and out, not a very good FDE.    As far as I recall, and I compared this Carenado back to back to the Milviz 310 and B-55, it doesn't have a realistic stall, and sideslip and single engine ops are not at all realistic.   I AM sure Bernt didn't work on that one

 

He did a fix for the stall (where the Baron does an impersonation of a Stuka and doesn't stop until it hits the ground). It's not an official Carenado fix, though, which to my mind tells you all you need to know about that company. I have this mental image of Bernt smuggling the patch out past the guards...

 

 

To the OP: the Milviz 310R is a much more better simulated package than the Dukes, if you are into full fidelity. RealAir compromised some flight behavior to implement side sliping, for example, if you attempt to do a 2 minutes turn with the Duke, you will find that the plane takes longer than 2 minutes to complete. For real instrument training, that's not acceptable but for entertainment value the Dukes offer a good package.

 

How do you judge "better simulated" and "full fidelity"?  Based on one feature?  Two?  More?  Don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to argue that the Duke flight model is better than the 310 or the other way around, but you seem to be making a value judgement extrapolating one thing to equal totality.  I will pretty vehemently argue against any suggestion that the Duke isn't well-modeled, (leaving aside any this plane vs that plane stuff).

 

The issue with the Duke is basically a tradeoff - one element of fidelity vs another.  You can make standard rate turns, of course, you just need to compensate (or modify the gauge as one guy did).  For all the gory details, including details on the tradeoffs from Rob of RealAir, see this discussion: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/393049-question-on-the-behavior-of-piston-duke-during-holdings/

 

Scott

I have now contacted Flight SIm Shop and asked them to confirm that the B-55 on their site is the updated version.

 

I will let you know.

 

 

and thanks for the compliments... they are appreciated

 

What you are working on is good news for me.  I like both the B55 and the 310.  Never flew the U-3 (310) during my military service, but did spend some time riding in one.  You already know why the B55 (T42) is near and dear to me.  May surprise you, but I have been making attempts to create a B55 version with no GPS.  Instead with Collins Nav and Com radios in the stack.  I have been able to position some Collins from another aircraft but can't seem to get them to work.

I love threads like this, lets me see what everyone else is flying. :lol:

 

I can add votes for two of the planes mentioned excessively in this thread: Milviz B-55 and the Carenado C-337.  There's more than enough space in my virtual hangar for both of them since they're as far apart from each other as a pair of twins could be.  I've also had a lot of fun in the past few months bombing around in the Milviz P-38 civilian.  Like the B-55, it also has RXP integration and a flat radio panel. 

 

I wish more devs would take the time to provide options like a flat panel so that we can install our own stuff.  That said, I do wish the B-55 and the P-38 came with separate VC models instead of the switch thing - would make the panel configuration far easier.  Minor niggle though - Milviz has been putting out some really great work.
 

What you are working on is good news for me. I like both the B55 and the 310. Never flew the U-3 (310) during my military service, but did spend some time riding in one. You already know why the B55 (T42) is near and dear to me. May surprise you, but I have been making attempts to create a B55 version with no GPS. Instead with Collins Nav and Com radios in the stack. I have been able to position some Collins from another aircraft but can't seem to get them to work.

This sounds very interesting, I thought of loaning a radio/nav set from one of Carenados planes. But if you succeed before me please share the panel.cfg.

How do you judge "better simulated" and "full fidelity"? Based on one feature? Two? More? Don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to argue that the Duke flight model is better than the 310 or the other way around, but you seem to be making a value judgement extrapolating one thing to equal totality. I will pretty vehemently argue against any suggestion that the Duke isn't well-modeled, (leaving aside any this plane vs that plane stuff).

 

The issue with the Duke is basically a tradeoff - one element of fidelity vs another. You can make standard rate turns, of course, you just need to compensate (or modify the gauge as one guy did). For all the gory details, including details on the tradeoffs from Rob of RealAir, see this discussion: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/393049-question-on-the-behavior-of-piston-duke-during-holdings/

 

Scott

I don't want to get in this type of argument. The opinion is my own. I own both. It depends on what you are looking for. The C310R is the most realisticly simulated light twin in my opinion to present flight behavior. The system depth is also super as well. The manual is available to download so you can see for yourself. The Duke is not flawless as you pointed out in the thread. All that I am saying is that people should be aware that RealAir did modify some behaviors as to make the Duke behave in certain way. Furthermore the C310 is sold through Flight1 wrapper, so if you don't like it you can always ask for a return.

The original Duke is also on Flight1's site (wrapper).

 

Try them both

The B55 has a "Free Radio" option like the 310, which takes the Garmins out of the stack, so they're not really "glued" there.  You're welcome to remove and replace them if you'd like to, but "stupid"?  Really? You will need to have something to replace them with, but there are options.

 

The two-blade props are actually the most common/correct configuration for the engines/cowlings modeled regardless of avionics, and are what I always fly with.

 

 

 

 

As mentioned above, it's not really an "old model", it's the most correct one.  The plane has an ADF and an RMI which work well, so I'm not sure what you're missing in this regard.  And I certainly wouldn't term the cockpit "modernized".  One of the things I like about Milviz' treatment of this model is that the upgrades are done in a realistic, real-world way.  Most real-world GA panels of this vintage are a mixed bag of original and upgrades, and that's exactly what they modeled.  The panel is very much old-school Baron, with an updated radio stack and vestigial pieces left behind.

 

The design philosophy was reality - this is based on a real aircraft.

 

Scott

 

As the aircraft was based on my most recently owned aircraft down to the paint chips on the yoke where it hits the seatbelt on those nasty xwind landings. I can verify its authenticity....the adf never worked but for listening to local radio stations it was great. When we changed the engines we almost went to 3 bladed props-but you lose a couple knts. of speed and a very expensive upgrade-didn't make sense.

the adf never worked but for listening to local radio stations it was great.

 

It does work in the Milviz version, but I do have to chuckle at that. IRL, I used the ADF in my Turbo Arrow for two things - 1) listening to the ballgame on the local radio station and 2) being tortured by an instructor flying NDB approaches under the hood - most generally on really windy days.

 

Mine was a King KR-86 (for those not familiar, you can see one here: http://www.seaerospace.com/king/kr86.htm ) and was placed off to the right in the second radio stack, well out of normal scan territory. I was told learning to fly NDB approaches with this arrangement was "good for the soul". :-)

 

Back to the topic and apologies for the minor hijack.

 

Scott

 

 

I don't want to get in this type of argument. The opinion is my own. I own both. It depends on what you are looking for.

 

Vu,

 

I respect your opinion (AND the quality of both planes) and am not trying to start any sort of argument either as I tried to make clear.  Every plane has some flaws and tradeoffs - the main reason for my post was to provide specific information relative to the issue you brought up on the Dukes so that others can make up their own minds as as well.

 

 

Pax.

 

Scott

I have now contacted Flight SIm Shop and asked them to confirm that the B-55 on their site is the updated version.

 

I will let you know.

How do we know if we have the lastest version installed of the B55? What is the latest version, and how do we know what version we already have?

 

I have never flown a twin in RL, but the Milviz version of the B55 is quite immersive. Something I really like- for some reason FSX default and many other planes give us a visual illusion when approaching a runway to land on a standard 3 degrees approach. If you take the "sight picture" you see in FSX and then go fly something in RL, and apply that same "sight picture" to an approach, you will be very low, almost 4 reds on a PAPI. Conversely, if you get a RL approach set up correctly and have flown FSX a lot, you will think you are extremely high. Somehow Milviz got this corrected in the B55 (or at least more correct than otherwise). I like it just for that reason. Not saying that other planes aren't also correct, just that I've noticed this the most in the Milviz B55.....

 

Just my thoughts... any help in determing if I have the latst version or not would be most appreciated...

 

Thanks, Bruce.

If you're not having issues with either the RXP or the landing lights, you have the latest version...

Thanks. I don't believe I am having those issues. As many have said in this thread, great product!

 

Bruce.