the gauges are classic and beautiful, and to me the most important the FDE is stable AND active

 

I have long considered buying this one. After all I believe Bernt is the FD maker, so that is for sure a guarantee for quality, but I wonder if they managed to properly model:

 

1) the "feet on floor" characteristics when performing coordinated turns... You use the rudder very slightly to enter and eventually maintain, but do not need to continuously kick it, sometimes a lot, like I see in other models...

 

2) does it perform a hand-flown standard rate coordinated turn in close to 2' ?

 

3) did they program the engine gauges so that at least we do not see FF increasing when you lean an engine, specially noticeable on many models above, say, 4000', with the increase in FF being "huge" before it starts to get down while you lean, the higher the worst?

 

I ask this because this subjects have been raised at another thread on a recently released twin for FSX, and they brought some memories of how poor some aspects ( basic aspects ) of engine and aerodynamics / physics are portrayed on most flight simulators :-/

If I recall correctly, the C310 has the "Radio Free" model version, that doesn't have any 3D knobs, thus allowing full flexibility for putting the MindStar (or any other gauges of your choice) straight onto the VC panel.

Actually, you don't use the radio-free model for the Mindstar. Use the G1000 model. The Mindstar G1000 integrates beautifully into the VC. And while the Mindstar has both 2D and VC gauges, the C310 is VC only.

 

The C310 is awesome. It is my understanding that it models the real twin about as good as can be expected in the confines of FSX. It also works flawlessly in P3D, which is what I use. The only "issue" I am having is flying on VATSIM and Pilot Edge. The cockpit sounds are programmed outside of FSX so they are heard in my headset, along with ATC, while the rest of the sounds come over my monitor speakers. So if anyone is using the C310 online and has figured out a way to sort out the audio, please let me know.

 

Todd

 

Todd

Actually, you don't use the radio-free model for the Mindstar. Use the G1000 model. The Mindstar G1000 integrates beautifully into the VC. And while the Mindstar has both 2D and VC gauges, the C310 is VC only.

 

 

Ah, Roger.  That makes absolute sense.  :smile:

 

For your sound issues, you could silence the 'external' sounds (they are in a folder called "MilViz" in the main FSX/Sounds directory).   Would be a shame as they are beautiful and add to the immersion, but it could make life easier, for your sound issue, on VATSIM and Pilotedge.

Um, two points to be made here:

 

1) The C310R does have a full 2d panel included, and the Mindstar G1000's fit right in like a glove.

 

2) The custom sounds can easily have their volume lowered via Audacity (a free sound editor).

So Fr. Bill, can you confirm if the G1000 fits in the 310's VC like a glove, too?  I love the 310 and make exstensive use of the free radio panel for the rxp stuff, but the mindstar is something I haven't yet considered.  It works well and looks good in the VC then, as twharrel claims?

Yes, the VC was deliberately designed with the exact same knob placement for both our XML G1000 version and the Mindstar G1000 version.

 

 

1) the "feet on floor" characteristics when performing coordinated turns... You use the rudder very slightly to enter and eventually maintain, but do not need to continuously kick it, sometimes a lot, like I see in other models...

hi j.c.

I think I can only answer this one for now. It does not need a lot of rudder input during turns to keep it coordinated, a lot less than what you need in realair planes. I'm NOT saying that realair plane's FDE is wrong, just using them as a reference.

As for your second and third questions, I almost flown in VFR conditions and not higher than 3000ft these days, so I can't answer you right now, but I can check it later and report you back. 

I have long considered buying this one. After all I believe Bernt is the FD maker, so that is for sure a guarantee for quality, but I wonder if they managed to properly model:

 

1) the "feet on floor" characteristics when performing coordinated turns... You use the rudder very slightly to enter and eventually maintain, but do not need to continuously kick it, sometimes a lot, like I see in other models...

 

2) does it perform a hand-flown standard rate coordinated turn in close to 2' ?

 

3) did they program the engine gauges so that at least we do not see FF increasing when you lean an engine, specially noticeable on many models above, say, 4000', with the increase in FF being "huge" before it starts to get down while you lean, the higher the worst?

 

I ask this because this subjects have been raised at another thread on a recently released twin for FSX, and they brought some memories of how poor some aspects ( basic aspects ) of engine and aerodynamics / physics are portrayed on most flight simulators :-/

 

I like the Flight model of the Cessna 310.  That statement probably doesn't count for much, but from my perspective it seems to have the right control balance.  Seems to be a little bit wobbly with the tip tanks full, like almost what I might describe as a dutch roll, but I think it is supposed to be that way.  Maybe somebody who knows will be kind enough to comment on that.  Pretty sure this one does the 2 minute turn, but also can't say that 100%

 

The engine mixture bit is much like it is in most other FSX pistons.  This one has an EDM 700 so that you can set your mixture by egt.  That helps add some realism to the process at least. 

 

Overall, I think it is a nice little companion to the Duke.  It's sort of like the Duke's no-nonsense girlfriend, at least as long as both engines are running.  I can land the Dukes almost as well on one engine as I can on two, but this one turns into a hellhound; I find landing this aircraft on one engine to be extremely difficult, occasionally I've missed the runway off to the side completely, if not crashed outright.

 

If you do chance to buy it, be sure to report back what you think of the fde.  You are one of those guys that always has an interesting take on flight models.

 

 

Overall, I think it is a nice little companion to the Duke.  It's sort of like the Duke's no-nonsense girlfriend, at least as long as both engines are running.  I can land the Dukes almost as well on one engine as I can on two, but this one turns into a hellhound; I find landing this aircraft on one engine to be extremely difficult, occasionally I've missed the runway off to the side completely, if not crashed outright.

 Interesting I just made a video of landing on one engine in this baby last weekend, not sure that if you can access this site though.

Landing:

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNTgyODczNzAw.html

 

engine failure after Vyse:

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNTgyODc3MjUy.html

 

As you can see, I simulated the engine failure simply by retarding its mixture lever, it's kind of harsh I think and it's hard to regain control really smoothly.

Also, I'd avoid the second notch of flaps when SE landing, cuz with that, you can fall below Vmc reaaal easy  ^_^

@falconluan and @KingGhidorah: Thx for the information you provided.

 

The effects of flying with the tip tanks full / near full make all sense to me (including the dutch roll effect). The noticeable increase in the moment of inertia on the "longitudinal"/"roll" axis also makes that feel you describe when flying the airplane under such weight distributions!

 

I'm glad to know it requires less rudder input - probably the correct amount of rudder input as in RL - than other add-ons, and that some of the stability derivatives  weren't compromised beyond the acceptable margins and allow for a coordinated standard rate turn to take near to 2', as it is supposed to :-)

 

Definitely a MUST if I decide to broaden my FSX hangar :-)

 

 

 
Definitely a MUST if I decide to broaden my FSX hangar :-)

The C310 is sold through Flight1 ecommerce wrapper, so could ask for a refund if you are not happy with it within the 30 days period.  I am not a RL pilot, so I can't answer your question with any authority  but two things are very clear to me: rudder behavior is very different and the standard turn is accurate. As for engine leaning behavior, I can't remember now but I do see a healthy section on engine leaning in the manual.

 

Cheers

3D RXP for the 310?  Really?!

 

If that's the case, the 310 may well come out of the back part of my hangar and join the B55!

 

Scott

I might buy it!

I will buy it by the end of this week !  I only have two twins ( non default ) in FSX - RealAir Piston Duke and the original Aerosoft Twotter. I've been told, several times, that both the Milviz  C310 and their B55 are superb. Then, I am also tempted by the soon to be released 737 ;-)

I've got the RXP 430 WAAS (x2), GMA340 and GTX 327 in my C310R and they work beautifully in this magical airplane.

You may also notice that I have a non-standard (older style) AP in my C310 as I find the KAP140 / KFC225 style autopilots dull, and 'default-like'. :smile:

[CLICK PIC, to see full size]

Ok Q_400, thx for the suggestion regarding the AP :-)