Sorry to perpetuate the vs topics, but I'm hoping I can get some pros and cons posts about the Flight1 DC9 and the Captain Sim 1011. I'm going to reward myself with a new classic bird and I'm having trouble deciding between them. Any insight existing owners of these planes can put forth is most appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Don't won the CS L1011 but reports are quite good about it. Definitely visuals are quite good.

 

I do own the Coolsky DC-9 though and I have to say it is absolutely amazing. No INS, it is all how it was in the late 50s/60s and even 70s in the domestic markets. Performs well and it has a great Coolsky feature in its Program Manager, you can see schematics, get on the fly tutorials, etc. And it handles really well.

They're both great!  That would be a tough decision.  I had to have them both.

The DC9 is down and dirty VOR/NDB navigation while the Captain Sim L1011 uses the CIVA INS, so they are different experiences.

I believe this L1011 is the best release that has been offered by Captain Sim since the C130, so I'm really enjoying it, but on the other hand, the DC9 is an outstanding aircraft.

I guess it could boil down to if you want a regional jet, which is what the DC9 is, or a medium range jet, which is what the L1011 would be.

Not owning either product I'm just looking at Flight 1 vs Captain Sim.

If the DC-9 doesn't work out at least you can get your money back.

From my experiences with the CS L-1011 so far, I've been pleasantly surprised with how well they've modeled this bird.

 

Systems-wise, I'd day the 1011 is a mid-high range add-on while the DC-9 is more of a study-sim type simulation, with many failures available and interactive systems diagrams and the like.

 

Visually, both are superb. The DC-9, however, is pretty heavy on frames. For me at least, it was much heavier on frames than the NGX and other very complex add-ons, which resulted in me returning it. You may not have this issue, however, and Flight1's refund policy makes it easy to return if you run into this problem.

 

Both have their quirks as well. The DC-9 uses the default autopilot from my understanding, so the flight directors are unrealistically tied to the AP. The 1011 has more numerous issues, such as using default engine startup logic that results in a sudden surge in the engine. As a new product, it will be a little while before we see what CS does to correct the problems. There's supposed to be a new update out this month IIRC, so that should be a good indication.

They both are very nice aircraft. The DC-9, along with the Milviz 737-200, is the FSX king of classic domestic short-haul jets, just as in real life the two fought for market share for the better part of their lives. The L1011 is just gorgeous, with a slightly more sophisticated navigation system(INS), but less "hardcore" systems than the DC-9 (I'm thinking circuit breakers and modules for failure training, real in depth stuff).

 

It really depends on what you want though! The DC-9 is great for some short hauls into small airports, and the L1011 is a good aircraft for those medium-long trunk routes that airlines needed to present their best and most comfortable service on.

The Coolsky DC-9 might be the best classic jet for MSFS since the DF 727 or the RFP 747 for FS9!

Coolsky (Flight 1) DC-9 is in a different league to the Captain Sim L1011.

 

It's a fully fledged advanced simulation, with a full training and familiarization deck.   It has beautiful flight handling characteristics, sound, immersion (although I am not 100% in love with the VC by McPhat).

 

The Captain Sim is the usual Captain Sim;  certainly not all bad, and one of their better releases.  But still it just brushes the edges of a real L1011 simulation, compared to the Coolsky DC-9.

 

 

The DC-9 uses the default autopilot from my understanding, so the flight directors are unrealistically tied to the AP.

 

This is partially but not entirely true.   The basic AP functions do utilize the default FSX AP and thus are tied in with FD.  However the AP also contains additional custom features, that aren't part of the default FSX AP, for example a functional IAS (pitch) mode.

Coolsky (Flight 1) DC-9 is in a different league to the Captain Sim L1011.

 

It's a fully fledged advanced simulation, with a full training and familiarization deck.   It has beautiful flight handling characteristics, sound, immersion (although I am not 100% in love with the VC by McPhat).

 

The Captain Sim is the usual Captain Sim;  certainly not all bad, and one of their better releases.  But still it just brushes the edges of a real L1011 simulation, compared to the Coolsky DC-9.

 

 

I have to agree with Dave on this one. Apples and Oranges, They are both note worthy in their own respect. I chose to go with the L-1011 first because I need a break from glass cockpits, they can get boring on long hauls, but I didn't want to dive into a complex aircraft right away. When I am bored with it, I will get the DC-9. Yes, Dave, your right, the virtual cockpit by McPhat is a bit on the cartoonish side, that in itself is what kept me mostly from jumping on it.

Excellent. Thanks to those who shared their opinions on the aircraft without any of the drama. You have helped me considerably. Much appreciated.

About the Coolsky DC9. Very tempted but :

 

The early adopters/reviewers (Froogle for instance) referred to a severe drop of fluidity, cut in half compared to the PMDG 737 ? what about it ?

 

Then, on most of the screenshots, the McPhat textures look like the aircraft have just flown through a cloud of soot, on my screens at least (not talking the dirt on the lower parts, but the upper part of the fuselage). Unfair ?

Edited February 22, 201412 yr by domkle

They brought out several fixes and service packs. With the current version, performance isn't a problem on my machine. This addon has very deeply modeled systems and a complete build in training and failures system, it should be clear that it draws some load on your PC. The build in moving map (2d pop up) which lets you even tune to the correct Nav frequencies on the fly, brings down the framerate noticeably. Other than that, I'd say, performance is on par with NGX or slightly worse. I love the VC and the clarity and fluidity of the instruments.

Since it is sold via Flight 1, you can give it a try without any risk and get your money back if you don't like it!

Edited February 22, 201412 yr by Mik75

So I ended up choosing the DC-9 and have done one flight so far. I really like the training system that helped make my first flight a success. Not something I can say for all of my aircraft. Some of the VC could have clearer lettering though which has me looking at the Coolsky VC add-on. Does anyone have experience with that? Is it better? Does it add to the performance impact?

the Coolsky VC add-on.

You mean the McPhat VC repaints? They're pretty great, and don't have much of a performance hit, and there's quite a bit of difference between the stock VC and the VC paints.

Indeed, McPhat VC's were what I was referring to.