To those that own the Aussim Warrior....

[neil0311 366]

>Difficult to read 2D and VC panel (which shimmers for some>reason)>>Poor flight dynamics compared to the "real thing".I would disagree about both points. The Aussim Warrior, F1 C172, DF A36 are my current favorites. The VC in the Warrior II is one of the best ever IMHO, and the 2D IFR panel in the Warrior III is quite good for practicing your scan and approaches. As for the flight dynamics, you and I must fly two different Warriors in real life, because the sim Warrior is very close to the real thing IMHO. It's not exact but as good as proabably can be gotten in FS9. The DF Archer is very good too (as are all DF planes), but the VC in the Warrior is superb.

[Guest secks]

" Poor flight dynamics compared to the "real thing". "Do you have any data to support that claim? The Warrior II, at least, performs on the numbers:Rotation speed: 55Climb: 80 KIAS, 2300 RPM, 700 FPMCruise: 100-110 KIAS, 2350 RPMDescent: 90 KIAS, 1700 RPM, -700 FPMLocalizer level flight: 80 KIAS, 2000 RPMFinal: 70 KIAS, 1900 RPMLanding speed: 65 KIASLast time I flew the Warrior II, it was very close to all those numbers. In my book, that's good .. better than most payware GA aircraft. You sure you weren't grossly overweight or something?

[moss1 11]

Hello Kreg, I own the Aussim Warrior as well as the Carenado 180f the dekota 236,181 ATR72, 737NG, A36 and just about every other addon out there. You know...it's the addition;-) Anyway, IMHO I don't care for the VC in the aussim warrior. The guages themselves look good, but everything else has that cartoon look to them. The main gear wheels look to big from a scale standpoint. If you were comparing this to the the Carenado 180f, Carenado wins hands down. If you enjoy handflying, the 180f lacks the autopilot of course. I also like the fact that it uses the reflective window textures to give a more realistic enviroment. I am a big VC fan, so textures and performance mean a great deal to me. I am not saying the aussim warrior is a bad AC, I am just giving you my honest opinion. The Carenado is a winner. Also the new A36 released by Dreamfleet is amazing. Best regards,moss1

[Guest wildfire563]

Oh, I forgot, I also own the 180F. I have to disagree. I was disappointed with the 180F. Since it was created after the Aussie, I assumed that it would include some of the technology enhancements found in that plane (i.e. completely clickable VC), and that it would be a significant upgrade to the Carenado Archer. Instead, to me, it appeared rushed in its development of the VC and rather plain in functionality. Not bad, mind you, in fact, very nice looking, but not as good as I was expecting, considering how far ahead of its time it seems to me the Carenado Archer was when it was released. The VC of the Aussie doesn't look quite as good as the 180F, it is blockier and simpler (I haven't compared frame rates), the gauges don't look as 3D as they do in the 180F; but it is much more functional and clickable, (Yes, it is important to me to be able to prime the engine. I have to do it my plane, I want to do it here). I don't like being forced to remember key strokes or to switch to 2D to perform operations. Make the plane work like my plane does. The Aussie does that more in my opinion. It doesn't look quite as nice, but it is more functional, in my opinion, anyway.Thomas PerryResolution - 1920 x 1200 x 32, Frame Rate 20-24Dell D800 Laptop1.7GHz Pentium M1GB mem64MB Nvidia 4200 Go Graphics

[FlyinIron406 3]

Thanks for all the feedback guys!What I was looking for was to see how the Warrior III is, especially the panel. The reason I wanted to know that, was because it is the only plane (pay/free) that has a panel anywhere near the likes of the Archer III.As far as you all comparing, not exactly what I had in mind. I have all the Carenado birds, the DF 310, I beta'd the A36. All I wanted to know was how the quality of the Warrior compared to all of those listed.Thanks for your help again!

[AlaskanFlyboy 7]

>Nice looking exterior.>>Difficult to read 2D and VC panel (which shimmers for some>reason)>>Poor flight dynamics compared to the "real thing".>>Believe me I should know - I was flying a Piper Warrior last>weekend with my local flying club. The Dreamfleet Archer has>the most realistic (within confines of FS2004) flight>dynamics.>>I prefer the look of the Carenado model (exterior) but the>Dreamfleet 2D and VC panels are excellent.>>Enjoy making your choice!After around 100 hours of flight time in Warrior IIIs, I'd have to disagree. Performance is on the numbers (as in close, not exact. What real aircraft fits the POH numbers anyway) when I load my weights in there like they would be in the real world.The Archer flies differently from the Warriors as the Cadets also fly differently. The real-world Warrior III is horribly nose heavy, requiring lots of nose up trim on take off even though the POH says to put it neutral. I find int eh real plane I usually ahve to make derastic trim changes when I change flight regimes. While the Cadet (A trainer version of the Warrior series without the rear two windows or a baggage door) is a rather balanced plane requiring little trim throughout all the flight regimes. I find the same characteristics are true in the Aussim model.For reference, I have a CH Yoke USB and Pro Pedals USB, with sensitivities set to full with very little null-zone, and all sliders full in realism settings.----------------------------------------------------------------John MorganReal World: KGEG, UND Aerospace Spokane Satillite, Private ASEL 141.2 hrs, 314 landings, 46 inst. apprs.Virtual: MSFS 2004"There is a feeling about an airport that no other piece of ground can have. No matter what the name of the country on whose land it lies, an airport is a place you can see and touch that leads to a reality that can only be thought and felt." - The Bridge Across Forever: A Love Story by Richard Bach