you're very forgiving...I mean, who writes ad copy for lights these days using the term "3D lights built directly into the model" ...but that DON'T illuminate the runway?

 

The industry didn't really start using the "3D" term for lights until they started illuminating the ground like the Lotus did originally...so most folks who see lights being referred to as 3D are accustomed to them being the Lotus style lights.

 

I'm not arguing that they may be technically correct in how they advertised it, but it DID fool me just the same. I'm not saying it's intentional either, but it CAN fool others.

 

In any case...there is still alot to like and enjoy with this product....lights aside, you just can't help but notice all the love and attention they put into it. Most immersive small GA type trainer I've ever flown in a sim to date. A wonderful job that is worth supporting IMO.

For a test, I went to 6000' which is optimum alt for Hershey winged Cherokee, power to redline and was getting around 135kits.  Firewalled will exceed redline and get you about 140kts, however this is accusim and it isn't wise to fly at redline all the time

 

If speed is needed, the EE Lightning does Mach 2 :lol:

 

Sounds like your Cherokee will be in for maintenance soon.

 

I always remember my first time up in an old 180 with the trim crank in the overhead.

just bought the plane an hour ago.

 

it is exquisite..... really beautiful.    in my opinion it's not just a "Cherokee version of their 172".   I think it's an evolution of their 172 offering.    The VC texturing is far superior to the 172 (which was already good but not class leading).  The Cherokee is seriously one of the most realistic VCs you will ever see.   It is stunning.

 

Again, the sounds which in the 172 were already way above what most developers offer, are in a different league in the Cherokee.

 

and although I'll go out on a limb and say that i don't actually enjoy flying their 172 much, the Cherokee feels divine.  It is beautifully responsive, weighted and feels so 'right' on approach.  (where i could never get their 172 to feel 'right').

 

this is a real special release for the hobby.    whether you like GA or not, whether you think you want a trainer or not, you really must buy this - it's without doubt one of the highest quality aircraft ever released for flight sim.

 

5/5.

Oh, thanks Lars.  Just as I'd pretty much decided that I could wait for a bit, you had to write this description.  :lol:   I think I'm toast.  Probably this weekend.

 

Scott

 

 

It is beautifully responsive, weighted and feels so 'right' on approach.  (where i could never get their 172 to feel 'right').

 

Agree.  Much as I've enjoyed (and still enjoy) all the previous A2A releases, this is the first one where the FDE has that something extra - that sense of weight that tells you you're moving a physical object through an air mass - that I usually associate with the best of Rob Young and Alexander Metzger.  Might be a quality of the aircraft itself, as a nonpilot I can't be sure - but as a nonpilot looking for that you-are-there feeling - it's definitely got it.  

Speed is kind of relative in FSX too.  Lets say you block out 2 hours for your FS time.  Whether you spend those 2 hours in a J-3 Cub or a P-51, it is the same 2 hours of flying the airplane, looking at the instruments, and watching the scenery go by.  Since we aren't actually travelling anywhere nor do we have deadlines to meet, the time spent vs distance travelled is kind of irrelevant....unless you want it to be relevant.  It is your virtual world, fly as you please.  

 

I don't want to fly 120kts all the time either,   Fortunately there is a Civil P-51, Legacy, Duke, RV...etc and a million other fantastic choices for those times lol.  But for simulating the experience real aircraft ownership and operation, this Cherokee is tops, certainly for the next 7 months or so until the next accusim project is released.  

 

It is a natural progression too for virtual aircraft owners who are simulating real aircraft ownership.  Real owners usually own the trainer/economy model before moving up to the higher performance choices.  Spend the time in between releases building up your hours and good habits in the Cherokee or 172 until the high performance aircraft ownership simulation is released <_<

 

Cheers

TJ

Maybe it's me, but I struggle to understand a decision not to purchase a GA aircraft with this much system depth and all round immersion for the sake of a few knots here or there.  I feel you're really missing out.

 

Not criticising mind....we all sim in our own way !

 

Yes we do.  I do mostly cross country IFR flying with flights of anywhere between 90 minutes and three hours.  Most fall into the 2 to 2 1/2 hour range.  A few more knots make a lot of difference.  When I fly low and slow and short it is usually for sightseeing hi res scenery and for that I use the Skymaster for the visibility it offers.  Not at all to criticize what appears to be an excellent offering, but this one falls between niches for me.

 

Agree with what you said.  We all sim in our own way.  I am certain A2A will find a lot of customers for this one.

Scott said they would consider optional 3D light for the next core update, so we shall see. The clickspot issue was a big deal for the 172, so they take the 3D lighting with caution.  

 

However in terms of cockpit night lighting brightness, the Cherokee is great.  Lots of options between the gauge back lighting brightness settings, radio light, red light, and dome light.  A lot of times in addons, I find the night lighting is pretty but unrealistically bright.  During real night flights, you want panel lights to be as dim as possible.

 

Cheers

TJ

 

I asked for this on their forums...  imho taking away the 3D landing light is icky....  I know some had clickspot issues but I never did so I'd like to keep the light - I very much enjoy the lighting!

Yep, second that. Even something as simple as a C182, or something more off-the-wall such as a Bellanca Super Viking. Something faster and IFR capable but still with steam gauges would do me great!!!

I'd love if they made a Super Viking my dad has one that I fly quite often.

This is the Viking parked next to his Yak-52

Half of the stuff being talked about regarding the feel of the Cherokee I think has to do with the "feel of the Cherokee."  We incorporate the wing design and behavior in both the Cherokee and the Cessna 172.  The hersheybar wing of the real Cherokee is simply... a jem.  It is just an honest, fun, beautifully fun plane to fly.  I owned a tapered wing Cherokee for a few years, and if in the market for a Cherokee again, unless it was a turbocharged Arrow, it would be a hersheybar wing hands down.

 

During the past six months, I've been going back and forth from 172's to Cherokees, sometimes on the same day.  When you step out of one, and into another, you do feel this difference talked about here.  The Cessna has a much more lighter, almost over-sensitive feel to it.  The Cherokee, on the other hand, will run out of elevator on you if you get too slow on your landing.  Therefore, after flying the Cherokee, I tend to do more over control when flaring on the Cessna, as that big long wing just bites into the air so much more.  

 

Also, those with the Cherokee really should fly the C172 after the core v.2.0 update, as some of these new wing vortex characteristics we designed into Accu-Sim v.2.0 help the Cessna along quite a bit in slow flight.  The v.2.0 Cessna has a nicer landing flare to it, but like the actual one, it's sensitive and light on the landing.

 

Regarding the Viking, beautiful airplane.  Unfortunately it's getting harder to find mechanics that want to work on it with it's wooden wing.

 

Scott.

you're very forgiving...I mean, who writes ad copy for lights these days using the term "3D lights built directly into the model" ...but that DON'T illuminate the runway?

 

The industry didn't really start using the "3D" term for lights until they started illuminating the ground like the Lotus did originally...so most folks who see lights being referred to as 3D are accustomed to them being the Lotus style lights.

 

     Just wanted to comment on this and clarify some things. First, let it be known I know the guys at A2A Simulations quite well, as well as worked closely with Mike "Lotus" in the past in video collaborations, etc. 3D lights, as A2A advertises them, have been around since I did the promo video for the Wings of Power II B-17 back in March 2007 (which were built into the model), and then released as a stand alone product known as 3D Lights, which was later upgraded to 3D Lights Redux. These are cone light effects, and are different from the "Lotus" lights.

 

     The "Lotus" illumination lights were introduced with the L-39 back in August 2009. They allowed illumination of the ground, and do not include the 3D cone that was previously aforementioned.

 

     Unfortunately, it was found that in some cases, the "Lotus" style lights could cause the nefarious "clickspot" issue found, not allowing people to click on anything inside the cockpit. A few have found this issue with the L-39, and it was later found in several other aircraft as well. Unfortunately, Mike has been absent from the scene for years. Further, since it was so rare, few knew what the culprit was. This was why it was omitted from the Cherokee, and made as an option for the 172 (although it is default as off).

 

     So, advertising 3D lights is NOT advertising those illumination lights, and the term was around a lot longer before the "Lotus" style lights were introduced. I think it's fair to say they have not been trying to mislead anybody, and their terminology is correct.

 

     Perhaps pedantic, but I think it's important to give credit to the correct developers where it is due. A lot of companies have switched between the various lighting systems, so it's important to keep track of who developed what. 

Speed is kind of relative in FSX too.  Lets say you block out 2 hours for your FS time.  Whether you spend those 2 hours in a J-3 Cub or a P-51, it is the same 2 hours of flying the airplane, looking at the instruments, and watching the scenery go by.  Since we aren't actually travelling anywhere nor do we have deadlines to meet, the time spent vs distance travelled is kind of irrelevant....unless you want it to be relevant.  It is your virtual world, fly as you please.  

 

 

Cheers

TJ

Thats not entirely correct. A faster plane places different demands on the pilot , generally less time to correct errors and less time for prepartion eg circuit entry ,higher stall speeds... for example the Real air duke V2 requires a bit of speed and flatter approach and unforgiving if you land below target landing speed usually resulting with collapsed gear if you flare to long.

 

So Higher workload especially IFR regardless if its a high speed single or twin

 

However there are some good reports coming out for this plane and if they continue I may just buy it as I didnt jump aboard the C172 mainly due to release problems.

I just finished a really enjoyable flight tonight in the Cherokee from KCCR (Concord CA) to KTVL (Lake Tahoe CA).  Uploading video now (it's a long one, almost 20 minutes) ... finally found P3D balance between add-ons and display settings.

 

 This was only my 2nd flight and I have not read any manuals yet .. I just bumbled my way along with it ... I did have some strange "clicking" sounds when on approach so I guessing I was doing something wrong.  

 

Took me a while to figure out why it wanted to fall right all the time ... oh fuel tanks not balanced out, ooops.

 

As mentioned, the only thing that didn't work in P3D2.2 was the landing lights didn't illuminate the ground ... I'll have to check the C-172 to see if that has the same issue.

 

Either way, wonderful aircraft.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Unfortunately, it was found that in some cases, the "Lotus" style lights could cause the nefarious "clickspot" issue found, not allowing people to click on anything inside the cockpit. A few have found this issue with the L-39, and it was later found in several other aircraft as well. Unfortunately, Mike has been absent from the scene for years. Further, since it was so rare, few knew what the culprit was. This was why it was omitted from the Cherokee, and made as an option for the 172 (although it is default as off).

 

But was there any reason not to include it as an option like the C172?

     I can't answer that, but I can guess. It may have been done because of workload, or since it wasn't already built with it they didn't see a need to add it considering the problems introduced before. With the 172, it was originally built into the model at release, and it was necessary to remove because of the aforementioned problems. After removing it, it probably didn't add much to the workload to make it an option.

 

     It's really best to let one of the team members answer that, if they feel so inclined. To add, however, I think a lot of people don't appreciate the work that goes into these models, and the balancing act of performance. During testing on the 172, this issue wasn't captured, even with the excessive testing done by the team. When released however, due to the large population of people who purchased it, it quickly became a nightmare for the team that required significant cooperation with other development teams. Although it was a small minority of people who reported the issue, there were enough people with it that all other worked stopped as the entire team worked to address it. It wasn't just an A2A problem, in reality, it was a development community problem as many other developers were working through the issue themselves. It is my understanding that through this cooperation, A2A was able to find the problem and address it. I would imagine nobody at A2A wants to touch this with a ten foot pole.