Seems like the detail even went up from the previous high levels at Flight1. However, I was wondering if the G1000 rendition now offers VNAV and airway entries. I missed them in the Mustang (still a great plane), hence my question.

 

Other than that, it looks like a very nice setup. High speeds for a prop plane and the extra stuff with e.g. wear simulation form up a nice combo.

 

 

I was wondering if the G1000 rendition now offers VNAV and airway entries. I missed them in the Mustang (still a great plane), hence my question.

VNAV is still not supported.  If you already fly the Mustang, this one will be very natural.  They added a number of improvement to the G1000 but the main feature is a turbo prop simulation.  I am still sitting on the fence on this one.  I just bought the Q400 Majestic recently and did not really fly it yet, so I don't want to add one more.

Thanks for the information. I think you did good with the Q400 by the way and I can fully understand the wish to explore her first. I'm in the same boat.

I'm on the fence about this one as well. One thing that frustrates me with Flight1 products is where they draw the line between their "entertainment" and "commercial" products. Apparently they added SafeTaxi to this G1000 version, but you still can't enter airways in a convenient manner because that's a "pro" feature. I'm just like... "what?". It seems so arbitrary. Same thing with VNAV. I wish the line between the entertainment and commercial products was something like more detailed system failures or hardware integration.

 

Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox. I still love what Flight1 has done for FS and I've been doing business with them for nearly a decade and I won't stop, even if Jim R. can be a bit of a curmudgeon sometimes. 

And lets not forget that one can test the stuff for 30 days and decide about the pro and no pro features. Still kind of a rare policy in the business.

 

But, regarding the VNAV vs. other features point, I very much agree.

And lets not forget that one can test the stuff for 30 days and decide about the pro and no pro features. Still kind of a rare policy in the business.

 

But, regarding the VNAV vs. other features point, I very much agree.

 

Oh yes their return policy is a huge, huge plus. I've only had to use it once and it wasn't even for a Flight1-made product. 

There have been a bunch of FSX releases recently, but with much frustration I've found that I had to pass on all of them so far.  I passed on the Q400 because despite having a much touted flight model, it apparently doesn't react to turbulence or chop in any way.  Don't want to fly on a rail through a thunderstorm.  I waited over a year for that plane, but when I heard that, I just couldn't commit to it for that reason. Hopefully they'll fix that.   I passed on the Twin Otter because it has an unremoveable default GPS, and that's a no-go.  Maybe they'll reconsider.  Now I'm passing on this one because of the coordination problem that has been reported.  I don't know if it's a case of me just having developed unreasonably high expectations, or if there is a trend from developers to assume that a sucker like me will automatically buy something just because it's out there, no matter what.  C'mon flight sim developer guys, my wallet is ready, but the days of insta-buy are over.  I'm really anxious to buy a new plane!

There have been a bunch of FSX releases recently, but with much frustration I've found that I had to pass on all of them so far.  I passed on the Q400 because despite having a much touted flight model, it apparently doesn't react to turbulence or chop in any way.  Don't want to fly on a rail through a thunderstorm.  I passed on the Twin Otter because it has an unremoveable default GPS.  Now I'm passing on this one because of the coordination problem that has been reported.  I don't know if it's a case of me just having developed unreasonably high expectations, or if developers have settled in to a certain complacency that a sucker like me will automatically buy something just because it's out there.  C'mon flight sim developer guys, my wallet is ready, but the days of insta-buy are over.  I'm really anxious to buy a new plane!

 

 

I respect your decisions, and like to think that I hold high standards for FS products too, but if I may say, you are missing out on a whole lot of fun there by withholding on all of the products you mention. The Q400 is a massive game changer IMHO.  You may well be correct about the turbulance but there is still plenty of liveliness in the flight model - some planes do feel like you're flying on rails in FSX, but this I honestly would not say is one of them.   And the Twotter too;  I hate default based GPSs but the fact is that in the Twotter, the GPS is so far off to the right (based on reality) that using it within the VC is very awkward.    Therefore, a pop-up is far better and by virtue of that, I am using the RXP 430.   So there really is no 'loss' in terms of GPS;   sure you cannot get it integrated into the VC at this time, but you certainly can use the RXP models, as I have been doing for 3 very pleasurable hours this afternoon.

 

Sorry for the diversion:   back to the lovely F1 King Air.  

I respect your decisions, and like to think that I hold high standards for FS products too, but if I may say, you are missing out on a whole lot of fun there by withholding on all of the products you mention. The Q400 is a massive game changer IMHO.  You may well be correct about the turbulance but there is still plenty of liveliness in the flight model - some planes do feel like you're flying on rails in FSX, but this I honestly would not say is one of them.   And the Twotter too;  I hate default based GPSs but the fact is that in the Twotter, the GPS is so far off to the right (based on reality) that using it within the VC is very awkward.    Therefore, a pop-up is far better and by virtue of that, I am using the RXP 430.   So there really is no 'loss' in terms of GPS;   sure you cannot get it integrated into the VC at this time, but you certainly can use the RXP models, as I have been doing for 3 very pleasurable hours this afternoon.

 

Sorry for the diversion:   back to the lovely F1 King Air.  

 

But see if I'm flying a plane like this new King Air, and my leg is getting tired applying completely unrealistic rudder inputs, that's a very noticeable and in-your-face type of immersion problem for me, regardless of how good the plane looks or how deep the avionics modelling is. I'm surprised that more flight simmers don't feel this way, but they don't. So if the customers don't care, why should the developers?

But see if I'm flying a plane like this new King Air, and my leg is getting tired applying completely unrealistic rudder inputs, that's a very noticeable and in-your-face type of immersion problem for me, regardless of how good the plane looks or how deep the avionics modelling is. I'm surprised that more flight simmers don't feel this way, but they don't. So if the customers don't care, why should the developers?

 

You may well be right on that one.  

 

For me; I'd tend to fly this bird IFR, with the GFC700 going on by 500' and on until approach, so my legs should remain ache-free! :lol:

 

But I share your concern on this one ......... if not the Q400 and Twotter issues.

But see if I'm flying a plane like this new King Air, and my leg is getting tired applying completely unrealistic rudder inputs, that's a very noticeable and in-your-face type of immersion problem for me, regardless of how good the plane looks or how deep the avionics modelling is. I'm surprised that more flight simmers don't feel this way, but they don't. So if the customers don't care, why should the developers?

 

 

There is absolutely no need whatsoever for anyone's leg to get tired attempting to apply rudder to this aircraft. That's a gross exaggeration, and apart from some minor bugs already noted and being addressed, the Flight1 King Air is a terrific airplane.

There is absolutely no need whatsoever for anyone's leg to get tired attempting to apply rudder to this aircraft. That's a gross exaggeration, and apart from some minor bugs already noted and being addressed, the Flight1 King Air is a terrific airplane.

 

Yes, since I don't have the plane, I'm not in a position to know the extent of the problem except just going off of what I'm gathering from this thread alone, based on the comments of others...My understanding of the problem (from the description of others) is the inability to align the slip/skid indicator with the bottom of the roll pointer no matter how much input is provided, meaning that turns cannot be coordinated by reference to the instruments, or possibly (worst case fear) that the aircraft is not capable of making a coordinated turn.  I cannot verify the truth of any of these descriptions, so I'm left with only speculation.  I strongly suspect, at least enough to be cautious, that there is indeed a problem of some sort and that this problem being described by other posters would be a real fly in the ointment for me, since it involves one of the most fundamental aspects of simulated flight, that of making a basic coordinated turn with rudder and aileron.  I think I'll wait until these issues have been addressed and when/if they are, I'll certainly take another look, because it looks like a pretty attractive plane otherwise.

Flight1 will look at. I very much appreciate it. That's all I wanted was for someone to acknowledge... Sometimes I have to be a bit of an Ahole to get things done.

 

Good customer service!

This was my first twin engines ga payware so don't have much to compare with but overall I really am enjoying the b200. The engine sounds are really good but, quite a lot of the switches in the cockpit don't have any sound to them. Is this just mine?.

I also would like to see a better use of the switches an knobs with the mouse and wheel. Doesn't feel very intuitive.

gman1986, on 14 Jul 2013 - 12:58 PM, said:

This was my first twin engines ga payware so don't have much to compare with but overall I really am enjoying the b200. The engine sounds are really good but, quite a lot of the switches in the cockpit don't have any sound to them. Is this just mine?.

I also would like to see a better use of the switches an knobs with the mouse and wheel. Doesn't feel very intuitive.

The switch sound issue has been acknowledged. If you don't have any other twins to compare it to, you can't see how superior this bird is, IF you want systems stuff. It flies much closer to the book than the other FSX King Airs.

 

Kdub

KingGhidorah, on 14 Jul 2013 - 12:29 AM, said:

I thought Rudder Boost system should only be concerned with thrust asymetry, so if they've made it such that normal turning behavior is contingent upon it, that sounds a little strange to me that this would be helping. Can somebody explain this Rudder Boost system a bit?

You are right. Rudder boost has nothing to do with turn coordination. Flight1 did not say that it does. It is a misconception.

 

Kdub

ryanbatcund, on 14 Jul 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

Flight1 will look at. I very much appreciate it. That's all I wanted was for someone to acknowledge... Sometimes I have to be a bit of an Ahole to get things done.

 

Good customer service!

We'll all see whether this matter can be resolved without messing up other factors. Realair said with the introduction of the Turbine Duke that the FSX turboprop model is a compromise under the best of circumstances. I will admit that I am more than satisfied with the B200 as is. I have flown the Cheyenne, Turbine Duke, Aeroworx B200, Carenado C90, ISDT and the Jetprop. This is in another class all by itself.

 

Kdub