Flysimware Cessna 402 C for FSX/P3D

[CFIJose 5,485]

I'm waiting for Milviz. The next few releases are going to blow us away.

 

Their 310 is a gem and a joy to fly.

[scianoir 610]

 

 

A couple of days in, and I have to say I am really enjoying flying this Cessna 402C around New England.



The Flight Handling Characteristics feel pretty convincing and although people are correct, the visuals are nowhere near Carenado level, the FDE seems (to me) more convincing than most Carenado FDEs which I find can feel a bit sterile or generic.



It's a good twin. The Carenado 340 has better visuals (although even that is not quite one of Carenado's best) but for me, the 402C is more fun to fly. Nice switch sounds and stuff in the cockpit too. Oh and it's extremely easy on frames.



I must admit I did expect to fly it once or twice and then for it to get hardly any action, but I can't seem to put it down!

 

Coming from you Dave, that is a good recommendation so I may well go for this one yet, as it is a type I have been waiting for for quite some time! Thanks for the additional feedback.

 

Bill

[Q_flyer 766]

Coming from you Dave, that is a good recommendation so I may well go for this one yet, as it is a type I have been waiting for for quite some time! Thanks for the additional feedback.

 

Bill

 

It is a bit of a conditional recommendation though. :smile:    I think as many people may dislike this add-on as like it, after buying.   It is a bit ...ok I hate saying this but it could be said that *some* aspects of it are a little low standard for payware at that pricepoint.    However, I just really love big piston aircraft so I just had to have it.   The cockpit is very much like the C208 (apart from it's piston powered and a twin lol!), and I love the C208 cockpit.    

 

It's not perfect, or perhaps even that particularly great.   I'm just enjoying it a lot.   Nice sounds in the cockpit (engine sounds a bit flat), and just good fun to fly.  But they really need to update the add-on to reduce the engine power;   it's vastly overpowered.

 

So if it is a recommendation, it's a very conditional one!  :lol:

[scianoir 610]

 

 

So if it is a recommendation, it's a very conditional one!

 

Yes, I appreciated that it was a somewhat conditional recommendation and if I do buy it I certainly will not be expecting top of the range perfection here! However, enjoyment and good fun is what this hobby all about to me and that can in itself overcome a degree of imperfection in either a model or systems. Heck, I used to enjoy what we had in FS95 and FS98, most of which now seems light years away from what we experience today in terms of quality addons!! Furthermore, although I like as much realism as possible, I try not to obsess about it as I think that can sometimes lead to a hobby becoming less like fun.

 

Bill

[z06z33 763]

I'm waiting for Milviz. The next few releases are going to blow us away.

 

Their 310 is a gem and a joy to fly.

True it is. Have you seen their upcoming king air and MU2? Stunning. What's interesting is the head of milviz commented on a post of mine here where I praised their king air. I brought up the idea of making a 421 or 414 and he said they are busy with a lot of projects right now but when those are finished they will see about those twin cessna's. I sure hope they do make a large twin cessna .

[stans 702]

I suppose if one wants a C402 for FSX then this is the only choice.  My interest is piqued.  I've flown the FSD Piper PA-31 in FSX, but it is definitely a port over of an older FS9 model and really shows it.  A C402 would certainly be nice and would fit the sort of sim flights I want, which are small cargo and charter pax flights around Florida and the Bahamas.  Kind of an odd avionics arrangement, a Garmin GNS530, which handles COM1 and NAV1 in addition to Bendix-King radios for COM1/NAV1 and COM2/NAV2.

[stans 702]

Any further input from purchasers of this product?  I'm interested, but I don't want to flush 30 USD down the toilet.

[fppilot 4,360]

 

 

No RXP support and I don't think integrating the 530 into the VC would work as they have their own 530 in their with 3D knobs.

 

Interesting.  Like another member mentioned, I thought in the video that the RXP label was there on the 530.

[scianoir 610]

Any further input from purchasers of this product?  I'm interested, but I don't want to flush 30 USD down the toilet.

 

Ditto - my finger has been hovering over the 'confirm purchase' button for this one for the last couple of weeks!

[Q_flyer 766]

 I thought in the video that the RXP label was there on the 530.

 

Bizarrely enough, it is!

 

Their GNS 530 has the 'XP' logo in the right hand corner, but I can categorically confirm the aircraft, as it comes, is not RXP compatible.         You can of course add it as a pop-up but not in the VC because their own (default FSX GPS based) GNS 530 is 3D.

 

Not that I want to start any unfounded rumours but perhaps it's a possibility that the little 'XP' logo in the corner of FlySimWare's GNS530 belies the fact that they copied the imagery of the RXP 530    - and forgot to photoshop over the 'XP' logo!

 

I'm sure that's not the case - but other explanations as to why their 530 contains the 'XP' logo in the right hand side, when it is otherwise nothing to do with RXP, escape me!

[fppilot 4,360]

Dave,

So you are certain that in the file(s) you DL after purchase there was no installation app or routine in the installation program that would install the RXP GPS?  Did you check for installed folders both in and out of FSX?  Per imagery, wonder if that is why they appear to be quiet on this question.  Very interesting.....

 

And you have used the GPS and it is not RXP?

[LeeL 272]

If they had rxp support I would imagine it would say so on the product page. That's a feature that's made a big deal of

[David7700 2]

It is a bit of a conditional recommendation though. :smile: I think as many people may dislike this add-on as like it, after buying. It is a bit ...ok I hate saying this but it could be said that *some* aspects of it are a little low standard for payware at that pricepoint. However, I just really love big piston aircraft so I just had to have it. The cockpit is very much like the C208 (apart from it's piston powered and a twin lol!), and I love the C208 cockpit.

 

It's not perfect, or perhaps even that particularly great. I'm just enjoying it a lot. Nice sounds in the cockpit (engine sounds a bit flat), and just good fun to fly. But they really need to update the add-on to reduce the engine power; it's vastly overpowered.

 

So if it is a recommendation, it's a very conditional one! :lol:

I think you and I are on the same page on this one. I bought it and have enjoyed flying it on Cape Air routes for a Cape Air VA I fly with. It is much nicer than the PAD 414 it replaced for me, but the panel is around the quality of the F1 441, which I love but is not really Carenado quality.

 

I expected this from the video and the screen shots someone posted on BVATC, so I knew what I was in for. I have only flown less than an hour in a B55 in real life, so I have no real twin experience to speak of, but I thought the plane flew really well.

 

I am disappointed at the lack of documentation.

 

I wish the GPS would pop up when clicked.

 

I did not see the avionics switch. Am I missing something?

 

Anyway, all in all it's a good plane that would be better priced at $19.00, but I have a use (almost a 'need') for it. And I'm a sucker for FSX purchases, too!!

[fppilot 4,360]

If they had rxp support I would imagine it would say so on the product page. That's a feature that's made a big deal of

 

I wrote Flightsimware from the support box on their site and they replied to me.  They stated that their model supports the FSX default GPS 530 and provided a link to what appears to be a page from their C402 manual.  Unbelievable!  That image as well clearly shows a Reality XP GNS530 clearly with the XP trademark in the upper left corner of the 530 depicted.  How in the world could a vendor in this industry not know the difference.  I will hold short of labeling their images and videos as deceptive, but can clearly identify that they infringe Reality XP's trademarks and trade dress.  Absolutely incredible to believe this is merely innocence.

 

Sand is usually not that deep, or heads that shallow.

[Q_flyer 766]

Dave,

So you are certain that in the file(s) you DL after purchase there was no installation app or routine in the installation program that would install the RXP GPS?  Did you check for installed folders both in and out of FSX?  Per imagery, wonder if that is why they appear to be quiet on this question.  Very interesting.....

 

And you have used the GPS and it is not RXP?

 

100% sure, on these things :-

 

(Please don't take the use of bold as aggresive; I'm merely bolding the salient points) :smile:

 

• The product doesn't come with any native RXP compatibility (eg. alternative models as Carenado use, or apps to replace the GPS with RXP as RealAir use).

• The included GPS, which is modelled on a GNS 530 is pure FSX default GPS500 functionality, but the exterior skin shows "XP" in the recognisable Reality XP font, in the right top corner of the device.

• The GPS is 3D within the model, eg it protrudes from the panel, making RXP 530 integration into the VC difficult, and RXP 430 integration all but impossible.

• As you'd expect expected, RXP devices work fine as pop-ups only.

:smile: